Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Friday, August 12, 2011

Armies in 5th: Space Wolves Part 1: Not Better Marines - Different Marines


The argument over Space Wolves being down-right better than Vanilla Marines cropped up the first time 15 point Grey Hunters were spotted. Whilst Space Wolves may be better than Vanilla Marines overall, the difference is marginal and each army ultimately works differently. This is where arguments saying Space Wolves are better Vanilla Marines can often come un-stuck - apples and oranges are difficult to compare and determine which is 'the best.' Let's look at the basic units for each codex and look at why.

Grey Hunters are cheaper, better in combat, can take two special weapons and have more upgrade options (generally combat focused such as Wolf Standard, Mark of the Wulfen, combat weapon, etc.). Tacticals are more expensive, come with Ld9 Sergeants standard, can only take a special and heavy at 10-strong squads, have combat tactics, combat squads and suck in combat. On the face of things very, very different and within each army, they do a very nice job. Grey Hunters have a lot more flexibility since they can access upgrades on 5-strong units. Tacticals are shoe-horned into running inefficient 5-strong units without special/heavy weapons or need to run full squads to get these benefits. Add in that Grey Hunters are much better in close ranged firefights with two special weapons, two close combat weapons and counter-attack and you can see why they and Space Wolves in general, are considered far superior to Tacticals and Vanilla Marines.



However, this fits the style of play Space Wolves generally encourage. It's much more aggressive with increased combat ability across the army and what Grey Hunters lack, heavy weapons, combat tactics, Ld9, is what make Tacticals good. If Grey Hunters want Ld9 they have to lose an Elite slot and their second special weapon for a one-shot combi weapon. On MSU squads this is fine as you aren't looking for that second special weapon regardless but for larger squads and overall army design, this is a mild limitation. You of course don't need to go for Ld9 but the 10% difference in pass/fail can be pretty significant and will come up often enough. Back to Tacticals...by having heavy weapon options along with their boltguns, they play a much more midfield shooting role and combat tactics supports this. Sure in comparison to Grey Hunters they suck in combat but they are more capable of avoiding it and impacting the battlefield from afar. This is a premise Space Marines need to work their lists around and is very different from Space Wolves.

Put it this way. Grey Hunters as multiple squads across the whole army cannot engage in ranged firefights. Yes you can use a plasma gun special weapon, 24" rapid fire range, Rune Priests and Wolf Guard with Cyclone Missile launchers but that becomes very inefficient and very expensive. In the end, Grey Hunters excel in your opponent's face. Not only are they decent in combat but that's where their primary shooting firepower is. Tacticals on the other hand have that ranged weapon option. It's one gun sure but they back that up with a reliable and solid scoring presence in midfield along with the boltguns. They are much worse in combat than Grey Hunters but are less likely to be in your opponent's face because they do not belong there. These two very different roles are often what define the two different armies and how they operate on the tabletop.

So after that lengthy topic... Space Wolves play very differently from Space Marines. You can go  back and forth on Grey Hunters and Tacticals all day long and not convince anyone that one is better than the other but they both fulfill an important role within each army. If we then look at the unique Space Wolves choices such as Thunderwulf Cavarly, Long Fangs, Wolf Scouts, Wolf Guard, HQs, etc. and what they don't have compared to Vanilla Marines, their HQs, Sternguard and TH/SS Terminators at an appropriate cost, and we can see fully how Space Wolves are very different from Vanilla Marines. If you find yourself using a Space Wolves codex but not using their unique choices you'll often find your army will do better as a Vanilla Marine list. Sure you can get the same amount of stuff in the Space Wolves list, and often more with their improved ability to MSU and cheaper Grey Hunters but the Vanilla Marines bonuses work better towards a shooting list whilst Space Wolves are a more aggressive army.

This is where the Space Wolves unique choices come in. By having cheap access to firepower (Long Fangs) and disruption units (Wolf Scouts) a core army of Grey Hunters and supporting combat units (TWC, Wolf Lords, Wolf Guard, Lone Wolves, etc.) becomes a lot scarier. Certainly there are weaknesses to the army which will be explored later but if you are simply taking Vanilla choices such as MM/HF Speeders, Dakka Preds and Rifledreads, the core of your army is being aggressive all by it's lonesome or playing second fiddle to Tacticals as bunkers. And this is where Space Wolves are different. They may be better but if so, they are better at different things such as MSU, foot (Loganwing) and aggressive Hybrid lists. Vanilla Marines on the other hand do a much a better pure Mech list and I'd like to see Space Wolves match the fast, reliable melta of a Vulkan list or Biker list. When making your Space Wolves list build on these strengths rather than trying to make a 'better' Vanilla list.

Comments (60)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Good introduction. I do think the key element people miss as well is that Grey Hunters have to do everything for the Space Wolves troop choice. I have a strong suspicion GW realised Blood Claws were terrible even at the time of revising the 5th codex (they were a little better in the previous codex). WS3 means all other marine assault squads are hitting you on 3's which the extra attack doesn't massively help with and BS3 means you're the same as guard when you shoot before going in. Grey Hunters are by far are more efficient and tactical choice, it would of been interesting (although awful!) if you were limited in the numbers of each you could take and I think a lot of the OP comments would have died.
*Sorry and I should of said you're hitting them back on 4's which goes pretty much for anyone assault specialist troops. Basically if you want an assault marine unit you're immediately paying 18pts per model for Wolf Guard plus extra's or you're onto the interesting stuff like TWC.
I'm sorry, you're just wrong, SW are clearly better. It's primarily a costing issue.....Grey hunters are both better and cheaper, as are long fangs. Thematically I like the way the squads work just fine, but they need to be a good 10-15% more expensive.

You know where this really shows? When my poor tyranid friend outflanks 10 genestealers to assault a long fang squad. Long fangs are in cover, go first, and get to swing 3 times each. The genestealers don't make it, the long fangs go back to pounding his MCs.

There's loads of other stuff like that in the codex, too.

