PDA

View Full Version : space wolves strange design filosophy



Johnmclane
09-07-2011, 09:19
Hi

Played my friends space wolves codex with my dark eldar (got ripped to shreds) this weekend, and that started me thinking about their design philosophy.

If you read the fluff they are headstrong assualt troops, but the new codex make them into the devastator chapter, with cyclone missile wolf guard in many squads and long fangs everywhere. And they wait to recieve the charge more than anything (counterattack).

Isn't this a rather strange route to going design wise?

Bingo the Fun Monkey
09-07-2011, 10:08
Yea, that's why I use my Tau with Codex Space Wolves, though I'm thinking of using the BA Codex instead, because my Sept World is high gravity and were secretly blessed by the Emperor with Sanguinius' Gene Seed.:shifty:

Grimtuff
09-07-2011, 10:17
Hi

Played my friends space wolves codex with my dark eldar (got ripped to shreds) this weekend, and that started me thinking about their design philosophy.

If you read the fluff they are headstrong assualt troops, but the new codex make them into the devastator chapter, with cyclone missile wolf guard in many squads and long fangs everywhere. And they wait to recieve the charge more than anything (counterattack).

Isn't this a rather strange route to going design wise?

Which is the fault of the player, not the codex. I know this sounds like a "UR PLAYING IT WRONG" thing, but seriously, most SW players do not play their codex as it "should"* be played. There I said it.




*Yes I know there is no right or wrong way to play a codex, but there are certain builds from many codexes that do not feel "right" in many people's minds.

Pushkin
09-07-2011, 10:18
I think thats true with a number of the codexs, it because there are often weapons/unit combos in the lists that are hugely effective when spammed or when used as part of a list that the original designer did not foresee.

I've not faced that many GK lists but i have heard people (*actual people like in the pub, not just on warseer!) complain that they've made them into a shooty chapter with dakka dreads, and storm bolters getting the +1 strength thing.

I think Blood Angels, IG and Dark Eldar generally play like they're supposed to. But i would say Chaos and Nids don't really feel right when you're playing. I mean they're both technically OK dex's and can win competitive games, but you have to take such odd combos (Slannesh DP's, Plauge Marines and Oblits) or spam the good units in the dex (Hive Guard and Zoans) and play in a manner which doesn't fit the fluff of the army.

Spider-pope
09-07-2011, 11:06
I think thats true with a number of the codexs, it because there are often weapons/unit combos in the lists that are hugely effective when spammed or when used as part of a list that the original designer did not foresee.

I've not faced that many GK lists but i have heard people (*actual people like in the pub, not just on warseer!) complain that they've made them into a shooty chapter with dakka dreads, and storm bolters getting the +1 strength thing.



Short range shooting was always the main strength of the Grey Knights back when they were Daemonhunters. Sending them into combat usually resulted in their backside getting kicked. And with shroud, a decent amount of the time nothing could shoot them back until they got in close.

azimaith
09-07-2011, 11:13
Short range shooting? With their universal 24" assault 2 gun and S6 melee weapons? I don't see that.

Their strength was the ability to deliver firepower as they closed in then beat the snot out of people in assault, then at the end of the phase, set everyone on fire with holocaust.

yabbadabba
09-07-2011, 11:25
Space Wolves have always had slightly better shooting benefits than other marines, but they lose out in other areas. Its subtle but it always used to be there.

The gaming community has changed alot since the first days of SW design. That there is the option for choice is something we should be thankful for, as there was little choice in things like 7e WFB for most armies.

You will always find gamers who play by background, some who play by efficiency and others with a mixture of approaches. I wouldn't sweat it mate ;)

Bestaltan
09-07-2011, 11:50
Why bother moving when you can let your opponent do all the work by moving across the table, then count as assaulting with counter-charge? :rolleyes:

Codices in 5th have been very hit or miss with rules versus fluff. For every good codex where the rules match the fluff (such as DE) you seem to be getting at least one codex where the fluff is utterly ignored (Tyranids).

Latro_
09-07-2011, 12:24
Long fangs and predators were always prevalent in SW armies back in the day because basic troops like grey hunters and blood claws could not take heavy weapons like their marine counterparts.

Problem comes is that 5th ed relies on mech and objectives, so 9 times out of 10 you have ye troops in rhinos to go off and punch faces up close and claim objectives so its not really a nerf to the SW anymore because of how the game plays.

Also because so many people take transports the natural way to deal with these is spam missile launchers which they can do so well.

So they made the book with the right intentions but the 5th ed state of play bastardises them into the tournament hogs they are now. Remember the days when no one played SW in the dieing years of the mini codex? I do, you can bethcabottom dollar no one started playing them because the 'liked the fluff', that side of things has not changed all that much.

vcassano
09-07-2011, 12:36
The good thing about GW's recent codices (and army books for Fantasy) are that they seem to offer a great deal of flexibility in regards to army builds. Just as you can see the Long Fangs/defensive Wolves you can see aggressive Thunderwolf builds. While it is a shame to see armies being played in perhaps non-fluffy ways it is way more interesting as an opponent and as a player to have a wide variety of choices on offer. That is not to say that certain elements of the army aren't slightly out of kilter with the rest of the army, but it is much more preferable to have various, genuinely viable choices of approach. That is what makes Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels excellent codices too.

sigur
09-07-2011, 12:37
Meh. They're Space Marines and luckily the pure assault army of 3rd edition is a thing of the past. The always had these completely over the top Long Fangs and more shooty tanks than the other chapters (unless they brought their own special tanks of which I can't really recall any up to the Baal Predator came along). They're Space Marines Plus™ and eversince they had their own codex they were just that.

What I don't like (apart from all the "Wolf-" prefixes of course) is Thunderwolves really.

@Bingo the Fun Monkey: :D Obviously the only sensible thing to do. I keep on posting "just use codex Space Wolves already!" in all Tau and Tyranid tactics discussions as well. :angel:

Johnmclane
09-07-2011, 12:56
well, I'm not really complaining, just looking at the fact that the fluff and gameplay differs a lot. And by fluff I'm not talking about the difference in power levels (assualt marines killing greater daemons and stuff like that) but the whole army philosophy differing.

Take DE for example , they are portayed as being a fast army, with loads of nasty weaponry and strange assualt units, riding paper vehicles and that exactly how they play...

azimaith
09-07-2011, 13:10
I don't think were going to see a "proper" space marine design philosophy until space marines stop being "Better at everything than everyone else" in the background.

What are Dark Eldar? Raiders who travel in fast moving hit and run attacks, who strike without warning inflicting terrible carnage before vanishing, they do not do well in protracted battles. Simple enough.

What are Space Marines? Warriors who are unstoppable on the attack, intractable on the defense, and bedecked in the finest wargear the Imperium offers who adapt to any fighting style with perfect counter points.

Sound different to you? How do you make a design philosophy based on "being better than everyone else in every way" without horrendously unbalancing the game? If they had actually given marines so sort of weakness other than "Sometimes were just too awesome," you might actually see some sort of character in the army design, instead they just don't have one. Space Wolves, minus some missing units, are pretty much as close to "background sphess muhreens" you'll find without going into movie marine territory. Good at assault? Yes. Good at short ranged fire? Yes. Good at long ranged fire? Yes. Good at armored assault? Yes. Good at cavalry assault? Yes. As good in assault when being charged as when charging? Yes. Your base marine is pretty much an assault marine+a tactical marine in space wolves. It's silly, with the older chapter traits system, granted, with a comprehensive rebalance, at least you could create chapter variations rather than sticking everything into chapter codex.

Getting background to playstyle right relies on a strong theme of strength and weaknesses, the stronger and more clearly they are outlined, the more the closer the book will often get to playing that way. There are some exceptions (tyranids,) but if you look at codex that play like their background, you'll see typically they're in armies with a strong sense of strengths and weakness.

althathir
09-07-2011, 13:47
Hi

Played my friends space wolves codex with my dark eldar (got ripped to shreds) this weekend, and that started me thinking about their design philosophy.

If you read the fluff they are headstrong assualt troops, but the new codex make them into the devastator chapter, with cyclone missile wolf guard in many squads and long fangs everywhere. And they wait to recieve the charge more than anything (counterattack).

Isn't this a rather strange route to going design wise?

They don't have heavies available to their troop choices, so they've always had a lot of long fangs. Same for cyclones, they are more of an close range army than an assault army (notice that blood claws are the headstrong assault option and they try an temper that).



Why bother moving when you can let your opponent do all the work by moving across the table, then count as assaulting with counter-charge? :rolleyes:

Codices in 5th have been very hit or miss with rules versus fluff. For every good codex where the rules match the fluff (such as DE) you seem to be getting at least one codex where the fluff is utterly ignored (Tyranids).

Counterattack is a good ability but againist a lot of forces your better off assaulting them. Your nids hate it though.

More than anything it makes them more forgiving, but counterattack isn't a great option vs. everything.


Long fangs and predators were always prevalent in SW armies back in the day because basic troops like grey hunters and blood claws could not take heavy weapons like their marine counterparts.

Problem comes is that 5th ed relies on mech and objectives, so 9 times out of 10 you have ye troops in rhinos to go off and punch faces up close and claim objectives so its not really a nerf to the SW anymore because of how the game plays.

Also because so many people take transports the natural way to deal with these is spam missile launchers which they can do so well.

So they made the book with the right intentions but the 5th ed state of play bastardises them into the tournament hogs they are now. Remember the days when no one played SW in the dieing years of the mini codex? I do, you can bethcabottom dollar no one started playing them because the 'liked the fluff', that side of things has not changed all that much.

I like the fluff, granted my wolves play a lot different, I run a wolflord, have one of both types of priest, and only one unit of long fangs.

Fixer
09-07-2011, 14:09
I don't think were going to see a "proper" space marine design philosophy until space marines stop being "Better at everything than everyone else" in the background.

What are Dark Eldar? Raiders who travel in fast moving hit and run attacks, who strike without warning inflicting terrible carnage before vanishing, they do not do well in protracted battles. Simple enough.

What are Space Marines? Warriors who are unstoppable on the attack, intractable on the defense, and bedecked in the finest wargear the Imperium offers who adapt to any fighting style with perfect counter points.

