PDA

View Full Version : Tactical Squad vs Grey Hunters (Point Wise)



CKO
04-10-2011, 22:25
I dont get it at all, one starts at 90 and includes a serg, while the other starts at 75 has a free flamer and comes equip with bolter bolt pistol and ccw. If you add a wolf guard for a serg your total becomes 93. If you add another marine to a tactical squad to equal the same number of marines your at 106. Counter-attack plus acute senses should cancel out combat tactics, am I missing something.

I dont get it, can someone justify the difference?

trigger
04-10-2011, 22:35
In army balance , yes grey hunters are cheep
But they cant have a heavy weapon and if they have 2 special weapons and a Sargent they cant have a transport.
Grey hunters have less tactical flexibility that tacticool squads


Lastchancers.co.uk

kargenetic
04-10-2011, 22:43
I once read somewhere (on the internet, so it must be true!) that Phil Kelly meant to make the troops cheaper so that players would have more points to spend on character-ful HQs. Much as I'm a big admirer of his for the DE codex, it wasn't his best design decision. If it's even true, which I have no idea of.

Dorn's Arrow
04-10-2011, 22:55
The Tactical Marine is overcosted by about 2pts compared to the GH. That's about all there is to it.

Charistoph
04-10-2011, 23:21
I once read somewhere (on the internet, so it must be true!) that Phil Kelly meant to make the troops cheaper so that players would have more points to spend on character-ful HQs. Much as I'm a big admirer of his for the DE codex, it wasn't his best design decision. If it's even true, which I have no idea of.

I can totally get behind this, except for the fact that it needs to be across the board in order to be balanced. Which GW is not likely to do unless they change to the WarmaHordes release model.

The Marshel
05-10-2011, 00:33
In army balance , yes grey hunters are cheep
But they cant have a heavy weapon and if they have 2 special weapons and a Sargent they cant have a transport.
Grey hunters have less tactical flexibility that tacticool squads


Lastchancers.co.uk

This

Despite that they're both marine armies they function rather differently. I don't hear many wolf players talking up their preds like vanilla players do. the fast attack elements of space wolves are worse then vannilla marines as they're based off of the blood claws. BS 3 bikes really suck as they're one of the vanilla marines main melta platforms. Space wolves can't do the arguably OP/undercosted Th/SS termis in raiders thing either as their eqiv are much more expensive.

So yeah, Grey Hunters are significantly better, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE.

Aliarzathanil
05-10-2011, 01:26
Two assault weapons is almost always preferable to the tactical setup, not to mention the fact that five tactical marines can't even take an assualt weapon. When mechanized forces are king, this allows wolves to more effectively spam Razorbacks, which they often do. Bikes, Deathwing, and Blood Angels are popular because the have or are a way to not use tactical squads, which are pretty inefficient.

In short, Grey Hunters are what tactical squads should be. Bloodclaws are generally never used as anything but an excuse for why Grey Hunters are so good.

cool-kid-on-the-block
05-10-2011, 01:30
The Tactical Marine is overcosted by about 2pts compared to the GH. That's about all there is to it.

but arn't tact marines pretty much the ground zero for what all other points are set?

Aliarzathanil
05-10-2011, 01:31
Also, tactical flexibility =\= one heavy weapon shot in a nearly two hundred point squad. Hunters are better at melee and midfield fire support as well as operating better in small units.

trigger
05-10-2011, 01:59
In short, Grey Hunters are what tactical squads should be. Bloodclaws are generally never used as anything but an excuse for why Grey Hunters are so good.[/QUOTE]

Funny I always use blood claws , can't beet 40 attacks on the charge :)


Lastchancers.co.uk

SamaNagol
05-10-2011, 02:32
I find lots of things beat 40 attacks on the charge at WS3 with mundane weapons.

The Marshel
05-10-2011, 02:37
Two assault weapons is almost always preferable to the tactical setup, not to mention the fact that five tactical marines can't even take an assualt weapon. When mechanized forces are king, this allows wolves to more effectively spam Razorbacks, which they often do. Bikes, Deathwing, and Blood Angels are popular because the have or are a way to not use tactical squads, which are pretty inefficient.

In short, Grey Hunters are what tactical squads should be. Bloodclaws are generally never used as anything but an excuse for why Grey Hunters are so good.

I strongly disagree with the "grey hunters are wht tactical marines should be" ideal. It's hard to argue that one of the pair isn't priced right (either GH too cheap or Tacts to expensive) but the gap between them is ridiculously blown out by the internet and their comparability to begin with is debatable.

Tactical marines are a mid field standoff unit. They're not the big damaging units of the army and they were never intended to be. Tactical marines are the stop gap unit that is used to support and create opportunities for the more specialized units in the vanilla marine army. A standard marine chapter is as gw often claims, like a surgical scalpel and i think the current marine book reflects that very well. You need to plan and strike at the right place in the opponents army to cripple them. Tactical squads aren't really capable of this, but what they do is they hold objectives, provide area denial and give you a line to fall back on. They do this very well and in providing this function they help give other units the freedom to go off and hunt down key targets

Space wolves don't really take the same approach. They'll simply clobber you very very hard. They're codex reflects that with a more aggressive troop unit. Grey Hunters lack the standoff ability of tactical marines and gain a highly aggressive play style. In this way they are actually a very different unit to tactical marines, which so many people seem completely unable to grasp.

Ultimately, the problem is that many marine players expect their standard tactical marine to be a demi god of war that can out assault, out shoot and perhaps even out dance any other unit in the game, but even if that were true in the fluff (which arguably it really isn't) you can't make an interesting army based on one unit that does everything better then the rest of the game.

So what we have are people trying to use 4+ squads of tactical marines super aggressively, assaulting Tyranid monsters, trying to out shoot guard and tau and trying to out maneuver dark eldar. And when they'll fail miserably at this they cry out about how tactical marines suck.

The inconvenient truth is that tactical marines are not, should not and never will be an aggressive unit. they're a supportive unit. They're not meant to be sweeping the enemy off the board, they're suppose to be watching the terminators backs and keeping the mid field clear as their more powerful units deal with the trouble units.

Really, the only thing grey hunters and tactical marines have in common is that they're marines with marine weaponry. they have very different functions in game. We're comparing mango's and oranges. we've taken a step up from apples but we're not quite there yet

ehlijen
05-10-2011, 02:38
Grey hunters don't get combat tactics or chapter tactics and you need to use an elite or HQ slot to get them above ld8.

They shouldn't be getting the second special weapon for free, but other than that, I don't see them as too wrong.

Aliarzathanil
05-10-2011, 03:17
You say that tactical squads are a mid field stand off unit, but I fail to see how Grey Hunters are at a disadvantage here. They shoot 24" which is acceptable at midfield. They have more firepower available for a five man and similiar firepower at ten. The difference seems to be that they have some measure of assault ability which means they dont have to "stand off" as much. This makes them more flexible.

Its not that I'm unable to grasp the difference, it's that I see it and think tacticals come up short.

Chapters Unwritten
05-10-2011, 03:24
The Tactical Marine is overcosted by about 2pts compared to the GH. That's about all there is to it.The problem has always been that the tac marine is too much.

The Grey Hunter's closest living cousin is the Chaos Marine, who is costed the same and has much better leadership, so I've never seen a problem with it, but if there is a problem, it has always been with Matt Ward's tactical marines.

Also, a lot of marine players don't use all of their abilities. Combat tactics and combat squads are very powerful abilities which a resourceful tac marine player will win games with. We wolves can't do this, and I would say probably at least 60% of my games, I wish I could for various reasons.

Also the lack of a heavy weapon hurts in less tangible ways. With no ranged option you know exactly where Grey Hunters are going every game - straight to the 12" zone. The lack of heavies in troop squads is also why the Long Fangs have the additional weapon.

The Marshel
05-10-2011, 03:46
You say that tactical squads are a mid field stand off unit, but I fail to see how Grey Hunters are at a disadvantage here. They shoot 24" which is acceptable at midfield. They have more firepower available for a five man and similiar firepower at ten. The difference seems to be that they have some measure of assault ability which means they dont have to "stand off" as much. This makes them more flexible.

Its not that I'm unable to grasp the difference, it's that I see it and think tacticals come up short.

Boltgun fire is reasonably irrelevant in most cases. Razorback units don't have much bussiness holding the midfield. Las plas is good but lacks destructive potential in a single shooting phase. In terms of 10 men in a rhino the two special weapons are arguably a disadvantage for holdig ground. Flamers aren't doing anything from the fire points and plasma, while not bad doesn't put out enough fire to justify making a mid field standoff gh unit rather then a msu razor spam or conventional agressive 10 assault squad.

It's basically the single heavy weapon that makes marines better at this. People may think that one gun is irrelevant, but stop and consider for a moment that the mm creates a 12" bubble of serious danger for enemy tanks. Entering that 12" bubble is incredibly dangeour for enemy vehicles despite there only being a single shot. Light vehicles even have to think twice efore coming within 24". The odds are high enough that you can't just roll on in there without a serious plan on dealing with that mm. This has to be done while other elements of the marine army are harassing your backfield. Comparatively, Gh get 2 meltguns. Same stats yeah but the range ruins the effect. 6" 2d6 isn't far enough to effectively keep enemy tanks away.

Basically the point is to keep the opponents mech advancing pass you.if it's working you should never actually have to use the mm.

Until mm razorbacks make it into mainstream 40k this is somehow gh really don't do as well tacts.

Oh and as for assualt ability, I don't really rate any 5 man pa units in assualt. Just not durable enough to handle dedicated assualt units. Besides, to be controlling the midfield you really ought to have pushed into the opponents deployment zone already, so cc shouldn't be happpening in the midfield anyway

Aliarzathanil
05-10-2011, 04:12
In a list that can run reasonably priced rockets and effective Razorback squads (which become midfield to get scoring units in place) a single heavy weapon is just not that effective for the investment.

If bolter fire is largely irelevent, would you agree then that anything but a ten man tactical squad is probably points that could be better spent?

If this is the case, aren't GH better than tacticals in five man squads? They have three times the attacks and an extra assault weapon.

If this is the case, and mechanized armies are preferred, isn't the unit that can run multiple razor squads better? Aren't Blood Angel assault marines considered preferable to tacticals for this reason?

If tactical squads were an option in the SW book, do you honesty think you'd give them a second glance?

ehlijen
05-10-2011, 04:25
If you want to bring in long fangs into the discussion, you also have to consider the overpriced devestators. If they were costed like their BA counterparts, they easily be the equal of long fangs.

The Marshel
05-10-2011, 06:24
In a list that can run reasonably priced rockets and effective Razorback squads (which become midfield to get scoring units in place) a single heavy weapon is just not that effective for the investment.

Do u mean sw can have these things or c:sm? C:sm doesn't really have good access to missiles outside fragile speeders, and we poor at razorspam for reasons already mentioned in this thread. If ur talking about wolves, that's not the point is it. We're attempting to compare tacts and GH here if u start talking about things wolves have that make GH not need the heavy weapon then ur not really making tacts sound worse, just stating thT their role isn't as necessary in the wolves codex as it is in c:sm

If bolter fire is largely irelevent, would you agree then that anything but a ten man tactical squad is probably points that could be better spent?

Yes.

If this is the case, aren't GH better than tacticals in five man squads? They have three times the attacks and an extra assault weapon.

Yes

If this is the case, and mechanized armies are preferred, isn't the unit that can run multiple razor squads better? Aren't Blood Angel assault marines considered preferable to tacticals for this reason?

Yes for blood angles but again, diff dex. Razorspam would prob be more popular in the vanilla dex if we could take assualt marines with proper special weapon options as troops too.

If tactical squads were an option in the SW book, do you honesty think you'd give them a second glance?

Nope, not at all. Space wolf army doesn't need them. Their supportive role is uneccesary. Again this is another issue with the comparison. People seem to want to compare them as if they were in the same army. But wolves and c:sm are two very differant books. If tacticals were part of the space wolf army they would need to be drastically changed to be ballanced. But they are inthe vanilla dex where they fit reasonably well. Drawing comparison to blood angles doesn't really help your case. With fast razorbacks they'll alwas be better at razorspam reguardless of what's in the razors. As for BA assualt marines, well they actually are more expensive then their tacticals aren't they

Basically, yes Gh are better then tactical marines, but that really doesn't mean that they should cost more because they're in differant armies with differant internal balance. The gap isn't that big though. People just have too high expectations oft rival marines and don't use them properly. Tactical marines aren't meant to be used like GH. GH aren't really meant to be used like tacts either.

Polaria
05-10-2011, 06:43
I dont get it at all, one starts at 90 and includes a serg, while the other starts at 75 has a free flamer and comes equip with bolter bolt pistol and ccw. If you add a wolf guard for a serg your total becomes 93. If you add another marine to a tactical squad to equal the same number of marines your at 106. Counter-attack plus acute senses should cancel out combat tactics, am I missing something.

I dont get it, can someone justify the difference?

Tactical squads are supposed to be used in full-sized squads. Anything smaller than 10, they miss out on free missile launcher and the ability to Combat Squad if need be. If you want cheap and effective MSUs you play SW or BA.