Their rune weapons cancel psychic powers 50% of the time. Does GW even realize that all Psykers that matter have ld 10, and psychic hoods only work 33%?

Not that it comes up so often, but their lighning claws and articficer armor are straight up better for no particular reason.

And why do their scouts get to come in from any board edge they feel like? WTF?!?
21 replies · active 711 weeks ago
That logic is flawed though... 10 Genestealers statistically should kill 6 Long Fangs, and if he's not having that kind of luck, maybe he should look to invest them to Ymgarls, which can be T5 on the turn they charge(a bigger bonus than you'd think), and then get +1A on the second round.

As far as their Wolf Scouts getting to come in on any edge, that's not new at all.

And as far as the points go, yes, Grey Hunters are 1 point cheaper, but I'd murder to have my GH squads pack some heavy weapons in the overhead bin, so that I'm not forced into buying Long Fangs/other choices for my ranged firepower. Being able to put 9 Rhinos on table with 12 heavy weapons potentially shooting out the top is fantastic IMO
until those Rhinos get shaken and you lose a turn of shooting. I'm not going to argue that Codex marines don't have advantages but When you consider that They pay more for their Sargent (though they don't have to give up an elite slot), pay more for their individual guys (who on the whole are worse than GHs on a 1 V 1 basis).
Does it have to be new to be broken?
Ymgarls are good but super expensive though, and there are no guarantees you'll get them where you need them on the table. This is especially true if your opponent has the sense to deploy long fangs away from the cover that they don't really need against your low AP nid guns.
Why are the Long Fangs swinging 3 times each, only the Sergeant has the CC and bolt pistol? As the post below says, scouts is nothing new. Wolf Claws are better than Lightning claws sure but I can't take Thunderhammer Storm Shield termies without paying nearly 60 pts per model and the wolf claws are 47pts so I'm paying more for similar troops to standard marines, plus I can't combat squad my termies and I'm already an elite slot down because I need the Wolf guard. Long Fangs are ALL the heavy support I have, suppress , hide from, or remove them and I have zilch anti tank ability.
That's why my Wolf list used 4 Land Raiders and TWC at 2000, the sheer amount of AV14 really put people off their game in my FLGS(it helped that I didnt tell them until the Land Raiders were coming out onto the table haha)
You pay more for TH/SS termies and dual WC termies - but what forces you to take those? Playing SW and duplicating vanilla lists is dumb. If you want a strong terminator unit you take a mix of WC/PW/CF, with a couple of storm shields and the rest with stormbolters, with possibly a bare bones PA guyh or two to absorb wounds.
As the original posts title says - SW are 'different'
You can run that, yes, but it's not a match for the sheer efficiency of bluebook TH/SS termies. You can put up a great fight, yes, but in the end the fact that their guys have great gear for only 40 points makes them incredibly efficient in close combat. Can you out-shoot them? Yes. Do you have more options? Yes. But, can you take 4 with LCs and 6 with TH/SS for 400 pts. and combat squad them? No.
Holy cow! I can't take 12 Death company assassins either!!!!
If you want to run an assault terminator unit, use a codex that has them. If you want to run a DCA unit, use a codex that has them. Saying that standard assault terminators are cheaper in vanilla therefore the codex is better is as valid as saying that GH are cheaper than tacticals so SW are better.
In both cases the facts do not prove the conclusion.
I know, right? Long Fangs get 3 attacks each with wolfweapons that totally wtfpwn my uber leet outflanking Genestealers. Grey Hunters can take down Paladins in combat, it's no fair. Everything the internet told me was true!

Space Wolves win every game evar, 40k is ruined.
as has already been stated, Long Fangs do NOT get 3 attacks on the (counter-)charge. Yes, their profile says bolt pistol and CCW, but look closer in the codex: they exchange the bolt pistol for the heavy weapon, leaving them with chainsword and (usually) missile launcher. Why they can't exchange their CCW instead, i have no clue.
Sarcasm makes whistling sound as it flies over this guy's head.
You may need your sarcasm detector adjusted, I think it may be faulty.
Yeah, got lied to a little bit with the 3 attacks thing. But otherwise, you're sarcasm really isn't required.....Ive fought GH enough to know they're just better. Not, btw, that my GK have much problem with them, ironically, and in direct contradication of my other points, the fact they want a 12" engagement and I want a 24" hurts them badly. But they're still much, much better than a tac marine.
1. If your friend is taking three attacks with all his Long Fangs, he's cheating. They have CCW + Pistol and must replace their Pistol with a heavy weapon, so no extra attack. (13 attacks from a 6man squad is 6.5 hits, 3.25 wounds, 2.16 failed saves. The Genestealers damn well better be able to match or beat that.)

2. Yes, Rune Weapons are better defense than Psychic Hoods, unless the enemy is Ld < 10. And? There are a lot more Ld9/8 psykers around these days (S'up, IG and GK.)

3. Wolf Claws are 20pts; Lightning Claws are only 15pts. You pay extra for what you get there. Runic Armor is, technically, better, but only by a very small amount.

4. Wolf Scouts are a completely different unit than Space Marine Scouts. They come in from board edges and are WS/BS4, but don't have the same weapon options and aren't scoring. Also they can't get Camo Cloaks.

You're basically ignoring the entire text of the article here- you are looking at what SW get, not what they don't get. So long as you keep doing that, yes, they will look OMG BROKEN.

(Also, I assume you just gave up on replying to me on the Land Raider thing. :P )
1) Yes, apparently we were lied to. The space wolf player was not my friend.

2) I still argue it's the Ld 10 things that matter.

3) fine

4) I know they're different. Elite choices, yadda yadda. They're better, and they're broken. Pure nonsense.

I'm not ignoring the article, I'm disagreeing with it.. Kirby is wrong, SW is better, straight up. Yes, vanilla gets some stuff SW don't. Yes there are advantages to those diferences for SM. Doesn't matter. Grey Hunters and Long fangs are too dan cheap. I'm totally appreciative of the fact that devastators get ablative wounds, while Long Fangs do not. 10 devastators can combat squad to split fire, that's cool. This would be meaningful if the Long fangs heavy weapons weren't so much cheaper, but they are, and that breaks it.