Sound different to you? How do you make a design philosophy based on "being better than everyone else in every way" without horrendously unbalancing the game? If they had actually given marines so sort of weakness other than "Sometimes were just too awesome," you might actually see some sort of character in the army design, instead they just don't have one. Space Wolves, minus some missing units, are pretty much as close to "background sphess muhreens" you'll find without going into movie marine territory. Good at assault? Yes. Good at short ranged fire? Yes. Good at long ranged fire? Yes. Good at armored assault? Yes. Good at cavalry assault? Yes. As good in assault when being charged as when charging? Yes. Your base marine is pretty much an assault marine+a tactical marine in space wolves. It's silly, with the older chapter traits system, granted, with a comprehensive rebalance, at least you could create chapter variations rather than sticking everything into chapter codex.

Getting background to playstyle right relies on a strong theme of strength and weaknesses, the stronger and more clearly they are outlined, the more the closer the book will often get to playing that way. There are some exceptions (tyranids,) but if you look at codex that play like their background, you'll see typically they're in armies with a strong sense of strengths and weakness.

Space Marines, or at the very least Ultramarines and other Codex Chapters, are supposed to be:

Small, Elite, Balanced. Able to respond to any threat in equal measure.
The jack of all trades army, master of none. They can assault, shoot enemies, have fast units, steady slow units but they require to do all of these things while other armies specialise.

Obviously this hasn't worked out to well due to the poor internal codex balance. Additionally since cover made flamers better, AP1 rules made meltas better, Storm Shields made TH/SS Terminators better, a lot people people are taking the character that makes all of these things better.

Take THAT Robute Gulliman, no matter what your codex says, we don't think you're our Spiritual Leige, and that the Salamanders have some damned fine ideas ;)

Really though, this is a discussion about Space Wolves.
What's happened is that rules changes have not kept up with the theme and fluff.

Back in 3rd, Grey Hunters were the shooty Troops choice, Blood Claws were the assaulty Troops choice. Grey hunters had true grit which meant that they were not better than tactical marines on the charge, but were as good as assault marines for taking a charge or sustained assaults. Counter attack was all about moving models in to contact (which everyone can do now)

In this current edition Grey Hunters now get that extra attack on the charge, and with 5th edition counter attack rules, get an extra attack when charged. Throw in a Wolf Banner and a Wulfen, they're better all round on both the assault AND defense.

This could have been sorted by keeping the old True grit rule. Perhaps taking away counter-attack as it no longer fitted their purpose of their eagerness to fight and gave them a defensive bonus they didn't need.

Maybe they didn't include True Grit because they didn't like special rules.

EXCEPT they threw on special rules for the Blood Claws, the old 3rd edition favourites, which have made them effectively dead in most Space Wolf list selections, a place that Grey Hunters occupied before.

It's hard to figure out exactly what the design philosophy behind Space Wolves was supposed to be. You can see that they tried to have heroic sagas and heroic viking deeds in close combat but the actual result of the rules is an army of super-generalists lead by the most powerful psykers in the galaxy.

Son of Morkai
09-07-2011, 14:24
Space Wolves are better than everyone else at everything? And you people complain about rules not matching the fluff. You're just lucky there's not a "Binge Drinking" phase. :p

Threeshades
09-07-2011, 14:36
well, I'm not really complaining, just looking at the fact that the fluff and gameplay differs a lot. And by fluff I'm not talking about the difference in power levels (assualt marines killing greater daemons and stuff like that) but the whole army philosophy differing.

Take DE for example , they are portayed as being a fast army, with loads of nasty weaponry and strange assualt units, riding paper vehicles and that exactly how they play...

Welcome to 40k, mate. Wait till you see how tyranids or Chaos Marines play compared to their fluff.

ReveredChaplainDrake
09-07-2011, 15:36
The thing about Space Marines being better at everything than everybody else is completely true and accurate to fluff... in a one-on-one comparison. One Space Marine really should be able to beat the crap out of any other infantryman short of an Incubi, or possibly a Genestealer with a lucky rabbit's foot. The problem is that you get about fifty enemies to one Space Marine.

Particular to Space Wolves, they were pretty much GW's haphazard attempt at an apology after butchering the Chaos Marines. Then again, those implications tend to come out even worse because it makes it seem like GW thinks of CSM, Tyranids, and Tau as "testing armies" that they can completely and utterly ruin and nobody will know the difference, while they take the mistakes learned from these armies and use them on the armies they actually care about (i.e. Imperium armies).

Unlike other posters, I'm not as sore about this as I could be. Just lose the psychic powers (especially Jaws, but really none of them fit as SWs hate sorcery) and Space Wolves would be fine IMHO. This is because I remember Space Marines back in 3rd edition. This was back when 3.5 CSM ruled the tabletops. Back when 113 pts got you a WS4 Carnifex with 4 attacks and a 2+ save. Back when Eldar were the shootiest, fastest, and most skilled army out there. Comparatively, the humble Space Marines had tons of incredibly situational and often stupid wargear options (Auspexes :wtf:), while having only Rhino Rush to its name. Which Blood Angels did better, BTW. The only imperials that were even close to broken were the Armageddon Black Templars. I've seen the other side of the power creep, and I'm glad that Imperials are now a worthy foe for once. I just wish that it wasn't at the expense of my Tyranids and Chaos Marines. :cries:

Raibaru
09-07-2011, 16:05
This is a game meant to win. Sure you'll find the occasional player who wants to play it in a way that resembles their chosen army's fluff, but the vast majority of people play it to win it. And when GW fails horribly with codex balance and codex creep, especially when it comes to Space Marines, you really can't fault the players for choosing a winning book.

And since GW has a 20 year history of failing their players with horrible internal balance and codex creep with their marine books, most people make up their own chapters so they can just switch from one book to the next whenever the newest one comes out with even more outlandish rules.

This is the primary reason that all the marines should come from a single book and some of the whacked out crazy [censored] they've added should be removed (knights, priests, cavalry, etc).

yabbadabba
09-07-2011, 16:08
@Raibaru - that is entirely subjective. Certainly in my time over GWs 30 odd year of doing this, I have met more people who want to create armies that reflect the background, than armies that have an "auto-win-button-press-here" list.

Spider-pope
09-07-2011, 16:38
This is a game meant to win. Sure you'll find the occasional player who wants to play it in a way that resembles their chosen army's fluff, but the vast majority of people play it to win it. And when GW fails horribly with codex balance and codex creep, especially when it comes to Space Marines, you really can't fault the players for choosing a winning book.

And since GW has a 20 year history of failing their players with horrible internal balance and codex creep with their marine books, most people make up their own chapters so they can just switch from one book to the next whenever the newest one comes out with even more outlandish rules.



I'm curious about how GW can fail at something they have never, ever attempted. GW have never said the codexes are balanced, nor has competitive gaming ever been the focus of 40k or any of their other products. And if GW really had a 20 year history of "failing their players" do you really think 40k would be one of the dominant tabletop games still?

The games are aimed at hobbyists, to have a fun time with their friends. The tournements are a non-essential add on provided for those who want a more competitive element.

Bestaltan
09-07-2011, 16:43
More than anything it makes them more forgiving, but counterattack isn't a great option vs. everything.


Um, I might be crazy, but I can't quite figure out how an ability that allows me to stand perfectly still and, with a successful leadership test, gain +1 attack for my entire unit when YOU charge ME is a bad thing in any situation.

Nurgling Chieftain
09-07-2011, 16:52
You're just lucky there's not a "Binge Drinking" phase. :pCome to one of our games. :D

Johnmclane
09-07-2011, 17:01
It must be damn hard to have so many different space marine codexes and still have them differ from oneanother. There's just that many things you can do ingame, moving shooting assaulting, some psyker sprinkle... I start to agree more and more with the "one-marine-army-codex" guys...

What are the black templar schtick ?

Me personally would like that 3+ armour save to be more rare, and the movement phase more dynamic. That would lead to more tactics and more bloodspilling as well.

Abaraxas
09-07-2011, 17:03
Speaking for myself (Space Wolf since 1993) fielding 3 grey hunter and two long fang packs without a blood claw in sight is ridiculous...and Ill NEVER own a "thunderwolf", ever.

Son of Morkai
09-07-2011, 18:40
Come to one of our games. :D

If you're in the Southern US, I might just have to do that!


...and Ill NEVER own a "thunderwolf", ever.

But they're so cute! Like giant fuzzy cuddly puppysquirrels! They're... like... the Care Bears in GRIMDARKVILLE!

ReveredChaplainDrake
09-07-2011, 22:59
What are the black templar schtick ?
Fearless melee horde. Imagine Orks in power armor. Voila, Black Templars.


Me personally would like that 3+ armour save to be more rare, and the movement phase more dynamic. That would lead to more tactics and more bloodspilling as well.
How is the current metagame not dynamic? I thought that was the whole idea behind man-portable heavy weapons being terrible, and why everybody wants meltaguns, flamers, and occasionally plasma guns. In fact, that's kinda' part of the problem.

althathir
09-07-2011, 23:19
Um, I might be crazy, but I can't quite figure out how an ability that allows me to stand perfectly still and, with a successful leadership test, gain +1 attack for my entire unit when YOU charge ME is a bad thing in any situation.

I should have clarified that better, I posted right before work.

Its not always better to shoot & counter attack, then to fire pistols and assault.

For example againist something like genestealers its almost always better to shoot them cause they have a poor save.

Againist other meqs (esp. those with furious charge) it tends to be better to assault them and deny them thier assault bonus.

So I guess what i'm trying to stay is just relying on counterattack isn't always optimal in a lot of cases the right move is to assault.

TheMav80
09-07-2011, 23:37
Yeah, I would say it is probably better to pistol some Orks and then charge them, than to rapid fire and allow the Orks their Furious Charge bonus.

Bestaltan
10-07-2011, 00:31
Ah. That makes a LOT more sense. Sorry for the confusion.

Raibaru
10-07-2011, 00:52
@Raibaru - that is entirely subjective. Certainly in my time over GWs 30 odd year of doing this, I have met more people who want to create armies that reflect the background, than armies that have an "auto-win-button-press-here" list.

Well clearly, I mean we don't all play Space Marines, right? :angel:



I'm curious about how GW can fail at something they have never, ever attempted. GW have never said the codexes are balanced, nor has competitive gaming ever been the focus of 40k or any of their other products. And if GW really had a 20 year history of "failing their players" do you really think 40k would be one of the dominant tabletop games still?

The games are aimed at hobbyists, to have a fun time with their friends. The tournements are a non-essential add on provided for those who want a more competitive element.