Harold Zoid
05-10-2011, 06:55
In other words, if you want a more effective army, play SW or BA.

Kijamon
05-10-2011, 10:25
No, in other words, if you want several static fire platforms go for SM. If you want a unit that can move around as the battle wages on and get stuck in at closer range, go for SW or BA.

You have to look at the other slots in the armies.

Elites wise it's wolf guard or scouts for most SW players. Out of the core of your army you can only sneaky take a heavy weapon for each of your scout squads (even games workshop can't screw over a sw player that bought scouts when they had to have a heavy weapon out of the box) and most people I've seen don't opt for that.

Elites in a space marine army open up a good choice of crack units while your troops get to have a heavy weapon.

Looking at one unit and crying unfair is why people think certain codexes are unbalanced.

Harold Zoid
05-10-2011, 11:01
Well, if I want to have several static fire platforms I will choose SW or BA. Long Fangs and cheaper devastators. If I want a unit that can move around and get stuck I will again choose SW or BA cause their units are much better than SM tactical squad.
BA elites are the same as SM elites, 5 point price increase on terminators is laughable. SW have thunderwolf cavalry.

There is nothing in SM codex apart from null zone and thunderfire cannon that SW and BA could not do better and/or cheaper.

The Elder
05-10-2011, 11:33
I really think you guys are missing the point here.

As SM has other benefits over SW, thinking of better bikers (as troops), Sternguard veterans, cheaper TH+SS terminators
and let's not forget the combat tactics (which is really important for me when I played SM)

GH should fullfill different tactical roles than Tac's, and if used that way, they're quite good.

SW and SM are different armies with both a different approach and should be played as such. (Yes they have the same fancy suit, but they're really different)

Cheers,
The Elder

The Elder
05-10-2011, 11:35
Well, if I want to have several static fire platforms I will choose SW or BA. Long Fangs and cheaper devastators. If I want a unit that can move around and get stuck I will again choose SW or BA cause their units are much better than SM tactical squad.
BA elites are the same as SM elites, 5 point price increase on terminators is laughable. SW have thunderwolf cavalry.

There is nothing in SM codex apart from null zone and thunderfire cannon that SW and BA could not do better and/or cheaper.

wait wait wait, 2 points is a problem. But 5 points isn't?

orkmiester
05-10-2011, 11:53
The Grey Hunter's closest living cousin is the Chaos Marine, who is costed the same and has much better leadership, so I've never seen a problem with it

quite right there- of course they don't get counter attack but they are equal in most cases.

then again with chaos you can equip them like a tactical squad, as they have the most options on their basic squads for marines of any flavour:shifty: But currently who would bother to do that? 10 man squads with 2x melta/plasma are the order of the day simply becasue they are the most 'cost effective' stick a champ in with a power fist and the complementary rhino and off you go;).


The inconvenient truth is that tactical marines are not, should not and never will be an aggressive unit. they're a supportive unit. They're not meant to be sweeping the enemy off the board, they're suppose to be watching the terminators backs and keeping the mid field clear as their more powerful units deal with the trouble units.

actually thinking about it- i totally agree with that, pity i never quite got it to work- though i got bored with ultra the went on the SW wagon...

and then you notice the difference... GH can nip around in a rhino shoot out of the top with their special weapons if needed (handy trick that makes any ig player go:wtf::evilgrin:) and then when the situation requires it jump out and shoot/assualt things. In fact to my taste far more rewarding- better than setting up shop to shoot things midfiled and then things hittng the buffers. It dosen't help the fact that mech 'encourages' players to be agressive and many then get carried away and end up in lethal range of their opponent (where 'cough' ig/csm will generally chew them up...)

perhaps this topic raises another prickly question- why are there so many SW/BA armies with the good old vanilla marines falling behind? could it be that the SW/BA codex is 'easier' to get to grips with these days...

Just my shot:p

40 klicks below
05-10-2011, 12:09
I once read somewhere (on the internet, so it must be true!) that Phil Kelly meant to make the troops cheaper so that players would have more points to spend on character-ful HQs. Much as I'm a big admirer of his for the DE codex, it wasn't his best design decision. If it's even true, which I have no idea of.

LOL!

That'd be like making ice cream cheaper so that people would buy more vegetables! Yeah right!

If the idea was making people buy "character-ful HQs".... why not discount, well, the "character-ful HQs"?

jt.glass
05-10-2011, 12:14
In army balance , yes grey hunters are cheep
But they cant have a heavy weapon and if they have 2 special weapons and a Sargent they cant have a transport.This is oft cited, but unfortunately not true. They can have 2 special weapons with a sergeant, or 3 without. One of them has to be a plasma pistol, but still, the option is there. They can also get an extra hidden fist


I really think you guys are missing the point here.

As SM has other benefits over SW, thinking of better bikers (as troops), Sternguard veterans, cheaper TH+SS terminators
and let's not forget the combat tactics (which is really important for me when I played SM) No, I think you are missing the point. All the codices have pros and cons in other slots, which should more or less balance each other out, but a severe disparity in Troops cannot be balance by other slots because Troops are so important in the standard game.

Also, did you mean to imply that Tac squads are OK because you can take bikes instead, 'cause if so, I don't think that helps your argument any...


jt.

The Elder
05-10-2011, 15:16
No, I think you are missing the point. All the codices have pros and cons in other slots, which should more or less balance each other out, but a severe disparity in Troops cannot be balance by other slots because Troops are so important in the standard game.

Also, did you mean to imply that Tac squads are OK because you can take bikes instead, 'cause if so, I don't think that helps your argument any...


jt.

No, I wasn't saying you should take bikers instead, I meant to say that SM have a different synergy and feel to them, as they should. I do agree however that SM tacs could use a small points drop (maybe 1 or 2 points), but make them the same as GH, nope. Most definitely not! As it looks like this is where the discussion is heading. SM shouldn't have acces to 2 special weapons, leave that to the more assault oriented choices and chapters. They should be able to fill any gaps in your battle-line, whatever that should be. So they should be tactically flexible. Which should be one of their greatest strenghts if you ask me, something GH shouldn't be able to do as well.

Cheers,
The Elder

PhalanxLord
05-10-2011, 15:45
The way I see it the two units are meant for different things and work differently in their respective armies. In VSM armies you take maybe 2-3 tactical squads and then combat squad them for objectives, giving you 6 scoring units, or you keep them as 3 units for KP. They provide support while your TH/SS, riflemen, sternguard, dakkapreds, or whatever rack up the kills. They are a jack of all trades unit that doesn't really do anything amazingly (but is so-so at everything). You have the option to stay back and shoot if you wish.

With SW your GH carry the army. You have Long Fangs as support, but you can't really depend on them because they're small, fragile units with no ablative wounds. Enemies with units such as dakkapreds can shoot them at a range and kill them from outside the range of any other units. You have TWC, but they can be surprisingly fragile without access to FNP and if you give them a 3++ save then they're still just as vulnerable to small arms but now they're extremely expensive. Scouts are great at taking out those heavy vehicles staying near the board edge but they have a low survival rate. Lone wolves are durable and can hit hard but they're slow and if they live then they cost you KP.

And then inside the GH units if you take two special weapons then you can't have a sergeant. Sure you can have a sergeant and a plasma pistol, but a single S7 shot isn't that useful and to be honest it's a waste of points (as is the extremely expensive 1 attack powerfist; grab either the power weapon or the MotW instead if you must take a special close combat weapon).

I feel that both units have advantages and while in a vaccuum one is better than the other, in the overall picture they're both fairly balanced. VSM can do some things better than SW and vice-versa. I do think that VSM devs should be made cheaper like the BA devs (something that would probably shut up a lot of the people complaining about Long Fangs), but I think we'll probably have to wait until 6th for that.

Fixer
05-10-2011, 15:53
Tactical marines have been a less than optimal choice ever since 5th ed and it's only gotten worse.

You are effectively straight-jacketed into using ten strong units where 7 members of that unit are bolter carrying extra wounds.

Back in 4th you could get a twin special weapon unit with a 3 attack powerfist sgt and an optimal 5 bolter marines to absorb casualties for 175, 205 with a drop pod. Now you have a much less efficient setup and combat squadding to make two smaller poorly optimised units and often, they spend the entire game hiding in rhinos fearing destruction. This is why so few people choose to upgrade their tactical marines and go with the 170 point base option, there's no point in upgrading something that will probably mak no difference to the fight and as a scoring unit, is too valuable to risk in open combat.

The benefit of an additional heavy weapon in a troops slot is nothing. Especially when so many of the more recent variants have the option of a mobile transport with superior heavy weapons fire or better long range support overall. Discussing bonuses/negatives to single model points costs is the wrong way of looking at this too. You need to look at the overall power of the unit and it's overall cost in relation to the rest of the army.

As it stands tactical marines have been steadilly been left behind by newer army books with better troops, and older army books FAQed as well. Once they were average in close combat, now they're outclassed by almost everything. All of my non marine armies love them for their perfect balance of poor melee and sticking power that makes them the perfect target for charging into combat with and acting as shields against shooting.

They're not a terrible unit like spawn but they are a grossly sub par option, especially compared to the other more points efficient units in other armies or the more effective (but non scoring) combat options in the space marine army.

This is why tactical marines feel like a tax you have to pay in order to make a Space Marine list.

samiens
05-10-2011, 17:09
Just a minor point, the threat range of a melta and a multi-melta (for the extra dice) are the sane, as you can move that meltagun 6" and then fire in melta range instead if sitting at 12" for the multi-melta...

logan054
05-10-2011, 17:14
The Tactical Marine is overcosted by about 2pts compared to the GH. That's about all there is to it.

So you think tactical marines should only be a point more than scout? are you being serious? Personally I think maybe grey hunters should be the same points as tacticals. Tacticals are still a very good unit simply because of the combat tactics, combat squads and how combat squads interacts with drop pods.

I have found being able to choose to fail moral tests when I have been charged very useful, rather than having a enemy unit stuck in combat with mine for a few turns I can elect to try and flee. This then allows me to open up fire in my turn with whatever is needed for the job rather than let the enemy hide in combat until their turn. With drop pods I cam bring down my unit combat squad so the missile is on one and the sergeant with combi-melta and melta gun in the other, target them at a tank and have the other guys shoot other targets. I think combat squad actually makes up for the heavy and special weapon in a squad rather nicely. What can Grey hunters do? they can counter attack! awesome! so I can get shoot to bits before I'm charged! I think problem with tacticals is the price of the sergeant which works out at about 26pts. Having a combat weapon is nice but that isn't why you buy grey hunters, you buy them for the bolt guns and special weapons, they are still going to get minced by most dedicated assault units.



As it stands tactical marines have been steadilly been left behind by newer army books with better troops, and older army books FAQed as well. Once they were average in close combat, now they're outclassed by almost everything. All of my non marine armies love them for their perfect balance of poor melee and sticking power that makes them the perfect target for charging into combat with and acting as shields against shooting.

Is this shooting shield a regular thing in your area? do people actually use combat tactics to try and get out of combat?

massey
05-10-2011, 17:24
Tactical marines aren't nearly that bad. Yes, GH get an extra attack and they can get two special weapons, but Tacticals have a lot better leadership rules. Plus, with the appropriate special character, Tacs can fleet, outflank, be stubborn, or have twin-linked melta and flamer weapons. There's a lot of versatility there.

GH will probably beat Tacs in a straight up fight between the two units. But Tacs have a lot of other good uses.

The Elder
05-10-2011, 18:26
Tactical marines aren't nearly that bad. Yes, GH get an extra attack and they can get two special weapons, but Tacticals have a lot better leadership rules. Plus, with the appropriate special character, Tacs can fleet, outflank, be stubborn, or have twin-linked melta and flamer weapons. There's a lot of versatility there.

GH will probably beat Tacs in a straight up fight between the two units. But Tacs have a lot of other good uses.

I totally agree with this. As said Tacs have a lot more flexibility. Which is the way it should be.

Cheers,
The Elder

althathir
05-10-2011, 19:46
I dont get it at all, one starts at 90 and includes a serg, while the other starts at 75 has a free flamer and comes equip with bolter bolt pistol and ccw. If you add a wolf guard for a serg your total becomes 93. If you add another marine to a tactical squad to equal the same number of marines your at 106. Counter-attack plus acute senses should cancel out combat tactics, am I missing something.

I dont get it, can someone justify the difference?

1) Wolf guard cost an elite slot, while it can be worked work around its basically a tax on them or your stuck with ld 8 which sucks.

2) Vanillas are designed to reward you for ten man squads so your comparing them in a way that handicaps the tacticals. Further more Combat squads is one of the most underrated abilities in the game and a 5 man squad can't use it. The ability to get 2 scoring units from one choice is a huge advantage.

3) Ward and Kelly imo created both books differently. In a wolves list you basically pick your troop choice and then based on that support the army with the rest of your choices. With the marine book you really design the army around the non-troop slots and then the last step unless you went bikes is to fill in the army with troops. I think this shows up throughout the codex with some hqs giving strong bonuses to rank & file (vulkan) and units like assault termies being as cheap as they are and note that those two work together.