Likewise, Grey hunters can do close range fire waaaayyyyyy better than tac marines, Yes tac marines can shoot better at range....but that doesn't matter since A) they have cheap long fangs to back them up, and B ) GH are way too cheap.

Yeah, kinda gave up on the LR email, loosely decided to make a blog post out of it. Life got in the way. Fact is I've being using LRs, dual LRs, and a stormraven + LR quite successfully lately, so emipracally you're just wrong. I'll be using Dual LRs + a stormraven for 'Ard Boyz this weekend. I'll let you know the results.
2. *shrug* I consider shutting down Hammerhand and Fortitude to be pretty relevant. But you are correct that Ld10 is generally the majority of psykers.

4. Welp, you seem to have made up your mind beyond rational convincing on this one, so not much point to discussing it. Frankly I'm not so sure what's that awful and horrifying about a unit that has a 66% chance to bring 1.5 meltaguns for only 103pts, though.

You're not just disagreeing with the article, you're basically saying "Everything you wrote is meaningless nonsense because I already have my opinion." You're not arguing counterpoints, you're dismissing the article out of hand. That's poor debate technique right there. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but if you can't support your opinion with anything other than "you guys are totally wrong I just know it," why are you surprised that we don't consider your arguments to be meaningful?

>Fact is I've being using LRs, dual LRs, and a stormraven LR quite successfully lately, so emipracally you're just wrong
Oh man that's so cute I almost wanna screenshot it. You don't even know what "empirically" or "anecdotal evidence" mean, do you?
Yeah....You can very nearly make a viable army purely out of Grey Hunters and Long Fangs. Very little is required, else-wise. Both units are significantly too cheap, much cheaper than their marine equivalents. Kirby basically wrote a whole article stating "yeah, that's true, but SW still aren't better". OK.....that's simply not true.

There's really nothing here to have a grand debate over, there's not going to be any involved back and forth. There's only one point to be made:

GH and LF are too fucking cheap and make the basis of a very effective army, by themselves. That's the whole point, all there is.

Do you know what empirically means? It means "proven through experimentation". I've been proving this relentlessly, through repeated trial. I have a used land raider lists in 5 separate tournaments since I started that discussion with you. Granted, they have mostly had i LR and SR, but I'll argue that works out to much of the same math. I in fact came in 5th with my LR and SR list in Boston Brawlcon (Ben Mohlie won that one) a month and a half ago.

As this just keeps on working pretty well, I fell less and less need to reason out to you how it works. I do intend to provide battle reports from the 'Ard Boyz tomorrow, I've so far flaked out on posting any because frankly it's a lot of work. But maybe, if I actually summon up the will to do the battle reports, that will shut you up. It's going to be dual LRs + SR
That argument fails for the same reason "Boyz are so efficient Orks are amazing" fails: it doesn't matter how good those units are , they still have weaknesses. Significant ones. If you build your GH/LF army (like a lot of people do), many armies will roll right over you because you have no flexibility- you're driving forward 6" or 12" and trying to engage the enemy. That's your battle plan.

I know what empirically means, do you? You cited anecdotal evidence- "This one time I used Land Raiders and totally won, Land Raiders are great!" Did you have a control group? Do you have repeated tests? Do you have a hypothesis? Nope, you're just doing what you would anyways and calling it an experiment. That ain't empirical, son.

I'm not saying you can't win with Land Raiders; I never said that. I said _Land Raiders are not the optimal way to win_. You've found a high point in the function; I'm talking about the maximum. If you get in there and win with them, great, super. But if you feel "less and less the need to reason out how it works," I really don't think you have much place trying to convince us how competitive it is or how empirical you are.

Good luck at 'Ard Boyz and all- honestly- but don't try to make your army into something it's not. Is it good? Sure, maybe. I don't even know what you're bringing, so I'm not gonna say it isn't. Is it the best you could build with that codex? Unless you give me reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume no, because most things, by definition, aren't the best.
So, Mr. Puppy, I came in second, 61-58, very close (third was 48).

My list is here: http://prometheusatwar.com/2011/08/i-came-in-2nd-...

The battle reports are here: http://prometheusatwar.com/2011/08/ard-boyz-battl...
OMG. Something can be empirical without following the freaking scientific method, get off your high horse.

I play lots and lots of games with GK. Most using LRs, but many without. If you use a tool enough times, you're going to see how it works and why, and when it does work, and when it doesn't. All your responses have centered around things, such as meltas, that just really aren't a factor for an experienced LR user. I think you apparently just don't have much experience using LRs, or fighting them, in order to realize this, and you keep on posting your theoryhammer against my real world experience, and then somewhow citing my real world experience as either an acecdote (which I suppose tehcnically, it is, but that's not the point) or sometimes you act like I'm lying. It's pretty freaking annoying, and I'd ask you to stop.
Space Wolves are different... AND better. Almost every tourney since the SW codex was released had a SW player in top 3-5. The same cannot be said for Vanilla Marines. Yes, I know tourney results aren't reliable objective truth, but they do give a reasonable idea of what is good and what is bad overall. SM are middling-to-good. Wolves are just good.

In my opinion Grey Hunters are better than Tacticals, flat. Debate the rest of the codex as much as you like, but answer me this: When was the last time you saw Tactical Marines swing a game (without a random lucky shot from a ML killing a MBT), and when was the last time they killed anything unaided? The heavy weapon never shoots if you embark it in a vehicle, and even if it does, you're paying 400+pts for two scoring heavy weapons. The alternative of combat-squadding and leaving the ML at home base is great, but then you need to babysit them with another, better, unit just so the enemy doesn't walk up to them with say, 5 Grey Hunters, and eat their face off. Tacticals kill very little, threaten not much more, and die to anything that looks their way (even if it takes a while). Grey Hunters kick ass in combat, have 2 Melta shots, and shoot just as well as Tacs with Boltguns. For cheaper.