Don't be silly. Of course they want their game to be balanced.

sean_scanlon2000
10-07-2011, 02:00
honestly 5th ed will be coming to an end and then 6th will create a whole new bunch of challenges and will change and tweak the game. codex's become old over time as new codex's come out. thats just how the game works.... its always been like that and will continue to be like that. with the newest codex doing its best to boost sales and draw in new players. look at DE when it came out players returned and people who never gave them a though jumped at them and are now currently playing them.

Im sure codex necrons will be very nasty as well that of the eventual codex chaos legions when it comes out in 6th.

for all we know 6th will try and push back at mech and will go in the opposite direction and make them total death traps like they were in 4th.. me id rather they just make it so that each is both good and bad. kinda like a pick your posion.

althathir
10-07-2011, 02:59
Ah. That makes a LOT more sense. Sorry for the confusion.

Don't worry about it, like I said I posted it before I went to work, should have made it clearer.


honestly 5th ed will be coming to an end and then 6th will create a whole new bunch of challenges and will change and tweak the game. codex's become old over time as new codex's come out. thats just how the game works.... its always been like that and will continue to be like that. with the newest codex doing its best to boost sales and draw in new players. look at DE when it came out players returned and people who never gave them a though jumped at them and are now currently playing them.

Im sure codex necrons will be very nasty as well that of the eventual codex chaos legions when it comes out in 6th.

for all we know 6th will try and push back at mech and will go in the opposite direction and make them total death traps like they were in 4th.. me id rather they just make it so that each is both good and bad. kinda like a pick your posion.

I think mech will get more dangerous but still be good, that alone can change the balance of the game quite a bit. Right now there isn't a reason for most armies not to mech up, and its changed the meta into what armies can deal with it or not.

SideshowLucifer
10-07-2011, 04:27
I've played Space Wolves forever, and the staple of my armies has always been Long Fangs, Grey Hunters, and lots of missles and assault cannons. I don't bring a single vehicle in my army. My whole rmy is designed to shoot the crap out of everyones' vehicles and make them play my game. I'll assault when they get close, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be stupid and run across the field and waste my firepower.

vcassano
10-07-2011, 08:13
I've played Space Wolves forever, and the staple of my armies has always been Long Fangs, Grey Hunters, and lots of missles and assault cannons. I don't bring a single vehicle in my army. My whole rmy is designed to shoot the crap out of everyones' vehicles and make them play my game. I'll assault when they get close, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be stupid and run across the field and waste my firepower.

Seems sensible. Space Wolves are combat-orientated but they are still Space Marines and therefore utilise some form of comabt know-how and tactical flexibility. Black Templars are there for brainless brawn!

Swordsman
10-07-2011, 08:45
Which is the fault of the player, not the codex.

This.

Just a thought: you want fluffy lists; but just happen to be playing an army that is fluffy while competitive.

ArtificerArmour
10-07-2011, 09:27
I've played alot of space wolfs, and all the lists are exactly the same.

The main crux is: Space wolves hate psykers...yet dominate the phase.

Their troop is as cheap as a normal marine but with tacked on extra rules.

They can dominate in all phases of the game.

They break force organisation selection, allowing mutliple hqs. whilst they attempted to address this, saying they couldn't take identicle, theres small was around it by either taking different combinations of psychic powers or 5pt upgrades.

The juggernaut, when designed for daemons, was looked at long, and hard, and had many things tweaked to balance it. Not cavalry, could not fleet, could not take grenades.

The thunderwolf, for 5 points more expensive, has identicle stats but no power weapons, but can move faster than a bike (WTF), has rending as standard but can be upgrade to ignore armour, has grenades, can be upgraded to all have 3+ invulnerable saves. They basically took the juggernaut and undid all the good work behind it to make it a balanced unit.

Alot of players just look sidewas at what the space wolf codex can do, then their own army, then question the player playing it. Unfortunately, I've come across a player who revels in it's brokeness. And this is why I cry a little inside at the people who I have to play.

Chapters Unwritten
10-07-2011, 09:49
Why bother moving when you can let your opponent do all the work by moving across the table, then count as assaulting with counter-charge? :rolleyes:

Codices in 5th have been very hit or miss with rules versus fluff. For every good codex where the rules match the fluff (such as DE) you seem to be getting at least one codex where the fluff is utterly ignored (Tyranids).As a career Space Wolf player I will tell you, only idiots assault us after rushing across the table. You beat the Space Wolves by shooting at them, not by rushing along and trying to beat them up close at negligible strength.

The way 40k is nowadays, it is everyone throwing their army at the nearest target in ~250 point chunks. This will get you killed against these guys every time. The army's weakness is that it is predictable; react accordingly.

Almost no opponent I face does this.

It's also worth noting that I get beat plenty when people do. I lose regularly to Eldar, Chaos, and Tau armies. And that is both with and without all of this "broken" stuff everyone prattles on about.

There are plenty of downsides to the book and the army but players do not like to acknowledge them much (like how we mostly use Grey Hunters and Long Fangs because almost the entire rest of the codex is WS/BS3).

theJ
10-07-2011, 10:38
They break force organisation selection, allowing mutliple hqs. whilst they attempted to address this, saying they couldn't take identicle, theres small was around it by either taking different combinations of psychic powers or 5pt upgrades.


While agreeing with most of the things you've said, I'm gonna have to comment on this part, as it's one of the things that were actually done right.
The Space Wolf codex was designed to focus on characters. Both the "wolf guard mechanic" and the changed FOC points to this.
There is nothing "holy" about the FOC. It's an old system that, frankly, prevents most forces from being properly "fluffy".
The ideal would be customised FOCs for each army, and this is precisely what the wolves get. The problem does not lie with the wolves, it lies with the others for not following suit.

Archangel_Ruined
10-07-2011, 10:45
I think the space wolves are fine. The real problem with marines is the nasty compromises GW makes for sales. If they were fluffier, and genuinely fantastic at everything, then you could up the cost and have hard as nails, small armies. Or... You can have the sales dream of IG in power armour, tons of models and tanks and lots of redundancy built in. The wolves are a bit messier than vanillas as they're closer to the fluff while the pricing has been taken wholesale from the basic list. 16pts isn't too cheap for a marine but it's questionable for a marine that's creeping closer to fluff. I'd best not start on GK pricing...

ehlijen
10-07-2011, 10:52
Counterassault is nice and definitely the better choice against high I opponents without frags or opponents with defensive grenades.

But it is not the better choice if neither of the above applies as counterassault only potentially gives you the same benefit, it does not take their benefit for charging away.

+1A is nice, but +1A only for you is better than +1A for both sides. This becomes even clearer when the enemy has furious charge. Sometimes deying the enemy the charge bonus is just as or more important than getting it yourself. And then there's the ld test needed to actually get it. If you charge, you just get it, but if you CA, you need to test to do so. Odds are you'll get it, but it's not certain, not even for fearless units. Especially if ld penalties are in play.

And then there's units that wouldn't charge the SWs. Those you'll have to charge or suffer their return fire. Ironically, that can include other SW units :P

Lord Inquisitor
10-07-2011, 11:07
I agree with the OP. I have exactly the same issues with Space Wolves. There are several glaring issues with the book regarding composition - it wasn't like SW weren't (uniquely) the codex that was actually already different from other chapters. Some of the blame can be laid at Ward's feet as the 3++ invul stormshields really changed the balance of the game and just obviously weren't easy to balance in any troop type. A 4++ would have solved so much.

HQs that allow elites as Troops are always bad (you'd think Kelly would have learnt after Nob bikers) but Grimnar is so useful just for taking the absurdly all-rounder wolf guard as troops that his amazing personal abilities make him a no brainer and his own personal stats are just a bonus. Number of SW armies I've played against that didn't have Grimnar = 0.

Lone wolves and thunderwolves are both ridiculous in concept (suicide space wolfs and wolf cav, really?) but utterly broken because they can buy upgrades. Yeah, obviously you'd give terminator armour and a storm shield to your suicide mission troops. They are both severely problematic as they're absurdly durable.

The core of the army fails to be represented adequately. The wolf guard issue aside, the Troops choices, the backbone of the army, are pathetically matched. Number of blood claw packs I've fought against since the new book = 0.

Most of the book is horribly balance internally. Grimnar and rune priests, wolf guard and grey hunters (sometimes) for troops, lone wolves and thunderwolves for vanguar elements, long fangs for support. Most of the rest of the book lies untouched. Funny thing is, ive seen mech, footslogging and podded SW armies so in that regard there's some variety but they all revolve around the same few units.

Bestaltan
10-07-2011, 12:43
As a career Space Wolf player I will tell you, only idiots assault us after rushing across the table. You beat the Space Wolves by shooting at them, not by rushing along and trying to beat them up close at negligible strength.

So I guess anyone that plays an assault-heavy army is an idiot? I'll be sure to alert all daemon, Ork, and Tyranid players.......


The way 40k is nowadays, it is everyone throwing their army at the nearest target in ~250 point chunks. This will get you killed against these guys every time.

The problem with space wolves is that you can counter most other armies 250 point chunks with about 175-200 points. Those point advantages REALLY catch up during the course of a game.


There are plenty of downsides to the book and the army but players do not like to acknowledge them much (like how we mostly use Grey Hunters and Long Fangs because almost the entire rest of the codex is WS/BS3).

Um, you have a whopping three units that are WS/BS 3. Hardly "almost the entire rest of the codex". You'll have to try a lot harder than that if you want to convince the rest of us that the codex has downsides.

althathir
10-07-2011, 13:55
I agree with the OP. I have exactly the same issues with Space Wolves. There are several glaring issues with the book regarding composition - it wasn't like SW weren't (uniquely) the codex that was actually already different from other chapters. Some of the blame can be laid at Ward's feet as the 3++ invul stormshields really changed the balance of the game and just obviously weren't easy to balance in any troop type. A 4++ would have solved so much.

HQs that allow elites as Troops are always bad (you'd think Kelly would have learnt after Nob bikers) but Grimnar is so useful just for taking the absurdly all-rounder wolf guard as troops that his amazing personal abilities make him a no brainer and his own personal stats are just a bonus. Number of SW armies I've played against that didn't have Grimnar = 0.

Lone wolves and thunderwolves are both ridiculous in concept (suicide space wolfs and wolf cav, really?) but utterly broken because they can buy upgrades. Yeah, obviously you'd give terminator armour and a storm shield to your suicide mission troops. They are both severely problematic as they're absurdly durable.

The core of the army fails to be represented adequately. The wolf guard issue aside, the Troops choices, the backbone of the army, are pathetically matched. Number of blood claw packs I've fought against since the new book = 0.

