Switch Theme:

Options for Varghulfs  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





You can't take 2 unless your point allowance lets you take 2. That's not an answer. I can say you can take 4 terrors and 4 mortis and 4 blacks and 4 varghulfs because you're playing a 15K point game.

SO, that's one issue. At XXXX points, Varghulfs might indeed be squeezed out, but if you're playing <=1.5K you may see them. And while that might not mean anything to you at 2500pts, it means something to others. Daemon Lords at 400+ pts aren't going to even fit in games <1600. But we don't take out half their stats and make them options so they can fit in 1000 pt games. I suppose you could, but then every model is just a skeleton with an insane number of options and has to have 2 pages to describe it.

In ideal game balance, I'd like to see variety of units. Sadly, how the synergy of most armies are built, you won't multiples of the best stuff, and that squeezes out the other choices.

Yeah. But when has it never been like this? I use Ogres as an example so much cuz I know them well and they are simple. But you're never going to be spending points on Leadbelchers over Mournfangs unless you really like the models/concepts. They just aren't as good. It's not that you will gimp yourself, they just aren't as good. Same with Varghulfs. They aren't remotely a bad model, they just aren't as good at the point levels where you can take the costlier other units.

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah. But when has it never been like this? I use Ogres as an example so much cuz I know them well and they are simple. But you're never going to be spending points on Leadbelchers over Mournfangs unless you really like the models/concepts. They just aren't as good. It's not that you will gimp yourself, they just aren't as good. Same with Varghulfs. They aren't remotely a bad model, they just aren't as good at the point levels where you can take the costlier other units.


That is true. But we can still try to get things more balanced than they are. Unless you think the game is perfect as is.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't think the game is perfect. But I don't think Varghulfs need a buff. Probably the biggest reason is because they are viable at lower points. Like at 1500pts you could take 2 Var or 1 Terror. Or one Var and something else. I think at that point level they are a better choice than 1 Terrorgheist, as it's too many points in a single unit with just 6+ regen.

   
Made in gb
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





fareham, hants, uk

Reading through this thread i'm gonna weigh in here if i may.

IMHO, Varghulfs seem very good for their points for the reasons people have mentioned:
-Fast
-Solid Regen
-Tough enough
-good WS for a monster, 4 isn't it for the ghulf? generally 3 for most other monsters.

Yes, the new DE mosters are better than Ghulfs, but they are from a VERY good, new book, VC book has been with us for what? 2 years now?

If you wanted options for them i would say:

-Wings- 30 points
-Eternal Hatred- 20 points

Both upgrades would put the ghulf on par points wise to terrorgeists.

All anyone wants in the world is to be accepted. Except me, i don't give a S%@t.

Armies of Mixer
WHFB-Ogres, WoC, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, Tzeentch Daemons, OnG

40K- Tau,Guard, Nids, SM, BA, GK, IK, DW

The Hobbit/LOTR- Evil, Angmar, Mordor
 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't think the game is perfect. But I don't think Varghulfs need a buff. Probably the biggest reason is because they are viable at lower points. Like at 1500pts you could take 2 Var or 1 Terror. Or one Var and something else. I think at that point level they are a better choice than 1 Terrorgheist, as it's too many points in a single unit with just 6+ regen.


Except that at low point values, wraiths totally wreck face. Or Wraiths and Blood Knights, if you want flanking unit that's faster than the Varghulf.
T6 6+ regen and 6 Wounds is often better than T5 with 4+ regen. Against many attacks, it holds up just as well, but you get +2 wounds.
50% more wounds for 28% more points is a pretty good deal.

Any time you take a varghulf over another rare choice, you're making your army weaker.

-Matt


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The Varghulf has 5 WS (and Hatred), 4I. They also have 1 more attack, but that's obviously not as good as the perma scream.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against many attacks, it holds up just as well, but you get +2 wounds.
50% more wounds for 28% more points is a pretty good deal.

Any time you take a varghulf over another rare choice, you're making your army weaker.

That's a nonsense statement and you know it. Or you should know it. You conveniently left out the greatest threat to monsters which is war machines. A 4+ regen save beats the living snot out of a 6+ save. And it's not 50% more wounds--again, which you know and are conveniently overlooking. The Terror has .031 wounds per point and the Varghulf has .034 wounds per point. Even at lower strengths the Varghulf is ahead because the base wounds of the full regen Varghulf is well higher than that of Terror, even including the +1T. And it's certainly more cost-effective per wound. Against flaming attacks the Var is .023 wounds per point and the Terror is .027 (not including T and WS differentials which could go either way, but likely is a bonus to Terrors).