"heavy weapons, combat tactics, Ld9, is what make Tacticals good" - Sorry, but no. It's what makes Tacticals even slightly playable at all. If they were missing one of those things, people would just say "screw it" and take 30 Scouts.

Heavy Weapons - Either in a very easily glance-locked Rhino or in a 5 man squad which is very easy to kill. Also, must pay 180pts minimum to get.

Combat tactics - Yes, quite good. The only thing I miss about the Vanilla Codex since switching to BA. Not, however, as good as Counter-Attack + Acute Senses + Cheaper cost + 2 CCWs.

Ld 9 - My philosopy is that if you're winning the game, your Ld is almost irrelevant, because you're not taking many tests. You've countered their possible tank-shock vehicles, you're winning combats, and no-one takes pinning weapons these days anyway, apart from the odd Artillery piece. You're also taking less "25% casualty" tests than the opponent. Sure, you might fail more than Marines 1-in-10-times, but if you're having to take more than 10 tests then I postulate you are probably losing the game anyway. And if you really think Ld 9 is that important you can give it to the squads that need it anyway.

Possibly there has been a slight paradigm shift in the way GW designs codicies. When the SM dex came out, Troops pulled slightly less than their weight, because you were paying points for the ability to score. Now it seems that Troops can contribute just as much to the battle as HS/Elites and score at the same time, which might be why you frequently see Wolves/GKs/Guard/DE with maxed out Troop slots, and other armies with 3-4 at best.
1 reply · active 712 weeks ago
"Almost every tourney since the SW codex was released had a SW player in top 3-5. The same cannot be said for Vanilla Marines. Yes, I know tourney results aren't reliable objective truth, but they do give a reasonable idea of what is good and what is bad overall. SM are middling-to-good. Wolves are just good. "

GW balances (or tries to balance) codices with an eye that they all have similar chances to WIN a game. However, because most tournaments do not go on long enough to determine a winner purely via a "lose and go home" methodology, they have to incorporate a point system. Basically all point systems are going to give an advantage at the top tables, to more aggressive armies that are more likely to table an opponent, or to do more damage, because you generally get more points by doing damage than by just avoiding it. A SM army that goes 4-0 is likely to have scored fewer points than a SW army that went 4-0, because it's not as aggressive and so is less likely to have achieved massacres.

Does that make SM weaker than SW? I don't think so, not when we say "which is stronger". I think a better question is "which is more suited for good tournament result", and here I do think that SW have the advantage, because with an aggressive playstyle and solid CC ability, you can finish off more opponents and thus score more points over a tournament.
blacksly's avatar

blacksly · 712 weeks ago

My way of stating the difference between SW and SM:
Puppies lead with their Troops, supported by TWC and Scouts if they take them. But in any case, the Troops lead, and you can run into the issue of losing Troops rather than support units. This means that while the army is, overall, better at kicking ass (say, in a pure VP mission), it is less effective at late-game object taking, and at holding objectives in your half of the field while making an impact on the game.
Ultras lead with their Elites or just play "keep out of CC", and thus their Troops are better protected. Not statistically, but tactically. They can have Troops that stay in the back and take objectives while providing fire support. Yes, in kicking ass terms, it's a waste of 5 Marines to sit back in cover and fire a ML all game... but in objective games, it's 5-7 more ML shots that the SW wouldn't have.

A lot of the "SW are better" arguments come out of an unstated "killing is all" bias. Yes, SW are better than SM when you're looking at how killy the army is. But that's ignoring the fact that in most missions, killing the opponent is a means to a goal, not a goal in itself, and that "SW is worse" when it comes to objective grabbing. And for good or for bad, objective grabbing is the way that most of the missions are won or lost.
3 replies · active 712 weeks ago
Give this man a cookie, he knows what the hell he's talking about.
Word.
My way of stating the difference between SW and SM:
Puppies lead with their Troops, supported by TWC and Scouts if they take them. But in any case, the Troops lead, and you can run into the issue of losing Troops rather than support units. This means that while the army is, overall, better at kicking ass (say, in a pure VP mission), it is less effective at late-game object taking, and at holding objectives in your half of the field while making an impact on the game.
Ultras lead with their Elites or just play "keep out of CC", and thus their Troops are better protected. Not statistically, but tactically. They can have Troops that stay in the back and take objectives while providing fire support. Yes, in kicking ass terms, it's a waste of 5 Marines to sit back in cover and fire a ML all game... but in objective games, it's 5-7 more ML shots that the SW wouldn't have.

A lot of the "SW are better" arguments come out of an unstated "killing is all" bias. Yes, SW are better than SM when you're looking at how killy the army is. But that's ignoring the fact that in most missions, killing the opponent is a means to a goal, not a goal in itself, and that "SW is worse" when it comes to objective grabbing. And for good or for bad, objective grabbing is the way that most of the missions are won or lost.
1 reply · active 712 weeks ago
so good, said twice ;) .
I wouldn't say so. You can spend turns 1-4 killing the enemy, and get an objective (you only need to have 1 to win, after all) on 5. You can't, however, worry about objectives turn 1-4 and then kill the enemy on turn 5. The more of the enemy you kill, the easier it is to gain, keep and deny objectives. 10 marines kill less than 10 Grey Hunters, and therefore will find it harder to control the enemy, kill the enemy, and survive against the enemy, meaning units like Sternguard/TH/SS Termies have to work double time to shoulder the slack that the 400pts of marines are creating. To nullify a Marine army, you can just kill HS and Elites. In Wolves, you have to kill those AND potentially an assload of Troops before you can feel safe. 5 Hunters with 2 Melta in a Razorback generates target priority problems. 5 Marines camping a hill with a ML doesn't.
6 replies · active 712 weeks ago
>you only need one to win, after all
Unless the enemy has two. Or they contest your one by Tank Shocking your Ld8 guys off it.