I think this is partially to blame for wolves bad reputation because our lists tend to look similiar to each others because troopwise we're limited. Bringing up the dreaded "netlist" accusation.


You say that tactical squads are a mid field stand off unit, but I fail to see how Grey Hunters are at a disadvantage here. They shoot 24" which is acceptable at midfield. They have more firepower available for a five man and similiar firepower at ten. The difference seems to be that they have some measure of assault ability which means they dont have to "stand off" as much. This makes them more flexible.

Its not that I'm unable to grasp the difference, it's that I see it and think tacticals come up short.

The additional fire power you speak of with the exception of plasma guns has a range of 12", Marines get a heavy which tend to have a high threat radius. In addition they have the ability to combat squad and secure objective without having to hold back a unit that needs to be fairly close to do its job 2/3 of the base missions are objective based, and in killpoint missions keeping them as a 10 man squad provides a benefit.


Well, if I want to have several static fire platforms I will choose SW or BA. Long Fangs and cheaper devastators.

valid point, though marines heavy weapons are a lot more spread around than space wolves so If your going for a static gunline list I think your better off with C:SM, even with their overpriced devastators.

If I want a unit that can move around and get stuck I will again choose SW or BA cause their units are much better than SM tactical squad.

I agree that said your first thought with vanillas shouldn't be man this is an army that wants to get stuck in, it reads like your mad at a unit cause your using it in a different fashion then its intended. If you want to get stuck in with vanillas use assault termies if you want your troops too, look for a different book. I don't mean for that too sound jerky just saying it reads like you want them to be something they aren't combat tactics is designed to get them out of assault.

BA elites are the same as SM elites, 5 point price increase on terminators is laughable. SW have thunderwolf cavalry.

Thunderwolf cavalry aren't that great unless a characters with them, i'm not saying they're bad in any way to be clear but assault termies tend to do better. That said your experience with TWC can be quite a bit different cause without a model or even guidelines for the model people tend to push it with them. I can see TWC using cavalry bases being amazing, but if you base them like canis on mounts of a similiar size then its tough to move them through terrain, and very difficult to hide with true los.

There is nothing in SM codex apart from null zone and thunderfire cannon that SW and BA could not do better and/or cheaper.

I somewhat agree on SM vs. BA cause that book does feel more like a +1 then wolves vs. SM. That said vanilla lists can have bikes for troops, drop pods that can hold 12, and their hqs can really customize an army. I just think its a lot harder to optimize them because they have more options and aren't as focused as BA or SW.


quite right there- of course they don't get counter attack but they are equal in most cases.

then again with chaos you can equip them like a tactical squad, as they have the most options on their basic squads for marines of any flavour:shifty: But currently who would bother to do that? 10 man squads with 2x melta/plasma are the order of the day simply becasue they are the most 'cost effective' stick a champ in with a power fist and the complementary rhino and off you go;).



actually thinking about it- i totally agree with that, pity i never quite got it to work- though i got bored with ultra the went on the SW wagon...

and then you notice the difference... GH can nip around in a rhino shoot out of the top with their special weapons if needed (handy trick that makes any ig player go:wtf::evilgrin:) and then when the situation requires it jump out and shoot/assualt things. In fact to my taste far more rewarding- better than setting up shop to shoot things midfiled and then things hittng the buffers. It dosen't help the fact that mech 'encourages' players to be agressive and many then get carried away and end up in lethal range of their opponent (where 'cough' ig/csm will generally chew them up...)

perhaps this topic raises another prickly question- why are there so many SW/BA armies with the good old vanilla marines falling behind? could it be that the SW/BA codex is 'easier' to get to grips with these days...

Just my shot:p

I think its not so much that SW, and BA are easier, as it is that they are assault oriented armies and they're more focused so people make better lists. For example Harold Zoids comments really suggest that he wants a CC force with some shooty elements which both wolves and BA do better than marines, the reason I replied to his comments is that its unfair to expect them to better at it when for the most part vanilla marines are a defensive list.

Shamana
05-10-2011, 21:13
Well, I do think Grey Hunters and Long fangs are undercosted by a point or three, while scouts and blood claws could use being a point less. Dis/agree as you see fit.

The Elder
05-10-2011, 21:58
Grey Hunters undercosted by 3 points?! Most definetely not!

Especially with the power creep in recent Codexes, they are about right. (fought with and against them)

Actually I don't really understand the big issue about LF. as their lack of ablative wounds leaves them vulnerable, really vulnerable.. although they might be a bit on the cheap side. Although I still think they aren't overly powerful/undercosted.

Cheers,
The Elder

Aegius
05-10-2011, 23:40
Grey Hunters undercosted by 3 points?! Most definetely not!

Especially with the power creep in recent Codexes, they are about right. (fought with and against them)

Actually I don't really understand the big issue about LF. as their lack of ablative wounds leaves them vulnerable, really vulnerable.. although they might be a bit on the cheap side. Although I still think they aren't overly powerful/undercosted.

Cheers,
The Elder

you don't see a problem with long fangs?

(assault marine): ahha! look at the space wolves heavy weapons, they are easy targets, all we have to do is trigger our jump packs and charge them, we are dedicated assault marines after all.
(assault sergeant): no young padawan, do you not know that long fangs have the same number of attacks as us when we charge them, we'll just hide behind this solid building like the brave marines we are.

Yeah, no problem with long fangs at all, I wish my devastators had 3 attacks each when charged.

a standard tactic is to shoot the assaulty stuff and assault the shooty stuff. I'm seeing a massive problem here.

Shamana
05-10-2011, 23:55
Grey Hunters undercosted by 3 points?! Most definetely not!


Actually, I'd say 1 for hunters, 2-3 for fangs. Hunters are currently cheaper than tactical marines, which I find weird, and fangs already have somewhat of a discount on the big guns, on top of the other goodies they have compared to devs such as darkvision and counter-charge. 12 points for scouts, 16 for tacs/fangs/CSMs, 18 for fangs (possibly figured in the squad cost) doesn't sound too much to me.

Tethylis
06-10-2011, 00:09
Yeah, no problem with long fangs at all, I wish my devastators had 3 attacks each when charged.

Actually they will only have 2 attacks, if they make their counter-attack roll. If not then its just 1 attack like any other devastator. Still best to charge them with any assault type squad IMHO.

logan054
06-10-2011, 00:14
Yeah, no problem with long fangs at all, I wish my devastators had 3 attacks each when charged.

a standard tactic is to shoot the assaulty stuff and assault the shooty stuff. I'm seeing a massive problem here.

I bet space wolves did as well ;) long fangs exchange their bolt pistols for heavy weapons thus now +1 attack for 2 CC weapons.

The Elder
06-10-2011, 00:14
Actually, I'd say 1 for hunters, 2-3 for fangs. Hunters are currently cheaper than tactical marines, which I find weird, and fangs already have somewhat of a discount on the big guns, on top of the other goodies they have compared to devs such as darkvision and counter-charge. 12 points for scouts, 16 for tacs/fangs/CSMs, 18 for fangs (possibly figured in the squad cost) doesn't sound too much to me.

I do agree to a certain extend to this one though, although I'm not completely sure with the current power creep.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-10-2011, 00:16
We can discuss the justifications, relative merits of the two units etc. at length but the simple fact is that SW are more powerful than vanilla marines and GHs play a role in that.

The Elder
06-10-2011, 00:22
you don't see a problem with long fangs?

(assault marine): ahha! look at the space wolves heavy weapons, they are easy targets, all we have to do is trigger our jump packs and charge them, we are dedicated assault marines after all.
(assault sergeant): no young padawan, do you not know that long fangs have the same number of attacks as us when we charge them, we'll just hide behind this solid building like the brave marines we are.

Yeah, no problem with long fangs at all, I wish my devastators had 3 attacks each when charged.

a standard tactic is to shoot the assaulty stuff and assault the shooty stuff. I'm seeing a massive problem here.

As said, they only have 2 attacks, assuming they pas their counter-attack roll. And you're using assault marines in the comparison, a choice which aren't that popular (totally not in fact, which I think, is a shame) in competitive play.

If you would use a more valid units for your argument, say bikes... I think it would be a different case. (Which should result in a clear win for the bikes)

And adressing the vulnerability of the Long Fangs, I actually also meant shooting. As they're still only (max) 6 space marines. And every wound will drastically reduce their effecitveness.

Cheers,
The Elder

althathir
06-10-2011, 01:31
Actually, I'd say 1 for hunters, 2-3 for fangs. Hunters are currently cheaper than tactical marines, which I find weird, and fangs already have somewhat of a discount on the big guns, on top of the other goodies they have compared to devs such as darkvision and counter-charge. 12 points for scouts, 16 for tacs/fangs/CSMs, 18 for fangs (possibly figured in the squad cost) doesn't sound too much to me.

12 points would be way too cheap for scouts, BEL is an amazing ability. I agree that tacts and hunters should cost the same but I think 15 is reasonable. Having to spend an extra elite slot on wolf guard kinda sucks, but ld 8 is worse and thats something that I don't think alot of players appreciate until they actually write up a list.

Fangs are an interesting unit in my experience and I don't think they are undercosted, to be honest I think most static firing units are overcosted. Devastators aren't a popular choice in either the vanilla book or blood angels (even with the cheaper price tag) and there are a lot of reasons for that vehicles being tougher, 4+ cover, and movement being emphasized its to the point where even imp guard lists don't have many weapon teams.


We can discuss the justifications, relative merits of the two units etc. at length but the simple fact is that SW are more powerful than vanilla marines and GHs play a role in that.

Yeah but honestly it has more to do with how well wolves can play the MSU game, I think this is an issue that needs to be looked at in 6th cause some dexes aren't designed to do it well (I'm looking at you vanilla dex) and its clearly the best style in 5th.

Gimp
06-10-2011, 01:43
As a vanilla space marine player I envy Grey Hunters a lot not because they are better than Tactical Marines but because of my playing style I wish Tactical Marines were more like Grey Hunters. But thats just me. I dont really have use for 1 heavy weapon, but 2 attacks basic and counter charge, now that I have use for.

TheMav80
06-10-2011, 01:48
Oh thank God! We haven't seen this topic in a few months. I was starting to get worried. :p

althathir
06-10-2011, 01:58
As a vanilla space marine player I envy Grey Hunters a lot not because they are better than Tactical Marines but because of my playing style I wish Tactical Marines were more like Grey Hunters. But thats just me. I dont really have use for 1 heavy weapon, but 2 attacks basic and counter charge, now that I have use for.

It wouldn't shock me if in the next dex you have that option, the doctrine codex (4th) seems to still be well regarded and I don't know if they'll have ward update that codex or not.


Oh thank God! We haven't seen this topic in a few months. I was starting to get worried. :p

Yeah it is kinda relieving seems a lot more civil now that the intraweb fears grey knights above all.

jt.glass
06-10-2011, 10:59
So you think tactical marines should only be a point more than scout? are you being serious?No, Scouts are even more overcosted tha Tacs.


I totally agree with this. As said Tacs have a lot more flexibility. Which is the way it should be.GH are good at assault and shooting*. Tacs are good at shooting*. Sounds to me like GH are more flexible to me.


The additional fire power you speak of with the exception of plasma guns has a range of 12", Marines get a heavy which tend to have a zero threat radius.FIFY. Heavy weapons only do anything at all if you remain stationary, which is a huge cost. Before I (sadly) stopped fielding them, I used to go 5 or six games in between having the opportunity to actually use a heavy weapon.

Maybe my opinion is coloured by the fact that I play against daemons more than anything else, but agains them if I play GH (or vanilla bikes) I stand a chance. If I play vanilla Tacs I get slaughtered every single time!


jt.

The Elder
06-10-2011, 11:07
If you're playing objective based missions (which is about 2/3 of all missions) you can combat squad. Giving you more scoring units and you can use the heavy weapon squad to giving fire support from the objective(s) in your own deployment zone. The moment you do this with GH you greatly decrease their effectiveness. The Tacs have a heavy weapon to remain a threat to, well everyone actually. while you actually put GH out of play when you use them to babysit an objective in your own deployment zone.

Not to start about the fact that SW have only 2 troop choices available to them. And they lack long range fire-power and mobility. (Yeah, you can put them in a rhino, but if you do that, you lose the benefit of either the sergeant or the 2nd special weapon (great option isn't it?)

Cheers,
The Elder

The Elder
06-10-2011, 11:12
And I think combat tactics is greatly underrated, I seen it been used to devastating effect.

Cheers,
The Elder

Harold Zoid
06-10-2011, 12:41
1 missile shot for 170 points is not long range firepower.

The Elder
06-10-2011, 13:11
read the whole post!!

You can combat squad your unit. drop the heavy weapon one(s) on a baby sitting duty, and use the other half of the squad to claim other objectives. and you still have some long range firepower. On top of that you have combat tactics, which is invaluable as I said before.

Cheers,
The Elder

massey
06-10-2011, 14:22
1 missile shot for 170 points is not long range firepower.

And if all you were getting was a single missile shot, you'd be right.