In any case, that's just wounds and doesn't take into consideration the fact you got one target vs. two, which is what you originally quoted. In a low point game you are definitely worse off taking one terror. It has less wounds per point, that's a fact. And it's a single high value target. Not to mention the base size is way larger if you are trying to target it with war machines. What is it like 50mm for Var and 100x150 for Terror?

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Pretty sure it is 50% more wounds though. I mean, it looks like your math is all solid, counting in Regeneration and Toughness and such, but 4 is still 50% less than 6.

Normally, I'd agree that it's the overall effect that matters, not the individual components. But with the undead, Unstable ignores everything but that one characteristic.

I don't think the Varghulf is crap. I just wish he fit into the army a little better. Even something as simple as a higher Leadership, so he was harder to march block, and could thus go it solo.

I guess what confuses me is that he's a Vampire, right? One completely consumed by his predatory urges. He should be a Varghiest +, and an absolute beast in combat. Like an especially tough solo character.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





4 is 50% less than 6 when they don't have regeneration. But one has an ability that will negate 50% of all attacks and one has an ability that will negate 17%. In most instances their wounds are going to matter when they are attacked. It's effective wounds if you will.


   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Yeah, that's what I was getting at, "effective wounds" is a good way to explain it.

...but as I was saying, the Unstable rule comes up often enough that the Wound characteristic, all on its own, is pretty important, too.

Really, I guess I'd just advise reserving statements like "...which you know and are conveniently overlooking" for comments that are actually false, not just kind of incorrect, when you think about it.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





But he is and did. He knows the rules well which is why I can make the statement. If he was brand new and just flubbing it, I wouldn't say that. But I know Matt is quite knowledgeable about the game but he's trying to do a trixy trick to win an argument and that's worse than someone who is making a mistake.

Saying:

Any time you take a varghulf over another rare choice, you're making your army weaker.

Really is just a nonsense statement. You can't make such a prediction about the absolute worst units in the game of completely unequal values. Taking 10 zombies might be, in some unbelievably rare instance, better than taking 1 terrorgheist. So to make that statement about Varghulfs, which are, as everyone has repeatedly admitted, "not bad." and the entire slew of Rares, just isn't true or helpful.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
But he is and did. He knows the rules well which is why I can make the statement. If he was brand new and just flubbing it, I wouldn't say that. But I know Matt is quite knowledgeable about the game but he's trying to do a trixy trick to win an argument and that's worse than someone who is making a mistake.

Saying:

Any time you take a varghulf over another rare choice, you're making your army weaker.

Really is just a nonsense statement. You can't make such a prediction about the absolute worst units in the game of completely unequal values. Taking 10 zombies might be, in some unbelievably rare instance, better than taking 1 terrorgheist. So to make that statement about Varghulfs, which are, as everyone has repeatedly admitted, "not bad." and the entire slew of Rares, just isn't true or helpful.


Any job the varghulf can do, the other rare choices do better. By spending your rare allotment on the inferior rare choice does indeed make the army weaker.
In low point games, where double vargulfs might shine, ethereal beat sticks work out better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DukeRustfield wrote:
The Varghulf has 5 WS (and Hatred), 4I. They also have 1 more attack, but that's obviously not as good as the perma scream.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against many attacks, it holds up just as well, but you get +2 wounds.
50% more wounds for 28% more points is a pretty good deal.

Any time you take a varghulf over another rare choice, you're making your army weaker.

That's a nonsense statement and you know it. Or you should know it. You conveniently left out the greatest threat to monsters which is war machines. A 4+ regen save beats the living snot out of a 6+ save. And it's not 50% more wounds--again, which you know and are conveniently overlooking. The Terror has .031 wounds per point and the Varghulf has .034 wounds per point. Even at lower strengths the Varghulf is ahead because the base wounds of the full regen Varghulf is well higher than that of Terror, even including the +1T. And it's certainly more cost-effective per wound. Against flaming attacks the Var is .023 wounds per point and the Terror is .027 (not including T and WS differentials which could go either way, but likely is a bonus to Terrors).

In any case, that's just wounds and doesn't take into consideration the fact you got one target vs. two, which is what you originally quoted. In a low point game you are definitely worse off taking one terror. It has less wounds per point, that's a fact. And it's a single high value target. Not to mention the base size is way larger if you are trying to target it with war machines. What is it like 50mm for Var and 100x150 for Terror?


Actual game play tells me that terrorghiest outlast varghulfs for cannon issues. 6 wounds is huge. You won't die to static combat res in 1 round, and it's a really long shot to get 1 shoot'ed by a cannon.
Terror: 5/6 wound, 1/6 roll high enough to kill, 5/6 fail regen. That's about a 1 in 9 (1 in 8.64 actually) of being 1 shotted.
Varghulf: 5/6 wound, 1/2 roll right enough to kill, 1/2 fail regen. that's about 1 in 5 (1 in 4.8 actually) of being 1 shotted by a cannon.
In my typical list, I successful get through ~2 invokes per phase. That's healing 4 wounds.
As for Synergies, the Terrorghiest does benefit from the Mortis Engine, and the varghulfs do not (since the regen bonus is capped at 4+).