>10 Marines kill less than 10 Grey Hunters
From inside of their transport or out? Against what targets? If they're sitting in their box, 10 Tacticals is probably better because I can aim my Flamer/Multimelta/Combiweapon out the top hatch. More flexibility, more range. In melee? Sure, the GH win, but that's really derpy, because _Tacticals don't want to be in melee anyways, and neither does the SM army._ It's a shooting army. It shoots. Like Tau, it doesn't want dudes tied up in combat because then it can't shoot them.

>To nullify a Marine army, you just kill HS and Elites
And FA. And those Troops that still have a Multimelta aimed at your tanks. And they have one more EL slots than you because you took Wolf Guard.

>5 Hunters with 2 Melta in a Razorback generates target priority problems. 5 Marines camping a hill with a ML doesn't.
I don't think you're comparing the same thing there at all.
> Unless the enemy has two. Or they contest your one by Tank Shocking your Ld8 guys off it.

Hence my earlier point about killing things > camping things - the enemy isn't IN a position to shock you off the obj you're going for, because your 12+ MLs and 5+ Las/Plas and 10+ Melta took out his Rhinos already.

> From inside of their transport or out?

Either? If the transport moved, 2 Melta shots are better than any single special weapon barring flamer vs Horde, and 10 GHs would be assaulting said Horde anyway most of the time. If Rhino is stationary and unshaken, the Tacs get +1 "Good" shot with a MM or a Missile. Is that really worth the cost?

> Against what targets?

Most things? Against MEQs, MCs, Vehicles and TEQs 2x Melta is better than 1x Melta and a possible 1 other. Only the aforementioned vs-Horde-when-you-don't-disembark thing favours the Tac Marines with a Flamer (and who runs them with Flamers anyway?)

> that's really derpy, because _Tacticals don't want to be in melee anyways

So because Unit A is shit in combat, and mediocre at shooting, this makes it a preferable choice to Unit B which is good at combat and equally mediocre at shooting? You melta a unit of Tacs out of their Rhino and charge them, they get 12 Attacks. Do the same to GHs and they get 30. Given that they are equivalent in shooting power in most situations (pros of a heavy are fairly equally balanced against the pros of a second special), I'd rather have the unit that throws out triple the number of attacks (plus Wulfen/Banner if you want) when charged, and a third again the number of attacks on the charge **just in case I get into a combat whether I want to be there or not**.

> And they have one more EL slots than you because you took Wolf Guard.

I've already stated that Wolf Guard are *not* mandatory, and in the same post you say I *must* have Ld8 and *must* have Wolf Guard. Please pick one scenario and stick with it, because implying Wolves have two mutually exclusive disadvantages at once isn't helpful.

> I don't think you're comparing the same thing there at all

Ok, that was a non-optimal example. Here's another. Which are you more worried about: 10 GHs in a Rhino advancing into your midfield, or 10 Tac Marines either advancing into midfield (and not shooting their heavy) or camping at the back (and not shooting their melta)? People ignore tactical marines because they are not a threat. To anything. 1 MM shot is not going to dictate strategy in the same way 30 CC attacks or 2x Meltaguns will.

Regarding camping objectives (which Wolves supposedly suck at), you know that on the D3+2 mission, you can place your objectives right next to theirs, right? Which means you don't need to HAVE any scoring units in your deployment zone, because they're all in the enemies. In 1 Obj each, you can leave 5/10 GHs at home with the 10+ Long Fangs and you're probably pretty secure against anything that gets past your TWC/20 GHs/Wolf Guard/Whatever.

> Are you still on this? Jesus, if you think Wolves are that overpowered, just fucking quit already. Save us all the trouble of listening to you whine.

Who are you talking to? I'm enjoying a rational discussion with intelligent people, so I hope you're trolling someone else.
The thing is, all your melta is short range. It's not going to kill anything early because you have to spend at least one turn more than the SM player moving into position to use it; he zooms in, pops smoke T1, and T2 is gunning for your transports with his tacticals; you can move in to Meltagun him T2, but only by disembarking.

A lot of your situations seem to involve GH being awesome when they get out of their transport and do stuff. Getting out of your transport usually means dying, or at least weathering a lot of fire.

If you think two Meltagun shots are good against MCs... my Tyranids would love to play you. "Hey, my tank only moved 6" and I'm in charge range! Alternately, I am on foot and in charge range! Why don't you send some dudes over to eat my whole squad really easily?"
Against other targets, I think the range advantage is a really big deal. 24" is such an incredibly larger distance than 12" on the battlefield that they almost aren't even comparable.

&gt;combat
But again: _the SM army doesn't want its guys to be in combat_. Not just because they're (often) bad at it, but because that means you can't shoot them. Shooting armies want to be able to shoot things. You can't shoot things that are in combat. Do you see where I'm going with this? I've said it several times already, but you've kinda ignored it. That's why they want Combat Tactics and sucky melee stats- because if you do well, you can get stuck in the fight without the ability to duck out and shoot away.

&gt;WG and Ld8
I'm citing two different disadvantages, yes, but you're also talking Razorwolves with 10man squads, which is likewise impossible. I think we both understand that they are both optional components of the army which can be mixed and matched and don't always go together.

&gt;example
Er... the Tacticals get into midfield T1 with a 12" scoot + smoke. SO they're shooting (from on an objective) T2. I am actually way more worried about one Multimelta than two Meltaguns because it blocks off a bigger area and can more consistently penetrate targets (thanks to getting double pen when the Meltas are just getting into range.) 30 CC attacks? Sure, that's nice, but some armies will just laugh that off. You wanna get out of your transport and charge, they're happy to let you- BA, GK, DA, Nids, DE, etc, all love it when you de-mech yourself.