Harold Zoid
06-10-2011, 14:32
Yep, I'll be getting 8 bolters which are useless in mech environment.

trigger
06-10-2011, 14:41
But not every one uses mech , buy that view
Not only are tac squads useless but so are well 90% of the units in the game !
Use the combat squads rule
Pop transport with the missile launcher and the other 5 are moving up to rapid fire range , better yet stick a melta in there to go pop tanks at close range


Lastchancers.co.uk

Vaktathi
06-10-2011, 15:07
It's really hard to argue that GH's are not clearly superior to Tac's in both an absolute and point for point sense. The Heavy Weapon is something most tac's would swap out in a heartbeat if they could, and with BP/CCW armed troops you generally don't want them standing around shooting a heavy weapon anyway (how often do you see CSM's with heavy weapons?) and likewise the usefulness of Combat Squads also becomes moot.


The GH's are just as good at shooting barring the dubious-usefulness heavy weapon, far more capable in Close Combat, have a greater variety of weapons, have cheaper squad leaders with significantly cheaper upgrade options, and GH squads are always cheaper with similar equipment when compared with tac squads despite being more capable.

Atomic Rooster
06-10-2011, 15:08
LOL!

That'd be like making ice cream cheaper so that people would buy more vegetables! Yeah right!

If the idea was making people buy "character-ful HQs".... why not discount, well, the "character-ful HQs"?

Yep, and if that quote is true then it explains a lot about the 40k balance problem, doesn't it? Brute idiocy.

The Elder
06-10-2011, 15:32
Bolters are useless? The first time that I hear that one, even in a mech enviroment. (you need something to clear up the remains, but maybe that's just silly me.

I do think that GH are slightly better, especially with most people's playing style. and Tacs could use a 1 or 2 points drop. Although I don't agree that Tac's don't have uses or aren't viable. I believe the difference lies in the fact that a wolves army should be based around GH, the rest functioning in their support. Where a SM army uses their Tacs more in support of other units. Which might be more difficult in 5E.

This is where I believe Combat Tactics (and to a lesser degree Combat Squads) becomes vital.

Cheers,
The Elder

Fixer
06-10-2011, 15:51
Bolters aren't useless but special weapons are massively better. A flamer hitting 5 orks in cover is going to do more damage than a bolter is going to do all game. A meltagun in a unit shooting a tank means 7 bolters doing nothing. A plasmagun cuts through armour, fnp and high toughness making it better than the rest of the units firepower combined against many targets.

With the current assault weapon/charge first/powerfist metagame units with more base attacks and more specials outperform, especially in the mechanised world where your move and shoot units can be pushed 15" closer to the enemy, giving meltaguns and flamers a decent threat range.

Grey hunters with their fairly standard WG leader, wolfen and banner have the advantage of receiving a charge as well as giving one too making them much more flexible on that regard but not really losing anything from those choices. Combat squadding, firing heavy weapons on a tactical squad mean that you're sacrificing something and at the points cost of the unit, that sacrifice means they're not pulling their weight.

althathir
06-10-2011, 19:03
No, Scouts are even more overcosted tha Tacs.

GH are good at assault and shooting*. Tacs are good at shooting*. Sounds to me like GH are more flexible to me.

FIFY. Heavy weapons only do anything at all if you remain stationary, which is a huge cost. Before I (sadly) stopped fielding them, I used to go 5 or six games in between having the opportunity to actually use a heavy weapon.

Maybe my opinion is coloured by the fact that I play against daemons more than anything else, but agains them if I play GH (or vanilla bikes) I stand a chance. If I play vanilla Tacs I get slaughtered every single time!


jt.

1) agreed vanilla scouts are underwhelming

2) Grey hunters can't combat squad so they can go only after 1 objective, they also can't provide supression fire in early turns like combat squaded tac squads do.

3) are you combat squadding or having them sit in a rhino? Not being able to move is a huge disadvantage (see most post earlier about static gun squads being overcosted), but in a lot cases they can hold an objective as well which makes up for this in a lot of cases.



It's really hard to argue that GH's are not clearly superior to Tac's in both an absolute and point for point sense. The Heavy Weapon is something most tac's would swap out in a heartbeat if they could, and with BP/CCW armed troops you generally don't want them standing around shooting a heavy weapon anyway (how often do you see CSM's with heavy weapons?) and likewise the usefulness of Combat Squads also becomes moot.


The GH's are just as good at shooting barring the dubious-usefulness heavy weapon, far more capable in Close Combat, have a greater variety of weapons, have cheaper squad leaders with significantly cheaper upgrade options, and GH squads are always cheaper with similar equipment when compared with tac squads despite being more capable.

The one thing your ignoring in this example is objectives. If simply killing the enemy is the goal then 2 specials tend to better, but if you need to hold objectives the ability to combat squad and have a heavy provide tacticals with an advantage.

The cheaper squad leader has an additional cost of an elite slot. While in some cases this is a moot point, in others it sucks hopefully GW doesn't try to use this as balancing tool again.

I'm not saying that the two units are equal as i've stated before I think that space wolf armies are built around their troops and vanilla forces are built around their non-troop choices, but both have place.



.......
Combat squadding, firing heavy weapons on a tactical squad mean that you're sacrificing something and at the points cost of the unit, that sacrifice means they're not pulling their weight.

Are you? IMO this is just too broad of a statement. If you combat squad, and have the squad with the heavy baby sit an objective while providing supression they're pulling their weight cause the bottom line is that a grey hunter unit would pretty much just have to sit there.

Vaktathi
06-10-2011, 19:37
The one thing your ignoring in this example is objectives. If simply killing the enemy is the goal then 2 specials tend to better, but if you need to hold objectives the ability to combat squad and have a heavy provide tacticals with an advantage. A single heavy weapon generally won't provide all that much. MM's are too short ranged, one HB just isn't a practicable threat, Lascannons are too expensive, pretty much the only HW's that tac's carry that will really be able to make an effective difference in a support role is missile launchers to some degree and PC's, and even then you're talking about effectively ~100pts for a single heavy weapon there in a split squad, which isn't the greatest use of points. Not saying pointless or useless, but not the greatest use either.

If that HW is sitting on an objective, fine, but then it's also not very hard to clear off, that GH squad can engage the Combat Squad in the rhino that's advancing and defeat it handily and then engage the other HW combat squad with significant numerical and likely short range firepower superiority, not to mention grossly more capable CC ability, and that single heavy weapon isn't likely to put a homongous dent in that unit unless it catches them with a sweet clumped plasma blast.



The cheaper squad leader has an additional cost of an elite slot. While in some cases this is a moot point, in others it sucks hopefully GW doesn't try to use this as balancing tool again. Yeah, it uses an elites slot, but I don't think I've ever seen an SW army or idea for an SW army where they wanted to use all 3 elites slots for something else.

The drastic cost advantage they get also more than outweighs the use of the slot.

That said, I agree that it's an awkward mechanic, though I don't think it was ever intended as a balance thing, the same mechanic IIRC was in the old book.



I'm not saying that the two units are equal as i've stated before I think that space wolf armies are built around their troops and vanilla forces are built around their non-troop choices, but both have place.
I have a prorblem buying this line of thining as, for the most part, SW's have most of the other units SM's have. They've got Predators, Land Raiders, Dreads, Speeders, Terminators, Vindi's, Heavy Weapons troops, Jump Pack troops, etc. The support elements that supposedly do all the work in C:SM armies are by and large also just as available in SW armies.

althathir
06-10-2011, 21:11
A single heavy weapon generally won't provide all that much. MM's are too short ranged, one HB just isn't a practicable threat, Lascannons are too expensive, pretty much the only HW's that tac's carry that will really be able to make an effective difference in a support role is missile launchers to some degree and PC's, and even then you're talking about effectively ~100pts for a single heavy weapon there in a split squad, which isn't the greatest use of points. Not saying pointless or useless, but not the greatest use either.

But its better than what a unit of grey hunters can do, in a similiar situation. And while one heavy weapon won't do much its not uncommon to see 2-3 squads in the backfield while the other half is advanicing in razors or rhinos.

If that HW is sitting on an objective, fine, but then it's also not very hard to clear off, that GH squad can engage the Combat Squad in the rhino that's advancing and defeat it handily and then engage the other HW combat squad with significant numerical and likely short range firepower superiority, not to mention grossly more capable CC ability, and that single heavy weapon isn't likely to put a homongous dent in unit unless it catches them with a sweet clumped plasma blast.

How long is that gonna take though? your assuming that the hunters close to destroy the rhino, then in cc kill the squad then re-embark or run to the next objective without taking damage or in less then the 2-3 turns that game has left which is pretty unlikely in my experience.

And by the same token its also not too hard to clear off a small squad of hunters, in order to make it more difficult you need a bigger squad but then you've commited a larger portion of points to guard an objective that effects the board less. The heavy weapon really doesn't need to do that much either, if it can prevent a transport from moving that allows the other elements of the C:SM army to finish the job.

Yeah, it uses an elites slot, but I don't think I've ever seen an SW army or idea for an SW army where they wanted to use all 3 elites slots for something else.

Space Wolves have some pretty solid elites, scouts are one of the few units besides long fangs that disrupt the enemies backfield reliably. Dreads provide more av 12, and lone wolves are also good. There are a lot of choices but truthfully ld 8 sucks so I end up taking wolf guard in most situations.

The drastic cost advantage they get also more than outweighs the use of the slot.

Depends on the point limit, wolf guard termies aren't that great and in bigger games scouts become more attractive because people can handle long fangs, and wolves don't have as much supression.

That said, I agree that it's an awkward mechanic, though I don't think it was ever intended as a balance thing, the same mechanic IIRC was in the old book.

I have a prorblem buying this line of thining as, for the most part, SW's have most of the other units SM's have. They've got Predators, Land Raiders, Dreads, Speeders, Terminators, Vindi's, Heavy Weapons troops, Jump Pack troops, etc. The support elements that supposedly do all the work in C:SM armies are by and large also just as available in SW armies.


Predators - Not bad but they can only fire at one target, in a C:SM army this isn't as big of deal because tacticals can actually provide a little bit more down field shots. In a space wolves force those are bit more limited so most people spam fangs.

Vindis - tend to be one of the most controversial units due to their one weapon nature. Where it hurts wolves is that is close ranged, and the large blast can scatter over our troops. Its more of a defensive tank imo.

Land raiders - not really a competitive choice for anyone. I run a redeemer in my force with some wolf guard termies but its not an optimal choice. In vanilla lists with assault termies I can see them being more useful, but melta really ruins their day.

Dreads - your down an elite slot already and dreads work better with multiples so you get 2, and really at this point you need to get a few more hulls in to provide protection. It does work well with razor spam lists but why not run BA or GK then? Or if your running drop-pods stick with C:SM cause theirs can hold 12.

Speeders - work well for every marine codex that has access to them. So your point is valid here.

Termies - Our termies aren't as good. The exception is when you run logan and they become scoring but even then they lack the ability to teleport, and even using wound allocation tricks to your advantage are still more expensive then vanillas. Counter attack somewhat makes up for this but the unit is nowhere near as durable as the other fifth edition marine options.

Heavy teams - we use long fangs, though i have seen logan wing armies go with speeders instead. That said ours have no ablative wounds and make up a larger portion of our long range shooting. We can also try and run wolf guard like stern guard though it doesn't work that well.

Jump pack/bikes - vanilla options are better, skyclaws can't have wolfguard and have bs 3, bikes have super expensive wolfguard and again have bs 3. Vanilla bikes can be scoring, and thier assualt marines are more accurate and have better leadership granted jumpers are really only used by BA.

This doesn't really factor in the different abilites that the various SC for C:SM provide. I'm also not stating that the armies are even in terms of power, its just that its more than gh vs. tacticals making that difference.

CKO
06-10-2011, 21:58
I think combat tactics and counter-attack cancels each other out. Combat squads is a really good ability but I am not sure it justifys the price difference. A grey hunter squad with a standard and wolfguard has the potential to outshoot you then when charge out cc you.

Vaktathi
06-10-2011, 22:15
But its better than what a unit of grey hunters can do, in a similiar situation.it's more firepower, but its not particularly efficient firepower, the GH's are overall going to be more effective and able to engage most enemey units with greater striking power.


And while one heavy weapon won't do much its not uncommon to see 2-3 squads in the backfield while the other half is advanicing in razors or rhinos.
Right, but 2-3 heavy weapons isn't going to make or break anything most of the time barring some extreme luck, especially if it isn't an ML/LC/PC, especially not when they amount to roughly 200-300pts worth of unit for that. Not a very effective use of points.



How long is that gonna take though? your assuming that the hunters close to destroy the rhino, then in cc kill the squad then re-embark or run to the next objective without taking damage or in less then the 2-3 turns that game has left which is pretty unlikely in my experience.not at all impossible by turn 3, doable by turn 4 routinely, not hard at all by turn 5 which is exactly where you need it to be to decide the game, especially once other units are factored in. Granted factoring other units in affects both sides, but they generally have the same sort of supoprt units except that Long Fangs are better than just about any other fire support unit in the game.