Most of the book is horribly balance internally. Grimnar and rune priests, wolf guard and grey hunters (sometimes) for troops, lone wolves and thunderwolves for vanguar elements, long fangs for support. Most of the rest of the book lies untouched. Funny thing is, ive seen mech, footslogging and podded SW armies so in that regard there's some variety but they all revolve around the same few units.

I don't use grimnar, and I have a squad of blood claws (they're pretty good with a wolf priest without one not so much.) plus some scouts. The internal balance of the codex isn't great but part of the problem is the internets says 3 rune priests, grey hunters, and 3 long fangs are really good so people don't mess around with it much. I'll admit my wolves force is my secondary army so it has more of the units I like in it than being optimal but optimal tourney lists aren't fluffly for the most part.

Hqs that allow elites to become troops is kinda of the norm now, its one of the things that scares me for when eldar get updated cause I love not needing SCs to play a beil-tan stye army.

Wolves have a pretty strong book, at 1500 and under they're probably the best over 1500 and losing the elite slot of sargeants starts to hurt a bit, and grey knights & imp guard seem to be better at 2000+

Col. Tartleton
10-07-2011, 14:56
Space Wolves are the most powerful chapter in the fluff. There were like 13,000 Space Wolves and they were the Emperor's executioners over other loyal and larger units. All the eons have done is whittle them down to their core best marines...

Collector
10-07-2011, 17:04
I hated the wolf book since it was released.... To bad being space vikings and all I should love them.

Bestaltan
10-07-2011, 22:47
Course, I shouldn't even be posting in this thread, as I'm in the designing stages of "Orkifying" a Space Wolf army (don't want to get struck down by lightning for violating the sanctity of GW's love for the wolves with such a blasphemous idea). Can't decide on thunder-chickens, thunder-ostriches, or thunder-assorted-farm-animals, though. Thunder-bunnies are out, as I can't find bunny toys the right size.

SideshowLucifer
11-07-2011, 00:05
Well I'm not keen on the whole Thunder Wolf thing myself, nor do I care for the Lone Wolves, so I simply do not use them. My lists are hardley what people call cheesy, but they are effective since hey break the mold and a lot of meta is wasted on my army.

Wolves haven't had a good codex since 2nd edition that captures what the army should feel like, but at least this one can make a list that feels right as long as you ignore a lot of the crap in it.

Chapters Unwritten
11-07-2011, 05:37
So I guess anyone that plays an assault-heavy army is an idiot? I'll be sure to alert all daemon, Ork, and Tyranid players.......All of those armies have shooting options.


The problem with space wolves is that you can counter most other armies 250 point chunks with about 175-200 points. Those point advantages REALLY catch up during the course of a game.While it can be the case, the way to win at 40k is to NOT fight "1:1" - you should be attacking a Space Wolf unit with at least two other units. The tall tales of the vacuum encounters make it sound impossible, and one on one, it is indeed very likely that a unit of any ilk will get it's head beat in by these lot. That is why you have to gang up on them. Of course, a lot of times the Wolves players of the world use MSU and, let's be realistic, MSU Wolf units are much more manageable to kill despite popular belief.

Either way at these point sizes we are talking wargear, not more units, as an advantage. To gunfire, 60 Space Wolves are largely no harder to kill than 60 Ultramarines. The things that are free in the Space Wolf codex do not amount to as much as it is blown up on the Internet. In my list, for example, I have 3 Grey Hunter units with no Wolf Guard, in which I take a lot of extra gear. They come out pretty cheap because I go flamer-melta, which means I don't pay for those special weapons at all. But that amounts to 3 melta guns and 3 flamers in my army I didn't pay for. How many points is that, really, as an advantage? Even adding in the 10 point different between 10 GH and 10 SM models, you're still only talking about something in the ~70 point range. What is that, an extra Land Speeder?


Um, you have a whopping three units that are WS/BS 3. Hardly "almost the entire rest of the codex". You'll have to try a lot harder than that if you want to convince the rest of us that the codex has downsides.Our assault troops as WS/BS3, our Bikers are WS/BS3, and our Jump Troops are WS/BS3. We also have no heavy weapon options for anything outside of the Long Fangs or Razorbacks. Pretty much the entire army is Ld8, also. Did I mention all those WS/BS3 guys are unable to shoot their weapons without a babysitter? Or that the army gives up an Elite slot to get Ld9 Troops and any viable power fist options?

These are just the apparent disadvantages. The less apparent strategic ones are often ignored as well. I'm sorry you can't just 1:1 fight this army but that is obviously the point of it, and the entire design philosophy behind it.

Nurgling Chieftain
11-07-2011, 06:38
You really should try an argument that doesn't begin and end with "This army is fundamentally broken and you have to substantially outplay your opponent to have a chance" if you want to convince anybody.

Lord Inquisitor
11-07-2011, 06:44
I don't use grimnar, and I have a squad of blood claws (they're pretty good with a wolf priest without one not so much.) plus some scouts.
I'm willing to concede that there might indeed actually be Space Wolf players out there that use Blood Claws and no Grimnar. :) Nevertheless, out of perhaps a dozen different space wolf players I've played at game stores and tournaments since the book came out, I've not met one yet... It's not, from my anecdotal experience, exactly common anyway.


The internal balance of the codex isn't great but part of the problem is the internets says 3 rune priests, grey hunters, and 3 long fangs are really good so people don't mess around with it much.
Thing about netlists is that they frequently are the best combos in a given book.

Scammel
11-07-2011, 06:53
I'm sorry you can't just 1:1 fight this army but that is obviously the point of it, and the entire design philosophy behind it.

Sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the units are too cheap and more effective when a direct comparison with their Marine counterparts is made. To (perhaps overly) simplify the situation once again, my 200pts of troops should have a roughly 50/50 chance of defeating your equivalent troops, assuming factors such as player turn, player skill and the likes aren't favouring one over the other - but it isn't the case. Your argument doesn't sound a far departure from saying 'just learn to play better'.

vcassano
11-07-2011, 06:57
[COLOR="Magenta"]Thing about netlists is that they frequently are the best combos in a given book.

Indeed, but not necessarily the best fit for the player's particular play-style.

Lord Inquisitor
11-07-2011, 07:07
Understood. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of NOT using the standard netlist build for a variety of reasons - but sometimes you have to hold up your hands and just accept that it works pretty well. Often I find I start a new army, I never like to copy netlists and I won't even look at them, but typically I find that after a short time I have a list that does look like everyone else's - oh, so you've the usual psirifleman dreadnoughts, huh? Yeah, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that's a pretty great buy for the points.

I'm not saying I've not seen variety in the SW tournament lists I've played, but certain common themes ran through them all. Grimnar is just absurdly good for the points. I despise all HQ's that make Elite units Troops. It's just a really crappy mechanic that just produces broken lists, time after time after time.

Chapters Unwritten
11-07-2011, 07:52
Sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the units are too cheap and more effective when a direct comparison with their Marine counterparts is made. To (perhaps overly) simplify the situation once again, my 200pts of troops should have a roughly 50/50 chance of defeating your equivalent troops, assuming factors such as player turn, player skill and the likes aren't favouring one over the other - but it isn't the case. Your argument doesn't sound a far departure from saying 'just learn to play better'.Well I will ignore the fact that the closest Grey Hunter relative is the Chaos Marine, which is costed the same aside from it's gear, priced for a different time in the game's development several years ago. Another discussion for another day.

As for the points matching up...why do you think this, exactly?

200 points of guardsmen aren't likely to defeat a 200 points of.
200 points of Kroot isn't likely to beat a 200 point Land Raider.
A 200 point Librarian isn't likely to beat a 200 point Thunderwolf unit.
200 points of plague marines aren't likely to beat 200 points of Deathwing.

People only get indignant about what the internet tells them to.

Your 200 points of whatever you want doesn't stand a chance against equally costed Assault Terminators, for example, but people remain focused on things like the Grey Hunter. Yeah, they are cheaper. How much of a difference does it really make, though? I fought a very vanilla Chaos army today and he did exactly what I described earlier and gave me a real beating.

If you consider it an admission of brokenness that I suggested people use tactics to fight this army instead of just ragequitting because it's troop choice ends up 15 points cheaper than it's nearest cousins, well, to be honest I'm a bit amazed. We play a game where 5 point melta guns on a ~70 point squad are one of the best thing for blowing up 250 point tanks and people are hung up about this?

My theories remain unchanged. People hate this army because the intellectual quality of the 40k player has dwindled significantly, and people just can't fight it effectively, and so complain about it being unfair. A squad of Assault Terminators can seem pretty unfair too, if you try to fight it with a Tactical Squad.

Dark Aly
11-07-2011, 08:11
I'm not saying I've not seen variety in the SW tournament lists I've played, but certain common themes ran through them all. Grimnar is just absurdly good for the points. I despise all HQ's that make Elite units Troops. It's just a really crappy mechanic that just produces broken lists, time after time after time.

Unfortunately thats the only way I can play deathwing and my ravenwing- I have to use a SC :(

Sorry for the off topic

Scammel
11-07-2011, 08:13
Well I will ignore the fact that the closest Grey Hunter relative is the Chaos Marine, which is costed the same aside from it's gear, priced for a different time in the game's development several years ago. Another discussion for another day.

Not necessarily directed at you, because obviously you have no say in the design process - but this to me is just an excuse for imbalance. 'Unit x is old, so it doesn't matter that unit y is statistically better' irritates me to no end. That's the entire point of balance! New stuff should be on the same pegging as older stuff, not just similar to the last 3 or 4 books.

Chapters Unwritten
11-07-2011, 10:07
I would agree if it weren't literally a completely different landscape in the game at the time. Chaos is one of a handful of books that was literally admitted to as being made with a completely different design philosophy in mind.

I also find plenty of comparison with other units for the much-despised Grey Hunters. Worse leadership and no combat/chapter tactics, worse leadership, no icons, no heavy weapon options. I think people just see Counterattack, and since so few things in the game have it, they cry afoul over this, as though it is not a tradeoff for lack of other options their counterparts have that they don't.

Even barring all that, it is one unit in the book that draws most of the hate. Envy, I reckon, from the boys with more rigid armories.

Bestaltan
11-07-2011, 11:56
All of those armies have shooting options.

Not quite. All of those armies have POOR shooting options. As I play two of those three armies, I can tell you that Tyranid and Ork players cannot and do not win games based on shooting. And I've seen enough daemon players in action to know that daemon players usually don't win with shooting either.

This line alone tells me that you probably don't play any of these armies.