&gt; ;) you know that on the D3+2 mission, you can place your objectives right next to theirs, right?
No you can't. Read the rules.
> he zooms in, pops smoke T1, and T2 is gunning for your transports with his tacticals

Funny, replace the word "Tacticals" with "Grey Hunters" and you have a Space Wolf army. You control the midfield to win the game, yes? That means both players want to be there pretty much as soon as possible. Deploy 12" on, move 12" and pop smoke. You are exactly halfway across the board (24") with Melta shooting from moving top hatches turn 2 (30" onto the table) so unless he declines to move more than 18" from his own board edge, he will have something in range of normal Meltaguns on turn 2. Yes, MMs have a slightly longer threat range than that, which serves to add flexibility about your target selection and vehicle placement, but certainly not an overwhelming advantage, especially when you consider the downsides (no move and fire being the primary one).

> Getting out of your transport usually means dying

Depends entirely on the situation, as you well know. You can't make a blanket statement like that any more than you can say "Infiltrating means dying sooner". Disembarking is a great idea in the right situation, and so is camping your metal box. Everything from matchup to fire lanes can affect whether it's a good idea to disembark or not.

>If you think two Meltagun shots are good against MCs...

Urgh, please don't put words in my mouth. I said TWO melta shots are BETTER than ONE. Not that they are "good" MC control, just that compared to 1 Melta and 1 ML, say, 2x Melta is better.

> I think the range advantage is a really big deal.

Me too, which is why every Space Wolf army ever takes at least two LF packs. They access heavy weapons in a different way, but have just as many as Vanilla Marines. This frees up the Grey Hunters to do what they do best, instead of having Tacticals who appear to have a decision making disorder about what their job is. From my point of view, Warhammer is won in the movement phase. Sacrificing the ability to move if you want to fire a gun is a bad trade.

> but you've kinda ignored it

No, I addressed it. Given the choice between a unit that can do one job competently or two jobs conpetently, I have to say the one that can do two jobs is better, regardless of whether you need or want them to do two jobs, because it gives you the option to choose. At some point, you will need to hit close combat, and at that point I'd rather have my basic troops being good at it instead of terrible. I know you don't WANT to be in combat, but having the option to say "Screw it, shooting isn't getting the job done, let's dogpile them with 30 attacks instead" is better than "Screw it, shooting isn't getting the job done.... Well, shit."

> some armies will just laugh that off

Some armies laugh off 1 MM shot per turn from a 250pt unit as well. I'd rather go with something that's at least a slight threat to everything whether its with boltguns, melta or combat.

> No you can't. Read the rules.

I thought this was self explanatory... Say there are 4 objectives. 2 each. He places his first, in his own zone as a nice safe first placement. You place yours 12" away from it, as close to his table edge as you can get. He places his (and I will bet you money he doesn't put it in *your* deployment zone) and then you put down your last one 12" away from the three already down. Now all 4 objectives are on his side of the table, and you have no reason to stay in yours, so you do what SW do best, which is advance agressively towards the enemy under cover from your fire support elements. You're not splitting your troops because you don't have to. You're not camping objectives, because you don't have to. Either he bunches up on two Objs and you gain massive board control, or he spreads out to claim all 4 and you can punch through anywhere you like as an armoured column/refused flank while your firepower deals with the threats you're not dealing with with melee/melta.
If you deploy all the way forward, Tacticals don't have to move- they'll be shooting at you turn 1 (if they go second.) They'll de-mech you 24" out and the rest of the army will shoot at you while you're out of range of your Meltaguns. Remember, we're assuming good play here, not "I do exactly the same thing every time." Smokerush isn't used to take center field against Wolves; if they do it, they'll be moving laterally to an objective.

>You can't make a blanket statement like that
I admit it's a pretty broad statement, but I think as a general rule in 5th edition it is correct- you get out of your metal box when it wrecks, when you're charging, or in certain other circumstances. You otherwise stay in your box because boxes are safe.

>2x Melta is better than 1x
That's the thing, though- in both cases, the MC is going to wreck your shit if you're close. Multimelta fires from 24" and can't be charged; Meltaguns fire from 12" and can be. That extra turn (or occasionally two) of shooting more than makes up for SW having the extra gun, because they only use it if they are willing to go toe-to-toe with that guy.

>range advantage
SM gets their heavy AT in other slots or from different units- Rifledreads, Sternguard, etc. Then, in addition, they also get a heavy weapon on their Tacticals. SW heavy shooting is concentrated in three relatively-fragile units in one slot; SM is spread across all their slots on many more hardy units. (Not being able to move when firing the MM is obviously a disadvantage, but not as much of one for SM as it would be for SW- SM is fine with being stationary a lot of the time, SW needs to be advancing.)

>one MM shot from 250pt unit
Be fair, 205pts unless you're taking the Combi-Weapon or are dumb and take the Power Fist. Combat is basically a threat to mediocre CC units- you aren't really a threat to things like Tacticals in combat, more of just an annoyance- you'll do 2-3 wounds, beat them, they'll fall back and try and shoot you. Boltguns and good CC give you options against hordes- which is handy, to be sure- but not really a whole lot more than that.

>one job competently or two jobs competently
I don't think it's that simple. Grey Hunters are good short-ranged firepower with pretty okay combat and a smattering of useful combat abilities. Tacticals are pretty okay mid-range shooting with good utility shooting and the ability to escape some situations they don't want to be in. GH are better multitaskers, and because of the codex they need to be; Tacticals have more of a job to do and are less likely to be forced into a bad place.

>I thought this was self explanatory...
Fair enough, that wasn't at all what it sounded like you were proposing from the original comment. Yes, you can shove all four objectives into the enemy deployment zone... okay, now what? You've made it very easy to ensure that he has access to them all. If you successfully push forward, so do you, but if you stumble or he blunts your assault, you're screwed. Your scenarios of he bunches up/he spreads out seem to imply that you have superior maneuverability to him, which seems like an odd assumption. If you've got superior maneuverability, it doesn't really matter where the objectives are, you're in a good position to get them. Fighting such a strategy I would stick to two of the objectives with my main force and aim to whittle down your scoring presence and eventually contest any of the more distant objectives in the final turns; this seems a lot more doable for me than for you because you will have to start heading for those objectives well before I do, since you start more distant from them.
> they'll be shooting at you turn 1 (if they go second.) They'll de-mech you 24" out...