And by the same token its also not too hard to clear off a small squad of hunters, in order to make it more difficult you need a bigger squad but then you've commited a larger portion of points to guard an objective that effects the board less. The heavy weapon really doesn't need to do that much either, if it can prevent a transport from moving that allows the other elements of the C:SM army to finish the job. The individual infantry are more effective than their counterparts, better able to concentrate killing power, and the squad as a whole costs less while being more capable. This also assumes the heavy weapon is one capable of stopping transports from across the board. A single missile launcher has roughly a 1/5 average chance of doing something that a rhino cares about, while PC's are significantly less capable, MM's are very short ranged, HB's are desperation weapons at best, and LC's are hideously expensive.


Space Wolves have some pretty solid elites, scouts are one of the few units besides long fangs that disrupt the enemies backfield reliably. Dreads provide more av 12, and lone wolves are also good. Yup, they're all good units, but there's rarely a need to run 3 of any of these, and WG units aren't bad either if you're going to run one anyway, might as well buy squad leaders.


Depends on the point limit, wolf guard termies aren't that great and in bigger games scouts become more attractive because people can handle long fangs, and wolves don't have as much supression. I've never understood why people don't like WG termis aside from they can't spam TH/SS termi's that are so undercosted in other SM armies (and have led to the practical extinction of LC and Tac Termi's from other loyalist SM armies). CSM termi's are fairly solid units that gets decent play time and SW termi's are identical except they cost 3pts more with ATSKNF, Acute Senses, Counterattack and more upgrade options. :p They're certainly more versatile in terms of role than loyalist units.



Predators - Not bad but they can only fire at one target, in a C:SM army this isn't as big of deal because tacticals can actually provide a little bit more down field shots. In a space wolves force those are bit more limited so most people spam fangs. Most SM armies however don't typically make huge use of the extra 2-4 heavy weapons, at least not for more than a turn or two each, making them overall much less useful than I think you're making them out to be. The Long Fangs are spammed because quite frankly they're the most cost effective and capable heavy weapon unit in the game.



Vindis - tend to be one of the most controversial units due to their one weapon nature. Where it hurts wolves is that is close ranged, and the large blast can scatter over our troops. Its more of a defensive tank imo. This isn't any different than any other SM army however.



Land raiders - not really a competitive choice for anyone. I run a redeemer in my force with some wolf guard termies but its not an optimal choice. In vanilla lists with assault termies I can see them being more useful, but melta really ruins their day. Debateable, LR's are far more popular now than they've ever been, and no worse for SW's than other SM armies.



Dreads - your down an elite slot already and dreads work better with multiples so you get 2, and really at this point you need to get a few more hulls in to provide protection. It does work well with razor spam lists but why not run BA or GK then? Or if your running drop-pods stick with C:SM cause theirs can hold 12. Many, if not most, of the most powerful and popular SW lists are razorspam lists, primarily because GH's are so capable and so cheap in small squads. Half a dozen or more razorbacks, 5-6 GH squads, 2 dreads, 3 LF squads, and you've got more AT guns than most IG armies and still have a large number of scoring units that are more effective in CC than full sized tac squads even if charged most of the time.



Termies - Our termies aren't as good. The exception is when you run logan and they become scoring but even then they lack the ability to teleport, and even using wound allocation tricks to your advantage are still more expensive then vanillas. Counter attack somewhat makes up for this but the unit is nowhere near as durable as the other fifth edition marine options. SW termi's have a wider array of upgrade options than any other terminator unit, have Acute Senses/ATSKNF/CA, and can still DS with a pod. No teleport does hurt a bit, but they still have the pod and of course Land Raiders.



Heavy teams - we use long fangs, though i have seen logan wing armies go with speeders instead. That said ours have no ablative wounds and make up a larger portion of our long range shooting. We can also try and run wolf guard like stern guard though it doesn't work that well. LF are all about teh alpha strike, and there isn't a better unit in the game for that, they put out more firepower than any other unit point for point, more effectively, and are still hardier than many other such long range heavy weapons units (Dark Reapers, IG HWT's, Sniper Drones, etc).



Jump pack/bikes - vanilla options are better, skyclaws can't have wolfguard and have bs 3, bikes have super expensive wolfguard and again have bs 3. Vanilla bikes can be scoring, and thier assualt marines are more accurate and have better leadership granted jumpers are really only used by BA. Yeah, lower WS/BS and can't be scoring, but again most armies bikes can't be scoring. Lower WS/BS however compensates for extra charge attack and Counterattack. Overall, not that bad, people make too much of the WS3, and the BS3 isn't huge given "Claw" units aren't really packing too much firepower to start with, minus small melta-bike squads.



This doesn't really factor in the different abilites that the various SC for C:SM provide. I'm also not stating that the armies are even in terms of power, its just that its more than gh vs. tacticals making that difference. I agree, but the difference in power in basic troops, plus the amazing heavy weapons infantry, and similarity or identical nature of most other units, really makes the GH's and SW's as a whole the stronger army and I think that's been reflected in their explosion in popularity, tournament attendance (they were the most popular army at the last Adepticon by far, and almost 90% of the SW armies present were bandwagon counts-as armies), and rankings.

PhalanxLord
07-10-2011, 00:03
I find this thread hilarious. Yes, GH are better than tactical marines. I've said it. VSM are starting to get a bit dated compared to other 5th ed armies. I won't argue that SW aren't better, though I don't feel that the difference is as bad as most people make it out to be.

On the other hand, I feel that most of the people complaining about GH are missing things.

Personally, I don't think tacticals are too badly off (other than a basic squad being maybe 5pts too much and they could use dropping to 15pts per model). People badmouth bolters, but anyone who's not an armchair general knows exactly how potent bolters are. There's a reason why Crusaiders are the go-to land raider and why people buy hurricane bolters for storm ravens. After all, once you've taken out those vehicles you now have to kill around 50+ MEQ with cover. Your meltaguns or missile launchers aren't really going to help you now. Not only that, but what do you think people use to kill hordes when they show? It sure as hell isn't a multi-melta. It's bolters.

As for how to play tactical squads, there are plenty of ways to get a lot of use out of them. Someone complained about never using his heavy weapon. Why not combat squad, toss the sarge with a combi-melta and a meltagun in the rhino while the ML stays back and holds an objective and bubblewraps your armoured firepower (or vice-versa)? Multi-meltas lack range? Drive the rhino halfway up the board and park it. The opponent will have to try to go around it or through it now, the multi-melta has reach over most of the board (~61%) and you pop smoke to protect it that first turn.

Someone mentioned that a single heavy weapons won't help? Most people take 3-4 tactical squads. That's an extra 3-4 missiles. That's not much you say? It's around 20%-26.67% of the firepower of 15 long fangs without having to take up any other slots.The first half has the same firepower as a GH unit while the second half has a missile or a multi-melta, not to mention the fact that you have 2 scoring units from a single slot or only a single KP in kill-point games. Not to mention anyone who wants to charge the VSM has to make sure they don't shoot the unit because it'll just fall back out of charge range. SW can't do that.

As for the mention of land raiders, they are simply a better choice for other armies than SW. Why, one may ask, are they not very good for SW when the rules are the same? It's simple. What would SW do with it? Wolf guard don't make very good deathstar units unlike TH/SS because their cost with thunderhammers is so high. GH don't need them because they're better in rhinos with firepowers or plasbacks for the price and firepower. TWC supply their own movement. Overall, land raiders just aren't useful for SW because they lack a transportable unit that would get a good use out of the assault ramp (unlike other chapters). After all, units aren't always good on their own merits, but also their place in the army. Land raiders might as well not even be in the army book for all the use they are for SW.

AlphariusOmegon20
07-10-2011, 01:32
In army balance , yes grey hunters are cheep
But they cant have a heavy weapon and if they have 2 special weapons and a Sargent they cant have a transport.
Grey hunters have less tactical flexibility that tacticool squads


Lastchancers.co.uk

GH don't need a sergeant to function effectively, Tac squads do.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Vaktathi
07-10-2011, 07:30
Multi-meltas lack range? Drive the rhino halfway up the board and park it. The opponent will have to try to go around it or through it now, the multi-melta has reach over most of the board (~61%) and you pop smoke to protect it that first turn. Shake the AV11 box that just tossed itself right in about probably the sweetest place for retaliation and move on.



Someone mentioned that a single heavy weapons won't help? Most people take 3-4 tactical squads. That's an extra 3-4 missiles. That's not much you say? It's around 20%-26.67% of the firepower of 15 long fangs without having to take up any other slots. while tying up 4 other dudes you have to pay for. Yeah, you don't need other slots, but they're not exactly cost effective heavy weapons platforms.


The first half has the same firepower as a GH unit But not the CC capability, and costs more.


while the second half has a missile or a multi-melta, So it's ~85-100pts for a single stationary heavy weapon to sit at the back or needing to be put right where most opponents want you and then wait a turn before you can use it.


not to mention the fact that you have 2 scoring units from a single slot or only a single KP in kill-point games. That's the big rub yes, not really the heavy weapons component.


Not to mention anyone who wants to charge the VSM has to make sure they don't shoot the unit because it'll just fall back out of charge range. That assumes you kill A: Kill enough to force the test (This can be managed by the opposing player), B: Don't kill enough to either wipe the unit out or destroy its combat effectiveness, and C: that they *do* fall back out of range. Even assuming perfect positioning so that all of the enemy models are farther from your board edge than you are, there's about a 1/4 chance they'll still be able to make contact if you roll low on your fallback distance and they're very close, and if the enemy is attempting to charge from any other direction they'll likely still have a good chance, or sometimes even a better chance, to catch you. And if an opponent forced enough casualties to force a morale test, chances are the unit has lost its combat effectiveness as well on such a small unit.

Combat Tactics is useful on bike units & Assault Marines (where it can actually be *very* useful), on anything else it's very much a once in a blue moon thing. I think I can recall one game where an opponent managed to put it to good use on something else in the last two years.


SW can't do that. SW don't need to when they can hit back with three attacks each.



Wolf guard don't make very good deathstar units unlike TH/SS because their cost with thunderhammers is so high. Not every single model needs a thunderhammer. Give the unit a couple powerfists and and a shield or two, or just toss in a couple barebones WG for ablative wounds, and you'll get the same effect thanks to wound allocation gimmickery unless you plan on taking repeated plasma blasts or trying to beat down a 6 wound MC in a single round. There's also the ability to take combi and heavy weapons and a variety of CC weapons instead of just one.

You don't need 5 thunder hammers in most combats nor do you need a 3++ on every single model most of the time.

This is also assuming you want them as Terminators, as power armored units they've got a lot of versatility. An entire unit of discounted sergeants with a huge variety of discounted gear? What's not to like? It's hard to see them as being mediocre or poor units when compared with equivalents in other SM armies.


Overall, land raiders just aren't useful for SW because they lack a transportable unit that would get a good use out of the assault ramp (unlike other chapters). So, the chapter with some of the fightiest units in the game can't make good use of an assault ramp?:shifty:

The bigger issue is that Long Fangs simply are generally by far the best use of that slot.



After all, units aren't always good on their own merits, but also their place in the army. Land raiders might as well not even be in the army book for all the use they are for SW.Were ML armed long fangs 30pts more (5pts more per ML), you'd probably see more variety in use of those HS slots.

The Elder
07-10-2011, 09:29
Shake the AV11 box that just tossed itself right in about probably the sweetest place for retaliation and move on.

while tying up 4 other dudes you have to pay for. Yeah, you don't need other slots, but they're not exactly cost effective heavy weapons platforms.

But not the CC capability, and costs more.

Where are not saying we trow the rhino in in the open, whichI think you're assuming. So you would rather pay only for heavy weapons for every single marine without ablative wounds? Good luck to you

So it's ~85-100pts for a single stationary heavy weapon to sit at the back or needing to be put right where most opponents want you and then wait a turn before you can use it.

Once again, bolters are not useless. Yes, If you have a ML or MM shooting at a vehicle. But i think that's a price worth paying as you are able to score a very easy kill-point or knock down their mobility in a very easy way. Something I think a lot of armies would like to do with their troops

That's the big rub yes, not really the heavy weapons component.

That assumes you kill A: Kill enough to force the test (This can be managed by the opposing player), B: Don't kill enough to either wipe the unit out or destroy its combat effectiveness, and C: that they *do* fall back out of range. Even assuming perfect positioning so that all of the enemy models are farther from your board edge than you are, there's about a 1/4 chance they'll still be able to make contact if you roll low on your fallback distance and they're very close, and if the enemy is attempting to charge from any other direction they'll likely still have a good chance, or sometimes even a better chance, to catch you. And if an opponent forced enough casualties to force a morale test, chances are the unit has lost its combat effectiveness as well on such a small unit.

Combat Tactics is useful on bike units & Assault Marines (where it can actually be *very* useful), on anything else it's very much a once in a blue moon thing. I think I can recall one game where an opponent managed to put it to good use on something else in the last two years.

SW don't need to when they can hit back with three attacks each.