While it can be the case, the way to win at 40k is to NOT fight "1:1" - you should be attacking a Space Wolf unit with at least two other units.

You treat this as a tactical idea, when this is the very heart of the imbalance of the space wolf codex. With pretty much any other space marine codex, you CAN win fights against their other unit 1 on 1.

Do you honestly think that a unit (grey hunters) that has space marine stats, transport options, the ability to take a number of close range fire options, the ability to augment its assault capabilities with things like the wolf standard, mark of the wulfen, etc, the ability to take incredibly strong "sergeants" in the form of wolf guard (who they can sprinkle throughout the army), AND can get 30 attacks (for a 10-man squad) when THEY are charged is balanced? All for less points than a standard space marine tactical squad?


Our assault troops as WS/BS3

Wrong. Your blood claws are those stats. Your grey hunters get the exact same number of attacks as blood claws, for the exact same price. With better assault options. Your grey hunters are your assault unit.



We also have no heavy weapon options for anything outside of the Long Fangs or Razorbacks.

Have you even bothered to look at your codex? Wolf guard can take missile launchers. Wolf scouts can take missile launchers. Dreadnoughts have access to all typical ranged weapons. Land speeders have access to missile launchers. And you have predators.


Or that the army gives up an Elite slot to get Ld9 Troops and any viable power fist options?

I'm honestly beginning to think you are just trolling at this point. All non-named HQ choices can take power fists. So can lone wolves, grey hunters, blood claws, thunderwold cav, swiftclaws, skyclaws. Heck, even longfangs can take power fists.

SideshowLucifer
11-07-2011, 12:19
Odd, the army I have the most issues with is the Nids since they pour tons of gunfire from their gaunts into my Wolves. I'd also likely have issues with any other army that was not designed as a mech army or one that focused on anti-infantry rather then anti-armor.

Wolves play outside of the meta, which means the normal armies people build fr tournies have issues agaisnt them since those armies are built to defeat different types of armies.

All of this is ignoring the horrible thunderwolves of course. I'd so much rather have my lemun russes back then those stupid wolf-riding cav.

Scammel
11-07-2011, 12:30
Not quite. All of those armies have POOR shooting options. As I play two of those three armies, I can tell you that Tyranid and Ork players cannot and do not win games based on shooting. And I've seen enough daemon players in action to know that daemon players usually don't win with shooting either.

Agree with the Daemons, but not the other 2. I also play greenskins and one of my most frequent opponents is 'Nids and whilst it's true that neither win games or deliver the killing blow through shooting, it's far from poor or ineffective. Shootas, Deffguns, Dakkaguns and Grotzookas are all very potent and Zoans and Hive Guard never fail to be an absolute pain in the neck.

orkmiester
11-07-2011, 12:44
@Bestaltan


Wrong. Your blood claws are those stats. Your grey hunters get the exact same number of attacks as blood claws, for the exact same price. With better assault options. Your grey hunters are your assault unit.

no they don't- on the charge a GH has 3 and a blood claw has 4... hardly broken now is it:rolleyes:

as has been said most of this is the fault of the players using the dex itself- and i like blood claws they've got me out of a sticky situation more than once. Indeed it would be interesting to collect all the 'abusive' lists of all the 'prime suspects' at the moment and then say at a tournament 'sorry folks you can't use these lists- anti cheese policy' imagine the fallout:evilgrin:

of course the current SW codex is better than it was but many people are hell bent on winning by any means hence the gripes over certain army builds:eyebrows: Indeed i am a bit miffed that they removed the option to take a 'hq dreadnought' aside from the SC one (i forget his name) which was fluffy, i would have liked that... Anyway it is no different to most of the others these days- the BA are slightly mad in my opinion.

To those who said marines should come from one book- problem- it would 'work' but then you could hack everyone off as things have to suffer leading to accusations that GW killed of so and so...

On another note other game systems show stuff like this differently especially when it comes down to force selection- in some cases it saddles players with what would be considered 'useless' units but in the long run it forces players to adapt- not select the 'easy' option.

that's funny imagine if the codex said 'when selecting an army it MUST include one unit of Grey hunters and Blood claws' there that has screwed up many lists at a stroke...


in short- good dex- pity the 'player's' took it further than 'was intended' as is the case with many things in 40k.

Castigator
11-07-2011, 12:56
in short- good dex- pity the 'player's' took it further than 'was intended' as is the case with many things in 40k.

I am sorry, but I think you got it the exact wrong way. The current Wolves Codex by and large encourages a (for Wolves) unfluffy and counter-intuitive gameplay of no-need-to-assault-ourselves-gunline-spam with some optional wound-allocation shenenigans.

Yes, players (especially those remembering the older, somewhat more sensible wolves) hell-bend on playing it fluffy can forgoe the blatantly obvious imbalances, fluff-travesties and, last but not least, horrible, horrible fluff of Mowgli-Marines, Grant-theft-Thunderhawk-Marines and Sub-Marine-Wolf-Cavalry-Marines. But they do so inspite of what the current Codex gives them, not by divining some hidden streak of good intention mysteriously hidden within it.

Good players can make it work if they are willing to put the effort in it (though it is easier with other books; e.g. Blood Angels or Grey Knights, which may have some madness added to them, but largely encourage you to play like, well, Blood Angels or Grey Knights, and thus allow more synergy for players making an "effort" to play them fluffy).

The current Wolves-Codex is still a POS sans equal in the 5th Edition of 40K (ok, not counting IG perhaps).

althathir
11-07-2011, 13:27
I am sorry, but I think you got it the exact wrong way. The current Wolves Codex by and large encourages a (for Wolves) unfluffy and counter-intuitive gameplay of no-need-to-assault-ourselves-gunline-spam with some optional wound-allocation shenenigans.

Yes, players (especially those remembering the older, somewhat more sensible wolves) hell-bend on playing it fluffy can forgoe the blatantly obvious imbalances, fluff-travesties and, last but not least, horrible, horrible fluff of Mowgli-Marines, Grant-theft-Thunderhawk-Marines and Sub-Marine-Wolf-Cavalry-Marines. But they do so inspite of what the current Codex gives them, not by divining some hidden streak of good intention mysteriously hidden within it.

Good players can make it work if they are willing to put the effort in it (though it is easier with other books; e.g. Blood Angels or Grey Knights, which may have some madness added to them, but largely encourage you to play like, well, Blood Angels or Grey Knights, and thus allow more synergy for players making an "effort" to play them fluffy).

The current Wolves-Codex is still a POS sans equal in the 5th Edition of 40K (ok, not counting IG perhaps).

I don't know i mean wolves had counter attack, and its long fangs could split fire before the newest dex (though they didn't have counterattack). Several armies abuse wound allocation rules, so thats nothing new, and the dex encourages people to do so.

Space Wolves are a straight forward army, and people will either hate those armies or think they suck. Right now they're hated, for the most part I don't think wolves are broken so much as they make bad players better by being forgiving.

Grey Knights are a fluff travesty of epic proportions though wolves have some funny units. I mean theres only supposed to be like 30-40 purifers but if you take crowe you can have an army of them :wtf:, and draigo's fluff is amazingly bad.

GrogDaTyrant
11-07-2011, 15:47
Not quite. All of those armies have POOR shooting options. As I play two of those three armies, I can tell you that Tyranid and Ork players cannot and do not win games based on shooting.

That's news to me... The only problem I've ever had with Ork shooting, is AV 13+. And that's largely due to the issues of having a 4th ed codex and a writer who really hated Zzap Guns and Ork main-battle tanks.

In fact with the onset of Orks being a 'cannon-fodder combat' army, I personally think the preferred method is to go the shoota route. Why loose excess casualties due to swinging last (always) and horribly unbalanced core rules (such as No Retreat!)? Mow down your targets with fire saturation, and charge only when you're guaranteed to wreck their day. The versatility of units like Shoota boys should not be underestimated. Besides that with Grot Screens, KFFs and Fearless, it's not like you should be worried about getting shot at.

Jayden63
11-07-2011, 17:09
Another thread about the wolves, another 4 pages filled with hate.

I find that SW in the codex fight exactly how their fluff says that they fight. Short range firefights with a few awesome heros to help turn the combat battle. Long range support given by specialists. SW have always had the ability to take psychers (even thou they are hated). Clearly people don't remember the incomparable hurt that Ruin Priests used to put out in HTH. Now they pretty much suck in HTH and do their killing at range. Methods might change, but the results are the same.

If the people in your area are talking 4 Ruin Priests, thats their choice, it is not the fault of the codex. The SW special characters are all pimped out killing machines because they are supposed to be pimped out and cost appropriately for it.

Don't blame the Grey Hunter for having counter charge. He has always had counter charge, blame the core rules for allowing all armies everywhere to pile in and as such having to give counter charge the +1 attack ability. Now what happens in 6th ed. When counter charge gets a wording change?

Yeah there are some things in the book that probably shouldn't be there, but they also took away some fun toys. I myself have never used JOTWW, but I can conceed how it might feel a bit dodgy. However, I've never heard a single complaint about JOTWW from a BA DOA army, eldar army, Dark eldar army, IG chimera wall army, WH army, etc.

wbarretw
11-07-2011, 19:23
I actually joined warseer just now, cause this was so entertaining to read !
Just wanted to say -anyone remember the old spacewolves from the rogue trader? they were actually cool ;P
I very much agree with you guys who says its the players fault for picking boring armies.
And never underestimate the power of marketing guys. Spacemarines are the frontfigures and sell best. Why some pick the only chapter with ugly marines is beyond me .. (i guess jes goodwin was busy beeing awesome elsewhere)
Anyway ..nice to join this forum!

Dont hate the wolves, kill them with demolishers :P

Elenneth89
11-07-2011, 19:55
Another thread about the wolves, another 4 pages filled with hate.

I find that SW in the codex fight exactly how their fluff says that they fight. Short range firefights with a few awesome heros to help turn the combat battle. Long range support given by specialists. SW have always had the ability to take psychers (even thou they are hated). Clearly people don't remember the incomparable hurt that Ruin Priests used to put out in HTH. Now they pretty much suck in HTH and do their killing at range. Methods might change, but the results are the same.

If the people in your area are talking 4 Ruin Priests, thats their choice, it is not the fault of the codex. The SW special characters are all pimped out killing machines because they are supposed to be pimped out and cost appropriately for it.

Don't blame the Grey Hunter for having counter charge. He has always had counter charge, blame the core rules for allowing all armies everywhere to pile in and as such having to give counter charge the +1 attack ability. Now what happens in 6th ed. When counter charge gets a wording change?