That's very far from a given. To wreck a Rhino with smoke you need to inflict (on average) 4 Penetrating hits on it with AP1 weaponry. That's 8 Melta shots assuming that two miss and another fluffs the pen roll or is out of 2D6 range. And the Wolves have multiple Rhinos. And they're supressing tanks/riflemen/whatever with LFs. And there are other units like TWC that are wanting your attention before they hit you. Just because I'm in range doesn't mean you're going to kill me.

> you get out of your metal box when it wrecks, when you're charging, or in certain other circumstances

Which is... what I was saying... that Wolves are charging a lot of the time, and like GKs, have better options than Vanilla when they are outside their box. Unless you're stupid enough to do it near a Redeemer then I don't equate that with "You disembarked so you auto-lose the unit inside" which is what I took from your initial comment.

> the MC is going to wreck your shit if you're close

Unless you kill it in that turn, which I assumed was the plan, since you're close enough to do so.

Going to skim over the pros and cons of the rest of the army (FOC choking of LFs, Fragility etc), because this is primarily about Grey Hunters.

> Be fair, 205pts

Sorry, I've been playing BA for the last 5 months so I assume everyone has 50pt Rhinos. :P Even so, hopefully you can agree that it's a pretty terrible firepower-to-point-cost ratio compared to every other unit in the army.

> you aren't really a threat to things like Tacticals in combat, more of just an annoyance- you'll do 2-3 wounds, beat them, they'll fall back and try and shoot you.

I'll take that, because it means they're not shooting a MM at me, I've forced them off an objective (and on average are still within 6" next turn so can prevent them rallying), and if they use multiple units to shoot at the GH pack, they're not shooting the rest of my army.

> Tacticals are pretty okay mid-range shooting

Really? 1 good shot and 1 boltgun + Storm Bolter at 24" is "pretty ok" for 205pts? Beg to differ. I think that's poor as hell, and every other choice in the SM army offers more. As mentioned previously, Combat tactics is nice, but not compared to all the other advantages GH have.

> Fair enough, that wasn't at all what it sounded like you were proposing from the original comment.

Sorry, I keep forgetting I need to make things explicit on the internet because people can't see my crazy hand gestures or, in fact, read my mind.

> You've made it very easy to ensure that he has access to them all

I'd probably say that this part of the argument is pretty non-productive, because placement of objectives is dependent on so many other factors. I just mentioned it in passing because people seemed to assume that you HAD to camp a backfield objective to win the game, which is very far from the truth. You can gain enormous amounts of board control and freedom of movement by ensuing that your opponent has no reason to come out from his deployment zone, as well as inhibiting his fire lanes, causing movement blockages and so on. As I said though, very context dependent.

As something of a disclaimer, I do not play Space Wolves. I don't even like Space Wolves, fluffwise or codexwise they're probably my most hated chapter. The only Marines I play are Raven Guard counts-as BA and I love em. However I think the evidence is pretty conclusively there that Wolves are more powerful than Vanilla Marines, and Grey Hunters are a key part of making that so, which is why I'm engaging in this debate.
Foot wolves is generally regarded as being the Loganwing build, which often doesn't use any tanks.
"I wouldn't say so. You can spend turns 1-4 killing the enemy, and get an objective (you only need to have 1 to win, after all) on 5"

If you only need 1, then GH are fine. But if you fail to crush the enemy and drive him before you, then it may be more difficult for GH to back out of CC and pick up backfield objectives, than for SM who were camping on them from the first turn. Sometimes you DO need more than 1 objective to win, and quite often it's hard to advance into the enemy's zone and take, rather than just contest, their objectives. Being able to pick up your backfield objectives makes it easier to win because you do not have to wipe the enemy completely away from their objective, you just have to do enough damage to be able to advance and contest it. So, yes, SW do more damage and kill more enemies, but they HAVE to do more damage in order to win objective games compared to armies that have effective backfield campers.
Are you still on this? Jesus, if you think Wolves are that overpowered, just fucking quit already. Save us all the trouble of listening to you whine.
1 reply · active 712 weeks ago
We are just being realistic, in our opinions, of the state of play. Whilst that might make you angry, we won't quite because of thinking C;SW has more pros than cons.
Are Grey Hunters better than tactical marines? Of course they are.

Are Long Fangs better than devastators? Yes they are, but if both paid the same for heavy weapons as the Blood Angels do then it would be a closer comparison. Devastators are overpriced once you start putting weapons on them, everyone knows that.

Are Rune Priests better than Librarians? That's more difficult. I love my biker Librarian with vortex and null zone. I love my Rune Priest with murderous hurricane and living lightning. The Rune Priest is better at shutting down leadership 10 psykers. The Librarian is better on leadership 9 or less. I'd call it a wash myself.

As an army overall which is better? I don't think I can decide one way or the other. When I'm playing my bikes I wish I had my Space Wolves melee ability. When I'm playing Space Wolves I wish I had the ability to move 24 inches. When I put my storm bolter/wolf claw terminators into combat I sometimes find myself wishing I could have a hammernator squad, on the other hand when I have hammernators I wish I could shoot with them.

Basically I find them to be a mix of strengths and weaknesses. Maybe a slight edge to the Space Wolves, but it's not much.

Overall my winning average is better with my Space Wolves, but then I've been playing them since second edition and have only recently taken up Codex Marines, and them as bikers. <3 bikes. I don't use tactical squads, so I guess I really don't have that much to say about them.
In all honesty saying wolves are better because of grey hunters vs. tacticals, rune priests vs. libbies, and fangs vs. devastors is silly.I don't think comparing different armies solely by making a few unit to unit comparsions really accomplishes much. I play eldar as well as wolves, and i'd take a farseer with doom and RoWarding over either a rune priest or a libby, and I'd take dragons over fangs or devastors, and serpents over razorbacks that doesn't make eldar a better army then both of them. If you want to compare builds with lists as examples thats a fair, and useful but its pointless to compare wolves to sm based on 3 units.
Hopefully this will come across well :)
Both 3++ and YTTH have improved my 'on table time' and have given me a group of brothers to talk about the game, and so on.
But I do not agree with the assertion that C;SM = C;SW

If C; SM is on par with C;SW ;BA and ;GK, then you will not mind taking _only_ C;SM to the next six tournaments then.