First of all, you're assuming you'll pas the test. And second of all, it only helps fighting against a small number of opponents. Some will assault you anyway, say assault specialists. Or they will just tie you up, which can be dangerous to SW as they don't have Combat Tactics.

Not every single model needs a thunderhammer. Give the unit a couple powerfists and and a shield or two, or just toss in a couple barebones WG for ablative wounds, and you'll get the same effect thanks to wound allocation gimmickery unless you plan on taking repeated plasma blasts or trying to beat down a 6 wound MC in a single round. There's also the ability to take combi and heavy weapons and a variety of CC weapons instead of just one.

You don't need 5 thunder hammers in most combats nor do you need a 3++ on every single model most of the time.

This is also assuming you want them as Terminators, as power armored units they've got a lot of versatility. An entire unit of discounted sergeants with a huge variety of discounted gear? What's not to like? It's hard to see them as being mediocre or poor units when compared with equivalents in other SM armies.

So, the chapter with some of the fightiest units in the game can't make good use of an assault ramp?:shifty:

sounds like you missed the point he made here. Out of personal experience. WG tend to attract a lot of AP1-2 firepower when they don't have SS. Which leaves them vulnerable. Giving them a SS makes them more expensive than your 'Nilla Assault Termies. Which means they're less effective. And that's even without TH (as they 48 points equiped as such.

The bigger issue is that Long Fangs simply are generally by far the best use of that slot.

Were ML armed long fangs 30pts more (5pts more per ML), you'd probably see more variety in use of those HS slots.

Yeah, maybe. But still, LF fill a gap in the SW codex, for that of fire-support. More than a Predator could do. Vindicators can be a risk for a assault oriented army and Whirlwinds...? As they don't have heavy weapons for their troop choices, this makes heavy support quite important. I you made them slightly more expensive, say 3 pts. yeah, they might not get spammed al over the place. But I con't believe they are such a problem,. They're just a small squad of marines in the backboard, and can be dealt with like such. In my experience, small squads of marines are not that hard to shoot down. And yes, I agree that 'Nilla devastators are overpriced.

Reply in the quote.

Cheers,
The Elder

orkmiester
07-10-2011, 10:09
I've never understood why people don't like WG termis aside from they can't spam TH/SS termi's that are so undercosted in other SM armies (and have led to the practical extinction of LC and Tac Termi's from other loyalist SM armies). CSM termi's are fairly solid units that gets decent play time and SW termi's are identical except they cost 3pts more with ATSKNF, Acute Senses, Counterattack and more upgrade options. They're certainly more versatile in terms of role than loyalist units

indeed- i suspect vanilla will have to pay more in their next codex:shifty:

i like wolfguard termies- they do ok as i'm a more 'semi-competitive' player, stick them in a LRC and away you go when i last used them suffice to say ouch:D As you say chaos termies are a soild unit but lets not forget if you want to go to town you can make them all have 3 attacks basic before you put your weapon choices on:shifty: of course it costs a bomb but hey they kill stuff.

as some have said SW seem to be a 'point and click' army:p in some respects, in that they tend to work whatever you do with them- so it seems the good old vanilla ones could be considered a 'more challenging' army:shifty::eyebrows:

seems then that new players should be directed to the nearest SW/BA codex firs then

The Elder
07-10-2011, 10:21
When I don't play competitive, I give them a roll every once in a while. But I'm about to figure out how to make them work. (I personally don't really like LR a lot, although sometimes they're nice.)

I think it's mainly because I play smaller-sized games recently. But for bigger games, I would like to try out 2 units of them.

Cheers,
The Elder

40 klicks below
07-10-2011, 10:22
To be fair, a good part of the Chaos Terminators that "see play" is a 3-Melta-gun-icon-teleport-delivery-suicide. Special rules don't matter on that one.

Chapters Unwritten
07-10-2011, 13:57
I think combat tactics and counter-attack cancels each other out. Combat squads is a really good ability but I am not sure it justifys the price difference. A grey hunter squad with a standard and wolfguard has the potential to outshoot you then when charge out cc you.People forget that combat tactics also turns into chapter tactics, and the 1 point per marine you pay for it is what levels off things like Vulkanized melta/flamer armies, all-outflanking White Scars armies, or all-fleet Shrike armies.

All of which the Space Wolves cannot do.

We also have the rather sizable disadvantage of lacking flexibility. When you field a tac squad you have the option to split, save yourself some KP or spread out to cover objectives. Our Grey Hunters are our core fighting force and leaving two squads of them in the backfield to hold home objectives, for example, is pretty inadvisable in a variety of common cases. On the other hand, gearing your army to this, you end up with 10 or so KP to give away just from your GH.

Counterattack gets brought up a lot but the fact is it is triggered by the enemy, not the SW player. Whether counterattack is useful or not is entirely the decision of our opponents. And modern day 40k'ers are dense and dive right into my lines.

massey
07-10-2011, 14:04
If what you're looking for in a troops choice is to carry 2 special weapons, then yes, GH can do that and Tacs can't. GH generally run forward in one big blob carrying 2 specials, while Tacs split into 2 squads, with one running forward with a special and the other hanging back with a heavy.

I prefer the Tac method myself. My troops squads are for holding objectives. I sit the heavy squad right on an objective from the beginning. The bolters aren't wasted because I know my opponent is going to be sending people to that objective to try and take it. I don't have to use the heavy squads as my main anti-tank. I've got attack bikes and land speeders for that. But they are a nice supplement. And my 5 man heavy weapon squad has higher survivability because they hang back in cover, as opposed to running out there in the thick of the battle.

Past that, Tacs have better leadership rules and GH have an extra attack. Meh. The guys who complain about bolters being "useless" for whatever reason get really excited about a handful of extra Str 4 non-special HTH attacks. GH are alright in HTH, certainly better than a Tac squad (especially a Tac demi-squad of 5 guys), but they still ain't that great. They're still not dedicated HTH troops, and the guy who tries to take on some Genestealers or Khorne Berzerkers will find that out real quick.

In the end, GH and Tacs probably should be about the same price, but it's not that big of a deal.

Vaktathi
07-10-2011, 15:28
Where are not saying we trow the rhino in in the open, whichI think you're assuming. Not necessarily in the open, but if it's ~24" up in the middel of the board that often is in the open, and often in perfect range of rapid fire/assault weapons with an easy move and lots of heavy weapons, even with cover, not hard to neutralize an AV11 box that's just put itself halfway up the board where one can bring weapons of all range classes to bear with relative ease.


So you would rather pay only for heavy weapons for every single marine without ablative wounds? Good luck to youNo, not what I'm saying, but extolling the virtues of tac squads based on their heavy weapon isn't really what makes them useful. Their use as a heavy weapon platform is very points inefficient if that's the role one is intending them for.



Once again, bolters are not useless. Right, but if we're talking a heavy weapon unit that's primarily there to try and hit tanks, they aren't doing much, and if we're talking a ML at the back of the board, they probably aren't doing much regardless of target.


Yes, If you have a ML or MM shooting at a vehicle. But i think that's a price worth paying as you are able to score a very easy kill-point or knock down their mobility in a very easy way. Something I think a lot of armies would like to do with their troopsYou'll find most SM armies with the option to take double specials over a special and a heavy do so. That's one of the most pined for options for Tac's with teh current codex. That said, I'm not saying the heavy weapon is useless, I apologize if I gave that impression, however relying on tac squads for heavy weapons support is probably the least efficient method of fire support in Codex: Space Marines.


First of all, you're assuming you'll pas the test. Yes, however the chances of failing are relatively small and even if you don't the GH's still have twice the number of attacks that Tac's have in that situation.


And second of all, it only helps fighting against a small number of opponents. Anything that isn't a heavy assault unit?


Some will assault you anyway, say assault specialists. And depending on which kind the GH's may still have a good chance. Many assault specialists don't like taking 3 WS4 S4 attacks back when they're doing the charging.


Or they will just tie you up, which can be dangerous to SW as they don't have Combat Tactics.
However they have significantly more attacks than Tac's and are hitting back much harder, and lets not forget that even with combat tactics, against an I4 opponent you still have a better than even chance of getting caught and against an I5 or higher opponent you'll only rarely get away, and of course then have to take no-retreat wounds as well.

Then of course there's the issue of "we got away" and then the enemy consolidates and the majority of the time is still within 6"of your now fleeing unit and escorts it right off the board :p


sounds like you missed the point he made here. Out of personal experience. WG tend to attract a lot of AP1-2 firepower when they don't have SS. They'd probably attract it either way.


Which leaves them vulnerable. Giving them a SS makes them more expensive than your 'Nilla Assault Termies. Which means they're less effective. And that's even without TH (as they 48 points equiped as such. No I get that, however I was pointing out you don't need every single guy in the unit to have one. If you take two or a couple ablative wound guys, you get the majority of the benefit that you'd get from having every guy in the squad with one unless they're throwing enough pure AP2 shots to inflict AP2 hits on more than just the couple guys with SS's or the ablative wound putzes and aren't throwing anything allowing you to game wound alloction with (such as bolter fire) in there either.

The only reason people don't see them as very survivable is because of C:SM's silly cheap TH/SS units. With a 2+ armor, 5+ invul, and often 4+ cover, a variety of combi-heavy weapons and more CC weapon upgrade options than any other terminator unit, they've got a lot to offer.

Grand Master Raziel
07-10-2011, 16:10
Personally, I don't think Tacs and GHs compare very well. Realistically, Tac Squads are a support unit. They're meant to nab objectives and hold onto them with reasonable durability while other units in the army do the work of killing opposing units. Elites, Fast Attacks, and Heavy Supports do the bulk of the killing in a vanilla SM force.

Grey Hunters, on the other hand, are expected to do more of the heavy lifting. They're expected to bolter it up and then eat a charge swinging as many attacks as a vanilla Assault Squad would swing charging. However, they need to have that Wolf Guard pack leader to maximize the chances of passing the Ld test for Counterattack. That costs an Elite slot. That means the SW force has one less Dreadnought or Terminator Squad. That is not a small thing.

Also, the Rhino-mounted GH squad is only packing the one special (well, one guy can pack a plasma pistol as well - whee) whereas the Tac Squad is packing a special and a heavy. Granted, the heavy might not fire every turn - in fact, it's unlikely it will unless you combat squad the Tacs. However, the Tac Squad has the option of using it, and there are times when the Tac Squad heavy can have a very large impact in the game. It does force a tactical decision (sit still for the heavy or move for rapid fire boltering/assaut), and folks on forums don't seem to like units that require tactical thought, but through that heavy the Tac Squad can do things GHs can't do.

Combat Squads is an ability that shouldn't be underestimated, either. It lets you control 2 objectives with 1 slot from your FOC, and dedicate less points to sitting on the objective. Heck, take a Razorback and you can control 2 objectives with units that can pitch into the overall battle while sitting on those objectives. This frees up other units to engage and defeat your opponent's stuff. In this way, Tac Squads are better at supporting the rest of your army than Grey Hunters are.

The Elder
07-10-2011, 16:56
Not necessarily in the open, but if it's ~24" up in the middel of the board that often is in the open, and often in perfect range of rapid fire/assault weapons with an easy move and lots of heavy weapons, even with cover, not hard to neutralize an AV11 box that's just put itself halfway up the board where one can bring weapons of all range classes to bear with relative ease.

I agree it's not an advisable tactic. And I wouldn't play Tacs that way, as they will get destroyed very quick. But that wasn't his point. He wanted to show that their threat zone can be quite big

No, not what I'm saying, but extolling the virtues of tac squads based on their heavy weapon isn't really what makes them useful. Their use as a heavy weapon platform is very points inefficient if that's the role one is intending them for.

I also didn't say that the heavy weapon platform is what makes them usefull. It's combat tactics and being able to Combat Squad. As Sw players have the risk of either giving away far to much KP or have to much points wasted on a babysiting duty on a objective in their own deployment zone. Where they don't have acces to a longrange heavy weapon to contribute to the battle on the other side of the board. Something Tacs can do

Right, but if we're talking a heavy weapon unit that's primarily there to try and hit tanks, they aren't doing much, and if we're talking a ML at the back of the board, they probably aren't doing much regardless of target.

What I meant to say is, that the flexibility offered by Tacs let's you deal in a easier way with a tank zipping around you flank. As you have some Heavy Weapons spread around (Which also makes it easier to hit that more vulnerable side or rear armour.) SW players on the other hand, neet to keep units in a reserve duty, or need to divert from their primary task to do this . (If the GH are close enough at all)

You'll find most SM armies with the option to take double specials over a special and a heavy do so. That's one of the most pined for options for Tac's with teh current codex. That said, I'm not saying the heavy weapon is useless, I apologize if I gave that impression, however relying on tac squads for heavy weapons support is probably the least efficient method of fire support in Codex: Space Marines.

Agreed

Yes, however the chances of failing are relatively small and even if you don't the GH's still have twice the number of attacks that Tac's have in that situation.

This is where I believe the advantage of the GH is, and should be. Tacs get the flexibility from Combat Squads and Combat Tactics, SW players get Counter-attack.

Anything that isn't a heavy assault unit?