Yeah there are some things in the book that probably shouldn't be there, but they also took away some fun toys. I myself have never used JOTWW, but I can conceed how it might feel a bit dodgy. However, I've never heard a single complaint about JOTWW from a BA DOA army, eldar army, Dark eldar army, IG chimera wall army, WH army, etc.

+1 to Jayden63. i started playing SW about 1 years ago and i always used units that i like, fluffy/not fluffy, cheesy/not cheesy and i don't care about what people say. if i want to use 90 BC, 4 RP, 18 LF and thousand of razors i use them, redargless the opinions of the opponent. the codex may be not balanced but this is what we have.

if you like good for you, if not keep away from it, don't play againt us, nobody force you. if you have complaints, send them to GW and to phil kelly. if you have the misfortune to play against people who make only cheesy lists and kick your ***, go cry to your moms... you only show to be a not so good general who cannot face a defeat.

Castigator
11-07-2011, 20:07
+1 to Jayden63. i started playing SW about 1 years ago and i always used units that i like, fluffy/not fluffy, cheesy/not cheesy and i don't care about what people say. if i want to use 90 BC, 4 RP, 18 LF and thousand of razors i use them, redargless the opinions of the opponent. the codex may be not balanced but this is what we have.

if you like good for you, if not keep away from it, don't play againt us, nobody force you. if you have complaints, send them to GW and to phil kelly. if you have the misfortune to play against people who make only cheesy lists and kick your ***, go cry to your moms... you only show to be a not so good general who cannot face a defeat.

/shrug

If you don't care either way for balance, why bother reading/posting in discussions of people that do.

Also, winning with/losing against Space Wolves tells you nothing about your skill as a "general" or tactician. I don't even think losing against Wolves is the worst of it. The crux of the matter is that it's the victories Space Wolves fans get betrayed of by the abomination that is the current book. Everytime a Space Wolf player wins, he win because of a poorly, written list that isn't sitting square with the rest of the game; not due to any skill or competency. Everytime a Space Wolf player loses, he loses despite being given an unfair head-start and yet he fails. No matter what you do, as long as the Space Wolf Codex isn't updated, any skill or talent you have at the game of 40K will be utterly lost and wasted if you play Space Wolves.

In short; for people playing against Wolves, its a nuisance and a wasted 2 hours. For Space Wolve players/fans, the current book is a mighty kick in the crown jewels, stripping them of any chance for self-respect and honest achievement they could ever hope to achieve with their army.

Jayden63
11-07-2011, 20:38
/shrug

If you don't care either way for balance, why bother reading/posting in discussions of people that do.

Also, winning with/losing against Space Wolves tells you nothing about your skill as a "general" or tactician. I don't even think losing against Wolves is the worst of it. The crux of the matter is that it's the victories Space Wolves fans get betrayed of by the abomination that is the current book. Everytime a Space Wolf player wins, he win because of a poorly, written list that isn't sitting square with the rest of the game; not due to any skill or competency. Everytime a Space Wolf player loses, he loses despite being given an unfair head-start and yet he fails. No matter what you do, as long as the Space Wolf Codex isn't updated, any skill or talent you have at the game of 40K will be utterly lost and wasted if you play Space Wolves.

In short; for people playing against Wolves, its a nuisance and a wasted 2 hours. For Space Wolve players/fans, the current book is a mighty kick in the crown jewels, stripping them of any chance for self-respect and honest achievement they could ever hope to achieve with their army.

Wow... just did a spit take - that doesn't happen very often. You honestly feel that there is self respect and achievement in the game side of 40K?

ALL outcomes in 40K are based on luck. Yeah there better choices that could be made, but at the end of the day every single game is determined by luck. If the dice don't want you to win, you will never win a game. That's not even considering the other things such as bad core rules, non universal standardized terrain, non uniform figure design, unregulated measuring devices, and above all outcomes determined by the roll of the dice on non standardized surfaces.

Your saying that every player who ever deploys a SW army, regardless of composition, regardless of 100s of hours of painting and assembling, regardless of trying to play a game for fun has no self respect. Wow... just wait until you have to pay taxes. You think the codecs are unfair, wait until you read the tax code for people with different income amounts.

Life isn't fair. Get over it. Those who play SW because they genuinely like the fluff, figure design, even something as trifle as the codex color. Have every right to play the codex and keep whatever dignity they choose to bring to the hobby.

Bestaltan
11-07-2011, 21:00
Those who play SW because they genuinely like the fluff, figure design, even something as trifle as the codex color. Have every right to play the codex and keep whatever dignity they choose to bring to the hobby.

I agree. I also know who those players are. They are the folks I know in my area that either were playing wolves before the codex, or actually do play units that they like.

Sadly, that's maybe 3-4 people here in my region. The other 15-20 that play space wolves around here..........3 long fang squads, razorback spam, thunderwolf cav. All of them.

They have every right to play that. We have every right to get frustrated and irritated at their WAAC personalities.

ihavetoomuchminis
11-07-2011, 21:03
And i have yet to see one of those who fields 90 BC, 4RP, 18 LF and plenty of razorbacks..... ¬¬

Bestaltan
11-07-2011, 21:08
And i have yet to see one of those who fields 90 BC, 4RP, 18 LF and plenty of razorbacks..... ¬¬

I've certainly seen the 36 GH, 9 razorbacks, 2+ RP, and 18 LF. That's a staple at most regional and national tournaments now.

Lord Inquisitor
11-07-2011, 21:15
Also, winning with/losing against Space Wolves tells you nothing about your skill as a "general" or tactician. I don't even think losing against Wolves is the worst of it. The crux of the matter is that it's the victories Space Wolves fans get betrayed of by the abomination that is the current book. Everytime a Space Wolf player wins, he win because of a poorly, written list that isn't sitting square with the rest of the game; not due to any skill or competency.
Wow.


ALL outcomes in 40K are based on luck. Yeah there better choices that could be made, but at the end of the day every single game is determined by luck. If the dice don't want you to win, you will never win a game. That's not even considering the other things such as bad core rules, non universal standardized terrain, non uniform figure design, unregulated measuring devices, and above all outcomes determined by the roll of the dice on non standardized surfaces.
And wow.

I don't even get the points you two are trying to make but I disagree vehemently with these two perspectives.

No, Space Wolves are not an "auto-win" button. I've beaten three max-cheese SW armies at last year's Ard Boyz with my all Slaanesh supposedly underpowered Chaos army. They're tough and can be annoying but they're certainly not markedly overpowered compared with Guard or GK for example. The internal balance is downright shoddy and the point of this thread is that such competitive armies aren't "fluffy" but as a whole, the external balance of SW is not so bad. If you think they're an auto-win button, you need to get out and play in some real competitions.

No, the game isn't pure random chance. Of course the dice control the game but the dice roll average if you roll enough of them. The same people win tournaments time after time because they're good at the game. This is typically a combination of conventional tactics in-game, list building, knowledge of the game and special-rule-stacking. All take skill or experience. Good players do well at tournaments and while the occasional run of bad luck can happen and ruin a tournament game, luck typically doesn't play much of a part except where players play with equal skill.

It's pretty sad that you two don't place any value on the skill of the game when the outcome is determined entirely by list or dice! Why play at all?


I've certainly seen the 36 GH, 9 razorbacks, 2+ RP, and 18 LF. That's a staple at most regional and national tournaments now.
...And Grimnar. ;) Often substituting some of those GH for WG. Yes, I've played against such lists at tournaments. I also see the SW foot horde often - many units of WG with cyclone missile launchers, thundercav and lone wolves. With Grimnar.

Jayden63
11-07-2011, 21:15
I agree. I also know who those players are. They are the folks I know in my area that either were playing wolves before the codex, or actually do play units that they like.

Sadly, that's maybe 3-4 people here in my region. The other 15-20 that play space wolves around here..........3 long fang squads, razorback spam, thunderwolf cav. All of them.

They have every right to play that. We have every right to get frustrated and irritated at their WAAC personalities.

Sadly I've also never played against a Salamander army that didn't field assault terminators and Melta/HF speeders.

Some things just show up in every (insert army name here) list. There are some units that just work and work well. So naturally people take them. Yes you could take 60 tactical marines in a BA army. I don't know anyone who does though. Its just the way the game works.

Jayden63
11-07-2011, 21:24
No, the game isn't pure random chance. Of course the dice control the game but the dice roll average if you roll enough of them. The same people win tournaments time after time because they're good at the game. This is typically a combination of conventional tactics in-game, list building, knowledge of the game and special-rule-stacking. All take skill or experience. Good players do well at tournaments and while the occasional run of bad luck can happen and ruin a tournament game, luck typically doesn't play much of a part except where players play with equal skill.

It's pretty sad that you two don't place any value on the skill of the game when the outcome is determined entirely by list or dice! Why play at all?

There is skill knowing what to shoot, what to assault, how to multi-assault when to begin moving towards objectives, etc. But you said it yourself.


Good players do well at tournaments and while the occasional run of bad luck can happen and ruin a tournament game, luck typically doesn't play much of a part except where players play with equal skill.

Its safe to bet that at the top tables of any tournament relative skill between players is probably equal. So why does one win and one loose? Luck. How many times have you read a battle report where some side complains that they couldn't hit squat, or that some other point 9 out of 10 5+ saves were made. When the results go against the probability that's luck.

Yes over the long haul it all averages out, but if the dice turn on your for one game (hell even just one turn can be enough against equal skilled opponents), that loss can kick you out of the top tables, or give you that loss on any given Saturday afternoon.

Why do I play the game if its all based on luck. Same reason why I play 21, craps, roulette, even rock paper scissors. Because the chance of winning is too good to pass up. I feel that my skill level is on par with anyone in my area. If I win, I win, if I loose I loose, if I had fun (regardless of outcome) I win.

Lets be honest. You know when the dice are working for you, and you know when they are working against your oppoent. Yeah you win, but really was it your skill that let you wipe out that unit of marines, or the fact that the guy somehow failed 10 3+ saves when you only had to stick 15 wounds onto it.

Voss
11-07-2011, 21:51
As for the points matching up...why do you think this, exactly?

200 points of guardsmen aren't likely to defeat a 200 points of.
200 points of Kroot isn't likely to beat a 200 point Land Raider.
A 200 point Librarian isn't likely to beat a 200 point Thunderwolf unit.
200 points of plague marines aren't likely to beat 200 points of Deathwing.

People only get indignant about what the internet tells them to.