Counters of 'not my playstyle' or 'I want to try something new' or 'blue doesn't match my eye-colour' will be seen with suspicion. You don't have to prove anything to me. But if you keep saying C;SM is as good as C;SW, then I am not sure what the problem is?

I site the wholesale use of C;SW at tournaments as proof that others have recognised the superiority of it. You can pooh-pooh that and just say these people are lemmings and/or have an aggressive playstyle.

But if you were _really_ keen to prove your point, then applying my challenge would be a great chance to show people naysaying that C;SM was just as winning'able as the, imo, Marines+ variants of C;SW ;BA and ;GK
4 replies · active 712 weeks ago
Actually I would be totally fine with that. Buy me an army and I'd do it- either shooty-heavy list or all bikes. I almost built the bike list, but in the end I had better ideas/conversions for my BA list, so that got the nod first.
Looks like I left another loophole open. XD
The main point here is not that SW = SM. If you wanted to say SW were the best codex of the two, I'm not going to say no way SM are just as good and am probably going to agree with you. The book itself has a lot more options. Rather, if you try to build an SM list with SW, the SM list will be better. ergo, not just better Marines but different. They may actually be better but that is not what this or any recent posts have been claiming.

Are the good SW lists better than the good SM lists? Quite potentially and I don't think you'd see me arguing very hard against this assertion. Are they miles better? Automatic choices over the good SM lists? No and if you try to say the SM lists are bad, you will find us arguing against that :P.
You can theoryhammer all you like and can theoryhammer me away if you want.
But your win [that is, proving your point] would be much cleaner if you just went out and did it, right?

Yes, I know tournament results are not conclusive proof of anything. But that and 'it is not my playstyle' or 'I want to try something new' do come across as something a politician might say to an awkward question. Yes?
Even if C;SM is not your playstyle or flash enough for you, isn't have some empirical results to show us worth that?

I could just be a simpleton who wants to RAARGH-SMASH stuff and doesn't get the power intrinsic to C;SM? Show me.

Now I realise calling someone out like this is not very genteel nor polite. But instead of having this merry-go-round of trying to tell the proletariat the way it is, show us. Maybe we are a little dull? But even monkeys can do when they see. Show, don't tell.

Hopefully this has not been too rude of me. B&W can often lose important subtleties. I am not trying to be a jerk. I see a fairly clean and clear solution to something that has cropped up again and again.
These articles have not been the medicine to our condition.

Sincerely, Marshal Wilhelm.
2 replies · active 712 weeks ago
The problem with doing what you ask is you're basically saying "you can't call an army good unless you've played it for six months." I, frankly, do not have the money to do that with all the armies, or even just the 5E ones. I mean, just offhand, I would have to "prove" SM, Biker SM, Loganwing, Pure Jumpers, Dev Jumpers, Nipplewing, non-Henchmen GK, Draigowing, Stompy Nids, Mobile IG, Hybrid IG, and I'm sure there are others that are regarded, by significant numbers of people, as "not particularly good" but I feel are. How can you possibly expect anyone to buy and play all those armies before developing opinions on them?

(I don't feel you're coming across as particularly rude; we get plenty of heated debate here, so don't feel too bad about things.)
The reason Space Wolves are seen as the stronger army stems from the fact that a poorly built SW army is much more efficient than a poorly built SM army. Given how much the average SM army sucks - Tacs with Powerfists, ten man Sternguard squads, mono Land Raiders -, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Sure, Long Fangs are awesome. But are they better than a Dakka Pred or MM Assault Bikes? Grey Hunters have an additional CC weapon? Big fucking deal, but it won't be of much use if you get shot to death or stomped by an actual CC unit.
I can't really agree with this. Grey hunters are just straight up better than tactical marines. I have used them both plenty of times. When an argument against them is "Grey Hunters are so good your opponent will try to kill them and they won't be left to score at the end of the game" it's a strong hint that they are better.. Yes, Tactical Marines have some perks, but they are not as good as the GH's perks, and certainly not worth the points premium.

Also, with respect to the above comment.. yes, Long Fangs are better than Dakka Preds - otherwise Space Wolves would take Dakka Preds which they also have access to! (I do use dakka preds in low point wolves lists).
1 reply · active 712 weeks ago
Weren't it for the FoC, I'd favour two Dakka Preds over a Long Fang squad. However, given how few long ranged units SW have, cramming as many heavy weapons as possible in the HS slot is almost mandatory. Meanwhile, Ultramarines get relentless MM in FA and heavy weapons on their default troops.
Wow this is intense and I certainly haven't been playing for long enough to have a great opinion, I play space wolves, it is my first 40k amy. Yes they are easy to not suck with but I still loose, esp objecive based games and I really need to get into combat quick to be effective.
brotheroracle's avatar

brotheroracle · 711 weeks ago

Well I have a new argument! C :S W is just so much better then C:CSM.
I play Marines, in general. I started with playing DA (due to the large amount of Termies I had... anyways that's not the point), and then decided to start collecting models to be able to play SW. I now have the models, but I'm not able to play SW. Their game mechanic's simply isn't the same, and I must say that Melta range sucks. Also, ''being better in combat'' is not really an advantage. CC dedicated units will still eat you. And tacticals already eats other non-marines non-combat dedicated units. So basically, SW eat Vanilla. Nothing more. Also, they are cheaper, but some of their ''not so useful'' options (see previous point for why) are often seen in list building, so the lower cost argument is kinda retarded. Just take the banner (one use item..) and their cost jump higher (you see a lot of 10 man GH you?) than Vanilla Marines.

Thing is, I do want to master them in some way, but they are quite hard to balance. That's where I feel obliged to admit that their playstyle simply isn't mine. Next try : BA.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...