In my experience, only mediocre assault units do really care, like small sized Ork mobs or 'Nids units (Which can be painfull) Dedicated assault unit have the power to give Gh a sound beating. And units not dedicated to combat shouldn't be in one, no matter if they're fighting GH or Tacs, as they will get beaten. Although it can be more painfull for GH, as they tend to clobber there way through such units to fast. Leaving them vulnerable to counter-attacks and enemy fire

And depending on which kind the GH's may still have a good chance. Many assault specialists don't like taking 3 WS4 S4 attacks back when they're doing the charging.

I found most dedicated assault units have a higher initiative (Like the GK ones (I6, as most people take the halbersds on them), Genestealers (I6), DCA (I6)) or the toughness/AS to ignore incoming attacks.(like MC and the likes) On the other hand, using counter-attack is more risky than assaulting anyway. As you might faill the test. And a lot of dedicated assautlt troops get more nasty when they're assaulting (like bonus Strenght or Initiative on top of the normal Attack bonus. Which I don't like dedicated assault units to get. (So if you want to get the bonus attack and get in assault, might just as well charge yourself

However they have significantly more attacks than Tac's and are hitting back much harder, and lets not forget that even with combat tactics, against an I4 opponent you still have a better than even chance of getting caught and against an I5 or higher opponent you'll only rarely get away, and of course then have to take no-retreat wounds as well.

Which sucks, I agree

Then of course there's the issue of "we got away" and then the enemy consolidates and the majority of the time is still within 6"of your now fleeing unit and escorts it right off the board :p

They'd probably attract it either way.

Escort it right of the board? If he's able to do that, it means you let you do that. (Are your Tacs on their own?) Most combats take place around the centre of the board. and maybe a couple near objectives. Meaning he needs about 2 turns time to escort them of the board. (which is a lot of time in an average game of 6 turns.

No I get that, however I was pointing out you don't need every single guy in the unit to have one. If you take two or a couple ablative wound guys, you get the majority of the benefit that you'd get from having every guy in the squad with one unless they're throwing enough pure AP2 shots to inflict AP2 hits on more than just the couple guys with SS's or the ablative wound putzes and aren't throwing anything allowing you to game wound alloction with (such as bolter fire) in there either.

Agreed

The only reason people don't see them as very survivable is because of C:SM's silly cheap TH/SS units. With a 2+ armor, 5+ invul, and often 4+ cover, a variety of combi-heavy weapons and more CC weapon upgrade options than any other terminator unit, they've got a lot to offer.

Nope, for me they just tend to cost to much points. So i need my whole army to accomodate them. As one units tends to draw a lot of (AP2) firepower. Meaning it will be wiped out before turn 3 (even worse if I drop-pod tjem in. And as soon as I start using a LR, you'r putting al your eggs in one basket again. I agree thayhave a lot to offer, but mainly for bigger games.

But as I said before, I think the role for GH in a SW force is totally different than that of Tacs in a SM force. Where a SW army is based around Gh, requiring them to do most of the work (including killing stuff) and the rest of the army in support of GH. A Sm army on the other hand seems to work with the Tacs covering the HS, FA and Elite slots. Working in their support



Comments in red.

Cheers,
The Elder

althathir
07-10-2011, 17:35
@ Vaktahi

Wolf guard termies do have a lot of options, and they are a solid choice they just aren't a great one. For example if you load up on combi-weapons you really need either a raider or drop-pod. With a raider your looking at a 500 point chunk of your army. With a drop-pod you get a super safe deepstrike, at the cost of 35 points and an easy kill-point (not really the end of the world) but it adds an additional cost to that unit. A combi-weapon chaos squad doesn't need these additional units, which makes the price further away from 3 pts a model.

Like it or not cheap assault termies have become the standard with deathwing allowing mixed units, vanillas having a really point effiecent options, and blood angels having a slighty more expensive squad but with a lot of access to fnp bubbles. These are all better choices than what wolves can come up with. On side note I expect chaos termies to get a lot better in their dex.

As far as the heavy weapon is concerned with tacs combat squadding and having one group be static, isn't always the best play and I didn't mean to imply it if I did. That said it allows them to have an effect on the rest of the battle while baby sitting an objective which grey hunters rarely do.

The Elder
07-10-2011, 18:03
I think the cost of Tacs should get decreased by 1 point. With some small changes in the way they work.

-Don't suffer extra wounds from the 'No Retreat!'-rule when using Combat Tactics.
-Being able to exhange their bolters for bp+ccw as Troops
- Able to take 2 special weapons (1 for every 5 models in the squad)
- Able to take 1 Heavy Weapon instead of one of the special weapons. (Discounted, so they are cheaper than the devastator ones. To encourage people taking them instead of Special Weapons.
- Bring the Devastators in line with the BA ones.

something along these lines should greatly improve them.

Cheers,
The Elder

ghoulio
07-10-2011, 18:11
I think the cost of Tacs should get decreased by 1 point. With some small changes in the way they work.

-Don't suffer extra wounds from the 'No Retreat!'-rule when using Combat Tactics.
-Being able to exhange their bolters for bp+ccw as Troops
- Able to take 2 special weapons (1 for every 5 models in the squad)
- Able to take 1 Heavy Weapon instead of the special weapons. (Discounted, so they are cheaper than the devastator ones. To encourage people taking them instead of Special Weapons.
- Bring the Devastators in line with the BA ones.

something along these lines should greatly improve them.

Cheers,
The Elder

Tactical Marines should stay the exact same as they are now in every way (including points) except come with a bolt pistol and CC weapon. Problem solved as they become the ultimate "tactical" unit in the game. Grey Hunters should also be AT LEAST as expensive as Tactical Marines since they are better (there is no argument anyone can list to say otherwise in my mind) for cheaper. Putting their points up slightly and maybe making Blood Claws 14pts would give SW players a reason to actually take Blood Claws other then "just for fun".

The Elder
07-10-2011, 18:23
Tactical Marines should stay the exact same as they are now in every way (including points) except come with a bolt pistol and CC weapon. Problem solved as they become the ultimate "tactical" unit in the game. Grey Hunters should also be AT LEAST as expensive as Tactical Marines since they are better (there is no argument anyone can list to say otherwise in my mind) for cheaper. Putting their points up slightly and maybe making Blood Claws 14pts would give SW players a reason to actually take Blood Claws other then "just for fun".

I agree about the Blood Claws. But the reason I said the price of Tacs should be decreased by one, is to keep up with the recent power creep.

Cheers,
The Elder

ghoulio
07-10-2011, 18:30
I agree about the Blood Claws. But the reason I said the price of Tacs should be decreased by one, is to keep up with the recent power creep.

Cheers,
The Elder

If you give them 2 weapons in CC then you have kept up with the current power creep in my opinion as there would be nothing in the game that is more well rounded (especially for the price) then Tactical Marines.

Fixer
07-10-2011, 18:40
Combat tactics in general could use improvement. I could make a pretty long video about all the issues that plague that little mechanic.

It's a good ability when you're just starting to play 40k but once your opponents understand all its flaws it barely makes any impact. Trouble is that it's trying to make use of a game rule for beaten and broken units and doesn't resolve the negatives that has nor can you use it unless you were already in a position to be broken anyway.

Say instead that you swap it for giving units hit and run at the end of the opponent's assault phase if they were locked into assault by an enemy charge that turn. Suddenly it becomes badass but only usable defensively and not an ability that's flawless ( 2/3 chance of success).

That would be combat tactics, not the professional cowardice Ultramarines exhibit today.

The Elder
07-10-2011, 18:51
Although hit-and-run sounds good. Even if it doesn't work all the time. Counter-attack doesn't work all the time does it.?

Cheers,
The Elder

Fixer
07-10-2011, 18:58
Counter attack works 5/6 of the time unless you're making a super-cheap squad though, and those extra CCWs do work happen to work 100% of the time, and MOTW and wolf banners.

I think my idea would make things a bit more of a shooting match for Codex: Marines (sans chapter tactics) which would suit them better considering how behind the curve they are on melee power.


Excluding TH termies of course.

The Elder
07-10-2011, 19:05
What do you mean?

Cheers,
The Elder

PhalanxLord
07-10-2011, 19:10
You know, it would really make things more readable if you kept paragraphs together. Some of the quotes don't really make sense unless you see them with the paragraph for context.


Shake the AV11 box that just tossed itself right in about probably the sweetest place for retaliation and move on.

Cause obviously there aren't at least 3 more rhinos also forward deployed with cover saves, not to mention whatever I spent the other 1Kpts in my 1850pt list on. An entire army on one rhino means it and the unit inside is likely dead. A whole army across an entire other army? Not quite as likely. Look at it this way; It takes 18 S8 shots on average just to at minimum shake 4 rhinos. That's the payload of 3x full long fang units and 2 5 man GH units with on using a combi-melta over 6" away. Most of your army is going to be laughing and there's a good chance that most of those rhinos survived.



while tying up 4 other dudes you have to pay for. Yeah, you don't need other slots, but they're not exactly cost effective heavy weapons platforms.

Yeah, but you sort of need to get them anyway. And it's not just a heavy weapons platform. A lot of people seem to type-cast units more than they should be. It's a heavy weapons platform. It's bubble wrap. It's a scoring unit. It's another target that the opponent will want to kill because with a bit of luck even one ML can be very dangerous. It's better than you think.



But not the CC capability, and costs more.

Meh. And SM have better units for that kind of thing. Next I expect you'll start complaining about how BA can have furious charge and FNP.



So it's ~85-100pts for a single stationary heavy weapon to sit at the back or needing to be put right where most opponents want you and then wait a turn before you can use it.

80pts. 5 dudes with a free heavy. No one in the right mind pays for a tactical squad heavy.

And you seem to be assuming that you're facing an enemy that can target and kill every unit that is within range every turn. If there was an army like that then everyone would be playing it.



That's the big rub yes, not really the heavy weapons component.

It's a major advantage.



That assumes you kill A: Kill enough to force the test (This can be managed by the opposing player), B: Don't kill enough to either wipe the unit out or destroy its combat effectiveness, and C: that they *do* fall back out of range. Even assuming perfect positioning so that all of the enemy models are farther from your board edge than you are, there's about a 1/4 chance they'll still be able to make contact if you roll low on your fallback distance and they're very close, and if the enemy is attempting to charge from any other direction they'll likely still have a good chance, or sometimes even a better chance, to catch you. And if an opponent forced enough casualties to force a morale test, chances are the unit has lost its combat effectiveness as well on such a small unit.

A: Not very hard to do. A 10-man tactical squad with a special weapon has a decent chance of getting 3 kills in rapid-fire range and sometimes a player just rolls really well and it screws him over. I've seen it happen enough.

B: Which doesn't always happen. Besides, a unit that lives is a unit that can still fight. If my opponent takes my tactical squad down to a single guy then I still have a scoring unit with two shots that could potentially do something and is also not worth a KP. Don't underestimate it.

C: Assuming you start 1" apart when being shot (which is pretty rare to be honest, it's genearlly close to 3 or 4" at minimum, sometimes as much as 6" if the enemy is really good at judging distances) then you get away on a 6+. 72.222% chance of getting away from the enemy. At 1.x" you need a 5+. 83.333% chance of getting away. Pretty good. Over 2" you're looking at 92%.

All things considered, those are pretty damn good odds of getting away from an enemy that could potentially crush your unit or finish your unit during your turn to avoid being shot (and other than at being exactly 1" away you have at least a 10/12 chance of getting away).



Combat Tactics is useful on bike units & Assault Marines (where it can actually be *very* useful), on anything else it's very much a once in a blue moon thing. I think I can recall one game where an opponent managed to put it to good use on something else in the last two years.


Then perhaps your opponents need to be taught how to use it effectively.



SW don't need to when they can hit back with three attacks each.


I'm going to assume this is a joke. 3 attacks each might work on things like gaunts and tactical marines but it won't do anything if a unit walks up with power weapons or terminator armour, not to mention if the opponent wins combat by 1 then there's a good chance that the SW will be stuck in combat while the VSM have a pretty good chance of getting away and letting the enemy be shot rather than hiding in combat during your turn.



Not every single model needs a thunderhammer. Give the unit a couple powerfists and and a shield or two, or just toss in a couple barebones WG for ablative wounds, and you'll get the same effect thanks to wound allocation gimmickery unless you plan on taking repeated plasma blasts or trying to beat down a 6 wound MC in a single round. There's also the ability to take combi and heavy weapons and a variety of CC weapons instead of just one.

You don't need 5 thunder hammers in most combats nor do you need a 3++ on every single model most of the time.

I had a bit of a brain fart there. I meant storm shields.

The big problem is that you're still looking at a unit that either can't deal out enough punishment or isn't durable enough for it's points. I've tried combat units of wolf guard before. They're fun to use, but they get crushed fairly badly against similar points of dedicated close combat units or mass firepower that wouldn't bother a similarly pointed unit of assault terminators. You don't need a 3++ on everyone, but you do want it on at least a couple of guys, and at 43pts before buying any sort of combat ability you're paying out the nose.