Apparently what we should get indignant about is the fact that the points system is completely meaningless, aye?

SideshowLucifer
11-07-2011, 22:33
As far as second edition, space wolves have been famous for being a shooty army that fights you. I don't see any difference from now, outside of a few bad units.

althathir
12-07-2011, 00:28
/shrug

If you don't care either way for balance, why bother reading/posting in discussions of people that do.

Also, winning with/losing against Space Wolves tells you nothing about your skill as a "general" or tactician. I don't even think losing against Wolves is the worst of it. The crux of the matter is that it's the victories Space Wolves fans get betrayed of by the abomination that is the current book. Everytime a Space Wolf player wins, he win because of a poorly, written list that isn't sitting square with the rest of the game; not due to any skill or competency. Everytime a Space Wolf player loses, he loses despite being given an unfair head-start and yet he fails. No matter what you do, as long as the Space Wolf Codex isn't updated, any skill or talent you have at the game of 40K will be utterly lost and wasted if you play Space Wolves.

In short; for people playing against Wolves, its a nuisance and a wasted 2 hours. For Space Wolve players/fans, the current book is a mighty kick in the crown jewels, stripping them of any chance for self-respect and honest achievement they could ever hope to achieve with their army.

:wtf:, a post like this makes me ignore any legimate points you've made before it. Space wolves are good, they're in the top tier with IG, BA, and GK but they're not unbeatable and if its waste of time to play them, then that applies to other forces listed above so you know a 1/3 of the armies.

Regardless the WAAC crowd seems to like BA and GK more (IG as well at higher point levels.), and with GK being a hard counter to the 3 rune priest, GH, 3 long fang list I expect that to continue.

Fear Itself
12-07-2011, 01:06
Everytime a Space Wolf player wins, he win because of a poorly, written list that isn't sitting square with the rest of the game; not due to any skill or competency. Everytime a Space Wolf player loses, he loses despite being given an unfair head-start and yet he fails. No matter what you do, as long as the Space Wolf Codex isn't updated, any skill or talent you have at the game of 40K will be utterly lost and wasted if you play Space Wolves.

Well, congratulations are in order.

This is the biggest load of textual vomit to grace Warseer in a while.

If you truly believe this, why not quit the game?

Shadow Nugz
12-07-2011, 05:15
A bit late on here but here's my couple cents:

I've always felt that the SW were more of a stacker army. You stick a Wolf Lord with TLLC in a land raider with 15 Blood Claws and Lukas, you're going to see someone take a deuce in their pants. They have the feel of going all or nothing.

Of course this could be my many years of reading SW stories speaking but nonetheless.

Lord Inquisitor
12-07-2011, 05:43
Its safe to bet that at the top tables of any tournament relative skill between players is probably equal.
Top tables. They went through 4-5 rounds of opponents to get there and the same people get to the top tables every time. The tournament is not determined by luck alone - it is by player skill foremost and luck plays a role.


So why does one win and one loose? Luck.
Sometimes. Sometimes its a case of advantages garnered through specific army matchups and paper/rock/scissors army list elements. Even at top tables one player is often better or a player makes a critical mistake. Or, very importantly, they play to a draw or a minor loss/win because they are evenly matched. I refuse to accept that top tournament games are just a coin toss.


Lets be honest. You know when the dice are working for you, and you know when they are working against your oppoent. Yeah you win, but really was it your skill that let you wipe out that unit of marines, or the fact that the guy somehow failed 10 3+ saves when you only had to stick 15 wounds onto it.
Take someone new to the game and put them against a tournament winner. See how much effect pure blind luck has on the outcome of the game.

Luck plays its part but it is a negligible effect when the discrepancy between player skill is high. Even with two expert players, games are just as often won by a clever move by one player than a moment of sheer luck. I won't say I have never lost a tournament game and thought "that was just sheer luck on your part, that never should have worked!" ... but very rarely. More often I think "damn, I screwed up" or congratulate my opponent on an excellent game.

In any case, let's say I accept that top tournament games are down to luck as the players are so evenly matched. A single re-roll could tip the balance quite considerably! Surely if games are luck-based then GW offering people to buy better luck is even worse when thought of that way...

Hellebore
12-07-2011, 06:04
Space wolves were my first army in 1993 - wolves, vikings, axes, beards in space = win. Put simply.


But I have disliked their rules since 3rd edition. I think one of the single biggest problems they have is counter attack. This rule just does not work. In 2nd ed they simply had higher WS than other marines - hell a blood claw was WS5...

Space wolves are good in melee, not defensive in melee. They are skilled with weapons and enjoy melee, plunging into the fray. But counter attack from a purely gaming perspective, encourages defensive play because it REWARDS defensive play the most. It gives no advantage to initiating charges and in fact grants a double bonus taking the charge because you double tap before they do, something you can't do before you charge.

I think a lot of the character of the army would improve if they changed the counter attack to something else. It would make blood claws assault marines again and grey hunters would still be tactical marines. And of course getting rid of the derpwolf cavalry (at most I'd accept them as 'pet' thunder wolves running alongside a handler on a bike or something).

Maybe they get +1WS on the charge. Not a massive bonus and not useful all the time, but it rewards aggressive play rather than defensive play. Grey hunters lose ccw, but they will be WS5 on the charge which might make them more inclined to do so than stand and shoot.

All I know is that I found myself from 3rd onwards playing defensively to get the best use out of the rules and my space wolves started acting like dark angels. Dark angels being intractable and not retreating etc - well counter attack is a perfect representation of that kind of nature. Not the active hunter coursing for blood and bringing apart the enemy in coordinated strikes until their throat is bared.

Hellebore

Lord Solar Plexus
12-07-2011, 08:49
I don't see the issue. Space Wolves have never been portrayed as berserk charging anything that moves regardless. They have for ages been portrayed as hunters and stalkers. The new recruits, the young and impetuous Blood Claws are the former but GH or even Long Fangs, while ferocious brawlers, were always much more cautious and planning, shadowing their prey patiently if must be and luring it into a cunning trap.

innerwolf
12-07-2011, 09:53
I don't see the issue. Space Wolves have never been portrayed as berserk charging anything that moves regardless. They have for ages been portrayed as hunters and stalkers. The new recruits, the young and impetuous Blood Claws are the former but GH or even Long Fangs, while ferocious brawlers, were always much more cautious and planning, shadowing their prey patiently if must be and luring it into a cunning trap.

I agree. Space Wolves are supposed to reflect the traits of wolves (and vikings, but that's another story). Unlike the wolves portrayed in tales and literature in general, wolves are ferocious, yes, but not rabid maniacs which attack anything in sight. In fact wolves are pretty lackluster as predators in "close combat" skills, outclassed one-on-one by bears, big cats... What make them special is their intelligence and cunning tactics.

In addition, I can't see the problem with "derpwolf":eyebrows: cavalry. People should keep in mind Fenrisian wolves are very different to Terran ones, and their name come from a superficial likeness. It get even more clear for Thunderwolves. They aren't simply scaled up canids (which would never be able to carry so much weight on their backs due to their anatomy). They are described and portrayed as rhinoceros-proportioned beasts. One can imagine their skelleton built at least more like a bear than a wolf, and with sturdy ungulate backbones in the best case.

With their admiration and devotion for wolves, don't you think it's logical that if a Space Wolf knew he could ride a Thunderwolf, he would try to bond with one to use it's power? With the "shock and awe" phylosophy of the Astartes such a unit would perfectly fit.

Maybe Thunderwolves would have fitted better as some kind of surveillance unit, like scouts on steroids, instead of as shock troops exposed to every kind of anti-tank fire being able to disable them. But as they are, i don't think they are illogical enough to deserve that kind of hatred.

ex-green
12-07-2011, 09:57
I think the thing about Thunderwolves is that there has never been any mention about them in any codex before or even in any book written as yet. So comming from nowhere to one of the most common/effective units seems strange.

Freman Bloodglaive
12-07-2011, 10:15
No mention of Sanguinary Guard either, or Librarian dreadnoughts.

Games Workshop is a model making company. Their rules are designed solely to sell more models. I'm only surprised that they haven't released thunderwolf models yet.

I've played Wolves since second edition, and only recently turned to playing a marine bike army. Wolves are good and I'm having to unlearn a lot of my habits (like charging into combat) in order to play Codex Marines. They are also forgiving, even more so than normal marines.

RandomThoughts
12-07-2011, 10:38
A bit late on here but here's my couple cents:

I've always felt that the SW were more of a stacker army. You stick a Wolf Lord with TLLC in a land raider with 15 Blood Claws and Lukas, you're going to see someone take a deuce in their pants. They have the feel of going all or nothing.

Of course this could be my many years of reading SW stories speaking but nonetheless.

I think what you describe is a Deathstar unit and I hate them because they leave no room for finesse, for target priorization, for careful maneuvering and charging key units, you just can't wield a scalpell against an army built around these and that's the playstyle I enjoy. :cries:

innerwolf
12-07-2011, 10:40
I think the thing about Thunderwolves is that there has never been any mention about them in any codex before or even in any book written as yet. So comming from nowhere to one of the most common/effective units seems strange.

Even if it means changing previous fluff, some new units (while they make any sense) have to be introduced to keep the armies fresh. Playing an army through 3 editions with the same armylist could become tedious.
In addition, GW decided to make their licenses stronger by adding very characteristic units to each army, getting further from generic fantasy/sci-fi. Ironically enough, one of those units (TW cavalry) didn't get GW models and other companies are getting profits by selling their own.

Abaraxas
12-07-2011, 11:50
I think the thing about Thunderwolves is that there has never been any mention about them in any codex before or even in any book written as yet. So comming from nowhere to one of the most common/effective units seems strange.

Well IT was mentioned in the 2nd ed codex, as (according to legend) one of the great wolves that Russ defeated,continues to run from him to this day and is a constellation and creates the thunder and lightning on Fenris...but sorry, marines riding wolves is way too much for me.

Hellebore
12-07-2011, 12:02
I don't see the issue. Space Wolves have never been portrayed as berserk charging anything that moves regardless. They have for ages been portrayed as hunters and stalkers. The new recruits, the young and impetuous Blood Claws are the former but GH or even Long Fangs, while ferocious brawlers, were always much more cautious and planning, shadowing their prey patiently if must be and luring it into a cunning trap.

No they haven't been portrayed as berserkers (except the blood claws who specifically are). Their first portrayal also didn't display them as standing around waiting for the enemy to charge them either. They were simply better skilled in melee than other space marines.