This is also assuming you want them as Terminators, as power armored units they've got a lot of versatility. An entire unit of discounted sergeants with a huge variety of discounted gear? What's not to like? It's hard to see them as being mediocre or poor units when compared with equivalents in other SM armies.

Low durability, high cost (one wolf guard with dual lightning claws costs 8pts more than an assault terminator), in fact if you really want to make a combat unit you might as well make them terminators because terminators are actually cheaper than non-terminators for the most part (TH/SS PA is 10pts more than TH/SS terminators in SW). either way you're paying between 20% to over 50% more than the VSM equivalents in terms of special weapons compared to assault terminators.



So, the chapter with some of the fightiest units in the game can't make good use of an assault ramp?:shifty:

Our fighty units are guys on thunderwolves (lords, battle leaders, TWC). WG just don't cut it. The most point efficient WG set-up is a WG with a powers sword. Second is a WG with a frost blade, then a WG with 2x LC (with or without terminator armour), then a single LC, then a PF. With the exception of the dual LC they're all in power armour with no invulnerable save and pretty much just space marines who cost twice as much when being attacked. WG combat units just aren't worth the cost.



The bigger issue is that Long Fangs simply are generally by far the best use of that slot.

Were ML armed long fangs 30pts more (5pts more per ML), you'd probably see more variety in use of those HS slots.

I doubt it. There's nothing in the army that can do what long fangs do half as well as they can. The closest things would be riflemen dreads and min CML WG units, but one takes up slots needed for the wolf guard tax, scouts, and lone wolves while the other is only viable in a Loganwing list.

blackjack
07-10-2011, 19:40
This is all just LOL Silly. Of course the Wolf Codex is undercosted for Grey hunters, Long Fangs and rune Priests. These all get bonuses that no other codex gets and a price reduction on top. The supposed drawbacks are meaningless... Overwhelming objective proof lies in tournament results. Not just one or two top tournaments but over and over and over again. ML Spam + GH Mech Spam + Nijal or cheap over powered rune priest = win.

PhalanxLord
07-10-2011, 19:45
Not necessarily in the open, but if it's ~24" up in the middel of the board that often is in the open, and often in perfect range of rapid fire/assault weapons with an easy move and lots of heavy weapons, even with cover, not hard to neutralize an AV11 box that's just put itself halfway up the board where one can bring weapons of all range classes to bear with relative ease.

Depends on the board. Most boards I play on have terrain between the two armies.



No, not what I'm saying, but extolling the virtues of tac squads based on their heavy weapon isn't really what makes them useful. Their use as a heavy weapon platform is very points inefficient if that's the role one is intending them for.

I'm just saying that if you're taking them anyway then you might as well take advantage of what you get. Calling a unit crap without trying to get the most out of it isn't really a good way to do things. You don't take tactical squads to be heavy weapons platforms. You take them to be scoring. The fact that they have heavy weapons is secondary. It's a plus they have, but it's not why you take them.



Right, but if we're talking a heavy weapon unit that's primarily there to try and hit tanks, they aren't doing much, and if we're talking a ML at the back of the board, they probably aren't doing much regardless of target.

Most of the time, probably not. It's pretty nice to have the bolters there when a unit of stealers suddenly outflanks, though.



You'll find most SM armies with the option to take double specials over a special and a heavy do so. That's one of the most pined for options for Tac's with teh current codex. That said, I'm not saying the heavy weapon is useless, I apologize if I gave that impression, however relying on tac squads for heavy weapons support is probably the least efficient method of fire support in Codex: Space Marines.

Double specials were awesome when you could take them in a 5 man unit. I think that if people could take a single special in a 5 man unit and either a special or a heavy in a 10 man unit we wouldn't be seeing very many 10 man units.



Yes, however the chances of failing are relatively small and even if you don't the GH's still have twice the number of attacks that Tac's have in that situation.

28.77% if I remember the number correctly. Failing your counter-attack check without a WG over 1/4 assaults is pretty major. Besides, you can shoot GH to soften them up, which you can't do with tacticals (GH will only run away a bit over 1/4 of the time rather than 100% of the time).



Anything that isn't a heavy assault unit?


Or anything that isn't 20 orks, or a horde, etc. If it's a light assault unit then they probably won't win by much and the GH would be stuck in combat while SM can choose to run and allow you to shoot the unit on your turn.



And depending on which kind the GH's may still have a good chance. Many assault specialists don't like taking 3 WS4 S4 attacks back when they're doing the charging.

I find that most assault specialists don't care if they take 3 WS4 S4 attacks. There's a decent chance that the SW unit has been slightly depleted (down to maybe 4 or so members) and assault specialists usually either have every high I (stealers, halberd GH), good armour (terminators), or come in very large units that can laugh off the casualties (orks) so those attacks very rarely amount to anything. Or at least that's my experience with my SW.



However they have significantly more attacks than Tac's and are hitting back much harder, and lets not forget that even with combat tactics, against an I4 opponent you still have a better than even chance of getting caught and against an I5 or higher opponent you'll only rarely get away, and of course then have to take no-retreat wounds as well.

Then of course there's the issue of "we got away" and then the enemy consolidates and the majority of the time is still within 6"of your now fleeing unit and escorts it right off the board :p

Except marines shoot better than they close combat. If those tacticals fall back and get away then they get to shoot (more damage than the GH would deal with no chance of retaliation) and even if they get charged at minimum they have to deal with the same number of attacks as if they didn't get away, but they at least had a chance to shoot.

The odds of I4 getting caught by I4 is 7/12, the same odds as failing to stop a psychic power with a psychic hood. Also, you only really have to contend with I5 or better against (d)eldar, nids, and halberd GK, and with nids it's pretty much just stealers. Besides, it's generally far better than being stuck in combat. You can still shoot while falling back if the enemy is within 12", and if they're not then either they don't shoot or you'll be able to regroup. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem, but in a game where you have more than just one unit I find that at worst it's better to sacrifice your unit in order to shoot the enemy's unit rather than having your unit die anyway and not be able to shoot it.


They'd probably attract it either way.

Probably not. Most people would target the AP1-2 on other units and try to torrent the WG to death instead. No sense in wasting your AP 1-2 after all.



No I get that, however I was pointing out you don't need every single guy in the unit to have one. If you take two or a couple ablative wound guys, you get the majority of the benefit that you'd get from having every guy in the squad with one unless they're throwing enough pure AP2 shots to inflict AP2 hits on more than just the couple guys with SS's or the ablative wound putzes and aren't throwing anything allowing you to game wound alloction with (such as bolter fire) in there either.

The only reason people don't see them as very survivable is because of C:SM's silly cheap TH/SS units. With a 2+ armor, 5+ invul, and often 4+ cover, a variety of combi-heavy weapons and more CC weapon upgrade options than any other terminator unit, they've got a lot to offer.

Of course you don't need everyone to have one, but... Well, here's an example:

5 man SW terminator unit (assaulty):
2 SW termiantors w/ PW/SS
3 SW terminators w/ 2x LC
Total: 240pts

You're looking at a unit with significantly less close combat ability than an assault squad for 20% more points and no ability to deal with walkers (you would have to pay an extra 10-15pts per guy for that). It's really not that great. Also note that I picked the most efficient SW terminator in terms of kills, the 2x LC terminator. The others are significantly less killy.

As for how durable terminators are... They really aren't. Even before TH/SS gained 3++ saves they weren't that durable. Nids are my primary army and I used to just smile when I saw someone bring terminators to a game because they really aren't that hard to kill if you have something with a power weapon and an initiative greater than 1. 2x LC terminators are harder to deal with, but they still die fairly easily to armour ignoring weapons. A 5+ invulnerable save is nice, but you really need at least a 4+ to be close combat durable.

The Elder
08-10-2011, 01:59
Counter attack works 5/6 of the time unless you're making a super-cheap squad though, and those extra CCWs do work happen to work 100% of the time, and MOTW and wolf banners.

I think my idea would make things a bit more of a shooting match for Codex: Marines (sans chapter tactics) which would suit them better considering how behind the curve they are on melee power.


Excluding TH termies of course.

Are you kidding? SW are a close assault chapter which explains the extra benefits they get for getting in an assault. You really want to make Nilla marines to have something similar? Tacs should be alrounders, and should be able to fulfill any role you give them reasonably well. I think they should be about the same as they are now. With the option to exchange their bolters to bp+ccw and some slight increase in effectiveness of Combat Tactics. I think hit-and-run working about 2/3 of the time is good enough, as it can be really devastating, in my oppinion more so than simple counter-attack. (even as a SM player myself)

Cheers,
The Elder

Chapters Unwritten
08-10-2011, 06:03
People always talk about this in a unit vs. unit methodology; never book vs. book.

For example there is a lot of grief about Long Fangs' extra weapon. But these, and the ability to split fire, exist because their troops can't field any heavy weapons.

You can have 15 missile launchers in any SM codex, for example; it's just that three of them will be in your tactical squads.

The Elder
08-10-2011, 08:01
People always talk about this in a unit vs. unit methodology; never book vs. book.

For example there is a lot of grief about Long Fangs' extra weapon. But these, and the ability to split fire, exist because their troops can't field any heavy weapons.

You can have 15 missile launchers in any SM codex, for example; it's just that three of them will be in your tactical squads.

Yeah, I totally agree.

Cheers,
The Elder

AlphariusOmegon20
08-10-2011, 09:46
This is all just LOL Silly. Of course the Wolf Codex is undercosted for Grey hunters, Long Fangs and rune Priests.

No, C:SM is overcosted for Tacs, Devs and Librarians.

The only reason people take Tacs out of the C:SM is to fulfill their Troops requirement, if they don't take Scouts.

You rarely see Devs in armies, Libbys either.

Havarel
08-10-2011, 10:22
No, C:SM is overcosted for Tacs, Devs and Librarians.

The only reason people take Tacs out of the C:SM is to fulfill their Troops requirement, if they don't take Scouts.

You rarely see Devs in armies, Libbys either.

I thought librarians were the default HQ choice for C: SM these days? Well outside of Vulkan anyway.

spurker
08-10-2011, 15:19
Hmm, it does seem a little silly to compare units from different codexes. How the unit fits in with the rest of the codex and then how the two codexes compare will be much more a useful thing to look at.

The Elder
08-10-2011, 15:22
Hmm, it does seem a little silly to compare units from different codexes. How the unit fits in with the rest of the codex and then how the two codexes compare will be much more a useful thing to look at.

that's a point I tried to make multiple times now, but it doesn't help. The fact that the Codexes are set-up with a different playing-style in mind doesn't seem to make a difference for some reason.

Cheers,
The Elder

alextroy
08-10-2011, 15:35
That argument might work when comparing apples and oranges, but when comparing Red Delicious and Honey Crisp almost anyone can tell which is better.

Tactical Marines might not suck, but when you 170 points gives you 10 Tactical with Flamer and Missile Launcher and then compare that to 186 points giving you 2x5 Grey Hunters with 2 Flamers and 2 Wolf Guard....

Dorn's Arrow
08-10-2011, 16:26
No, C:SM is overcosted for Tacs, Devs and Librarians.

The only reason people take Tacs out of the C:SM is to fulfill their Troops requirement, if they don't take Scouts.

You rarely see Devs in armies, Libbys either.

Wrong about Librarians, right about Tacs and Devs. Devvies with Blood Angel pricing (although even then everything that isn't HB/MM/ML is too expensive by about 10pts) would be fine and Tacs need to come down by 2pts and gain BP/CCW. 80pts for 5 SM/Sarge/special as they are now and then 150pts for 10 SM + heavy would make them competitive with GH, who'd have the advantage of 2 specials and Counter-attack/Acute Senses still.

Panzer MkIV
08-10-2011, 18:26
Tactical Marines might not suck, but when you 170 points gives you 10 Tactical with Flamer and Missile Launcher and then compare that to 186 points giving you 2x5 Grey Hunters with 2 Flamers and 2 Wolf Guard....

The Tactical squad is only one FOC choice and can be split in objective based games. The Grey Hunter squads and the Wolf guards on the other hand take up 3 FOC choices.

Apples and oranges indeed;)

PatchOnMyShoulder
09-10-2011, 04:42
I've always had four thoughts on this...

1) Codexs aren't identical, and identical slots in various Marine ones can't be compared straight 1 to 1 because balance is supposed to be Codex to Codex, not Unit to Unit

2) That said, yes GH's are better, even in the grand scheme. However they do have some balance via the WG vs 2nd weap dilemma so that leads us to...

3) They are nicer. They aren't cripplingly nicer. The better player still wins most the time, compared to say... well, want to compare Tau or Necrons to GH OR C:SM if you're talking competative play? Which in turn is a byproduct of...

4) Codex Creep. It happens. C:SM is older. SW is newer. BA and GK and DE to SW aren't as bad and are ahead in other areas of their 'dex's. Older codexes then C:SM are even worse behind. It happens. One day your Codex will be the newest again. So never complain too much because one day other players will be wanting your units nerf batted.

Except for on the fluff. Always complain on the fluff. Not because their's anything wrong with it. It's just fun how GW tells everyone "You're army is gee whiz the bestest!!!" and so many people forget they told the same thing to every other army too in their fluff. :D