The counter attack rule has a very intrusive effect on space wolf game tactics and does not portray them as active warriors. As its bonuses are only useful when standing still it makes space wolf armies far less mobile and hunty/stalky.

Wolves don't wait for their prey to come to them, they hunt them, stalk them, separate them and then eventually wear them down over hours or even days of harrying.

If a wolf actually acted like the rules given in the codex space wolves (and as everyone is trying to 'background' them up to 'justify' counter attack) then they'd starve waiting for prey to come to them.

From day dot space wolves were not 'stay on the defensive and wait for the enemy to come to them' types whose greatest strength was not moving. They were the space marines with the most freedom who enjoyed melee more than ranged combat and were very good at it. Being a skilled melee fighter ≠ counter attack.



Hellebore

Buchy
12-07-2011, 12:59
Space wolves were my first army in 1993 - wolves, vikings, axes, beards in space = win. Put simply.


But I have disliked their rules since 3rd edition. I think one of the single biggest problems they have is counter attack. This rule just does not work. In 2nd ed they simply had higher WS than other marines - hell a blood claw was WS5...

Space wolves are good in melee, not defensive in melee. They are skilled with weapons and enjoy melee, plunging into the fray. But counter attack from a purely gaming perspective, encourages defensive play because it REWARDS defensive play the most. It gives no advantage to initiating charges and in fact grants a double bonus taking the charge because you double tap before they do, something you can't do before you charge.

I think a lot of the character of the army would improve if they changed the counter attack to something else. It would make blood claws assault marines again and grey hunters would still be tactical marines. And of course getting rid of the derpwolf cavalry (at most I'd accept them as 'pet' thunder wolves running alongside a handler on a bike or something).

Maybe they get +1WS on the charge. Not a massive bonus and not useful all the time, but it rewards aggressive play rather than defensive play. Grey hunters lose ccw, but they will be WS5 on the charge which might make them more inclined to do so than stand and shoot.

All I know is that I found myself from 3rd onwards playing defensively to get the best use out of the rules and my space wolves started acting like dark angels. Dark angels being intractable and not retreating etc - well counter attack is a perfect representation of that kind of nature. Not the active hunter coursing for blood and bringing apart the enemy in coordinated strikes until their throat is bared.

Hellebore

Thought I would quote this as well.

I remember in Rogue Trader the little Wolf fluff was fun and that is what interested me.

In 2nd edition they were the first marine codex launched iirc, and they had WS5 and BS5 on the long fangs. This did encourage you to assault and get stuck in.

Then in true GW fashion, Blood Angels codex launched and they were even better in close combat...

In short, GW destroyed the SW fluff through trying to make every following marine chapter even more "badass" with it's codex.

althathir
12-07-2011, 23:08
Space wolves were my first army in 1993 - wolves, vikings, axes, beards in space = win. Put simply.


But I have disliked their rules since 3rd edition. I think one of the single biggest problems they have is counter attack. This rule just does not work. In 2nd ed they simply had higher WS than other marines - hell a blood claw was WS5...

Space wolves are good in melee, not defensive in melee. They are skilled with weapons and enjoy melee, plunging into the fray. But counter attack from a purely gaming perspective, encourages defensive play because it REWARDS defensive play the most. It gives no advantage to initiating charges and in fact grants a double bonus taking the charge because you double tap before they do, something you can't do before you charge.

I think a lot of the character of the army would improve if they changed the counter attack to something else. It would make blood claws assault marines again and grey hunters would still be tactical marines. And of course getting rid of the derpwolf cavalry (at most I'd accept them as 'pet' thunder wolves running alongside a handler on a bike or something).

Maybe they get +1WS on the charge. Not a massive bonus and not useful all the time, but it rewards aggressive play rather than defensive play. Grey hunters lose ccw, but they will be WS5 on the charge which might make them more inclined to do so than stand and shoot.

All I know is that I found myself from 3rd onwards playing defensively to get the best use out of the rules and my space wolves started acting like dark angels. Dark angels being intractable and not retreating etc - well counter attack is a perfect representation of that kind of nature. Not the active hunter coursing for blood and bringing apart the enemy in coordinated strikes until their throat is bared.

Hellebore


I do think that counterattack does encourage defensive play, but it doesn't mean you have to play defensively with them. I started space wolves cause I wanted an elite CC army, that wouldn't be to similiar to my eldar. I'll admit my army has little in common with most netlists and really isn't geared to top level play but there is nothing stopping you from playing the army how you want too.

As for TWC, they bother me less and less. I mean they're described as having more in common with rhino than a canine, and that makes it slightly more bearable because little in 40k actually makes sense.


I think the thing about Thunderwolves is that there has never been any mention about them in any codex before or even in any book written as yet. So comming from nowhere to one of the most common/effective units seems strange.

IME they're not that common, they don't have a model. I think they're solid unit ruleswise, but I think th & ss termies are better.


I think what you describe is a Deathstar unit and I hate them because they leave no room for finesse, for target priorization, for careful maneuvering and charging key units, you just can't wield a scalpell against an army built around these and that's the playstyle I enjoy. :cries:
l
Thing is most deathstars tend to be horrible, and a few scalpells work better than relying on your own. Granted I know you play eldar (foot eldar at that), and are relatively new to the game but trust me Deathstar armies struggle againist good MSU armies.

Stealin' Genes
13-07-2011, 00:21
I don't think the most competitive levels of play of any edition of 40k has ever resembled the way the fluff describes war in the 41st millennium. This edition is no different.

Space Wolves being a largely defensive shooting army isn't any sillier than the top tier lists of editions past: Space Marines spamming assault cannons, Eldar eschewing any unit that can't carry a starcannon, armies of BA scouts with powerfist sergeants to maximize death company size, the once-ubiquitous 6-man las/plas marine squad. For a 5e example, the fluff usually describes 40k as a war of boots on the ground, not battles between lines of rhinos filled with infantry under strict orders to never willingly leave their APC's hull. All sorts of weird things happen when the game gets reduced to optimized lists at the top levels of competition.

40k's never been very good at encouraging you to play an army the way the designers intended; there's always an exploitable mechanic, and you always end up with a list that's effective, dangerous, efficient, and will win you many games. It just looks and feels nothing at all like the army you started playing.

SgtTaters
13-07-2011, 02:02
I don't see the issue. Space Wolves have never been portrayed as berserk charging .... much more cautious and planning, shadowing their prey patiently if must be and luring it into a cunning trap.

but counterattack is a defensive trait. it is more the ability of prey and herd animals

If they were the Space Caribou it would make sense, then Counterattack would be the defensive array of antlers to ward off predator's charges. Guided by the wisdom of the Hoof Priests who command the elements of the Great Tundra that the Caribou migrate across and the support of veteran Long Antlers that guard the Herd from afar, while headstrong Young Bucks charge in.

now I want to play Space Caribou


I don't think the most competitive levels of play of any edition of 40k has ever resembled the way the fluff describes war in the 41st millennium. This edition is no different.
Eldar were. Eldar cheese revolved around superior weapons, superior technology, superior speed, superior psychics, armies of aspect warriors, and so on. All fitting to fluff hahah


Yeah, counterattack needs to be REMOVED from wolves, (give that to Dark Angels). Replace it with a wolfish pursuit ability
Space wolves get a bonus to catching fleeing prey in assault, that's very wolf-hunty isn't it?
Blood angels are berserkers
Codex marines are tacticians
Dark Angels are gunfighters
and Space Wolves are pursuit hunters.

Jayden63
13-07-2011, 02:09
The fault is not that SW have counter attack. They have always had counter attack. Its that the rule itself gives +1 attack when charged. That where its wrong.

I'll be willing to bet that counter attack gets a whole new wording when 6th ed comes out.

Also I have never heard a single Tau player complain about SW and counter attack. :) There are somethings in 40K that you just don't charge into HTH unless your really tooled up for a fight. SW just happen to have a whole chapter of them.

Aluinn
13-07-2011, 02:14
I think a lot of the problems with Space Wolves being played so defensively do not lie with the codex, but with the game as a whole. Sitting in Razorbacks is just the thing to do, and as long as SW had Razorbacks for a normal (5th Ed.) cost, they were probably going to be doing it. That they have good fire support in the form of Long Fangs isn't in itself causing issues. Long Fangs have always been, in some way, better than normal Devastators, at least in theory, i.e. they had special rules that Devs did not. The idea is that SW should have this cool bonus because most of their army will not be sitting and shooting--Grey Hunters are, again in theory, designed to be less shooty than a Tac Squad by virtue of lacking a heavy weapon, and with Blood Claws it's even more obvious--and also because of the fluff portraying them as the most senior veterans in the chapter.

Here are the problems:

-In 5th Ed., you make a SM (or SW) squad shooty by giving it a Razorback and a special weapon, not by giving it a heavy weapon. Transports, shooting from transports, and Razorbacks in particular--not excepting other transports in other armies, cf Chimera, Venom--are stupidly good for what they cost.

-There is no reason for SW not to have Razorbacks, or to pay a points tax on them.

-Grey Hunters can take more special weapons than Tac Marines, but if they couldn't take those, they'd both lack utility and step on the paws of Blood Claws in terms of roles. It's not possible to remove all shooty options from them simply because "SW are supposed to be in combat"; that just wouldn't work.

-Wolfguard can take pretty much any combination of Marine weapons imaginable. This happens to include Termy armor and a Cyclone launcher. Access to the heavy weapon is sensibly limited, and the fact that these can be used as squad leaders to make a squad shootier (i.e. more defensive) may be a problem, but the only solution would be to inexplicably remove options from a unit whose whole schtick is having a ton of options. In other words, Wolfguard, by their nature, will always have, in the hands of powergamers, whatever Space Marine wargear combination is best in the metagame. The current metagame favors defensive, albeit potentially mobile, strategies and anti-vehicle shooting, so they have Cyclone missile launchers. This doesn't mean it makes sense to prohibit them from taking said options.

Now I will grant that the SW codex does have some genuinely poor internal balance. There is no reason, for example, for the relative costs of GH and Blood Claws to be as they are, and Kelly should probably have foreseen that no competitive player would be very interested in Blood Claws given that. However, the problem of SW not being played in a way that matches their background depiction is another thing, for the most part, and as far as I can tell has much more to do with issues in the 5th Ed. core rules.

Freman Bloodglaive
13-07-2011, 06:40
It should be said that the ability to split up a Wolf Guard squad and put the heavy weapons in squads was part of the pre-2nd edition trial codex used in the battle report printed in the Codex.