Maybe my math was off, I am getting over a Pneumonia. Terrorgheist has 6 wounds. Varghulf has 4. 6 over 4 is 1.5, or a 50% increase over the Varghulf.

Cost per wound doesn't mean a lot in the terms of a limit of no more than 2 of a rare, and no more than 25% of your points.
If I could take Varghulfs with 0.034 wounds per point, I'd take pair of Varghulfs at 295 points each with 10 wounds.

If the Terrorghiest is a high value target, and the Varghulf isn't, what does that tell you about the Varghulf in relation to the terrorgheist?

-Matt

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/21 23:51:07


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Actual math says it doesn't last as long. It is nearly impossible to miss a terror with a cannon shot or stone thrower. A Var is less than half the size.

And again, you can't afford a Terror and Mortis in every configuration. But since you're just trying to pick and choose the most egregious examples to make your case and hoping no one will notice, then I say you're facing 2 grudge throwers at 1500 pts means the terrorgheist is pretty worthless. They won't miss and it's dead in a turn and didn't make any points back whatsoever and the throwers are on to another target next round. And your terror would have to sit next to a Mortis engine being a big sack of roadblock too.

f the Terrorghiest is a high value target, and the Varghulf isn't, what does that tell you about the Varghulf in relation to the terrorgheist?

It tells you that 225pts is more than 175. Math++. If the enemy had a 500pt unit that did absolutely nothing in a 1500pt game, it would still be high value because it's...high value, and victory is based on points. A 1pt unit that can put out 500pts of death on average is high threat but it's only valuable in the sense you're protecting yourself. Maybe that's still high value, I'm not up on my military jargon. High sodium?

Cost per wound doesn't mean a lot in the terms of a limit of no more than 2 of a rare, and no more than 25% of your points.
If I could take Varghulfs with 0.034 wounds per point, I'd take pair of Varghulfs at 295 points each with 10 wounds.

This is basic math. You are unable to buy 10 wound models. The grocery stores around me list a cost of, let's say, a loaf of bread. They have the cost and they have a sub-cost per ounce. I'm not able to buy bread in quantities less than a loaf. That's all there is. But if one loaf costs $0.23 an ounce and another is $0.33, the 23 is obviously a cheaper price. That doesn't change if I buy 3 loaves or I only eat half a loaf. I am limited in buying a single loaf because that is the only way it is packaged. If we're going to evaluate wounds on a model in comparison to each other, then cost is the only viable method. If a Varghulf had 10 wounds but cost 1000 points it would be irrelevant that it had 4 more wounds than a Terrorgheist, it would be an insanely bad cost per wound.

   
Made in gb
Ghastly Grave Guard





Cambridge, UK

I've used a Varghulf in probably 90% of the WHFB games I've played, and they aren't very good. In my opinion, definitely too expensive.

High strength attacks are everywhere, so T5 isn't very high.

Regen is worse than a ward save because of flaming attacks.

Ld4 on a monster that seems designed to be able to work solo means he gets march blocked by anybody that knows anything.

Those same units that march block aren't afraid of being charged by the varghulf because he dies to combat res.

If he's too far out, you can't heal him with the lore attribute from the lore of vampires, and he can't heal himself through The Hunger.

So he's a 5-stat, single-model unit that's easy to march block, can't fly, and can't recover wounds in an army that's built around being able to recover wounds and that crumbles.

No sale.

But mine is probably the most impressively painted and modeled piece in my army, so I'll keep using him.

1500
500
Vampire Counts 2400
300
Circle Orboros 20 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Actual math says it doesn't last as long. It is nearly impossible to miss a terror with a cannon shot or stone thrower. A Var is less than half the size.

And again, you can't afford a Terror and Mortis in every configuration. But since you're just trying to pick and choose the most egregious examples to make your case and hoping no one will notice, then I say you're facing 2 grudge throwers at 1500 pts means the terrorgheist is pretty worthless. They won't miss and it's dead in a turn and didn't make any points back whatsoever and the throwers are on to another target next round. And your terror would have to sit next to a Mortis engine being a big sack of roadblock too.

Grudge throwers are as good as it gets for the varghulf vs terrorgheist, as the base size matters very little for cannons.
Even with that, a 4" scatter is likely to miss the Terrorgheist, where any scatter misses the varghulf.

The typical pair of Grudge throwers I see are:
Accuracy, Penetrating, and Burning
Accuracy, Penetrating

First shot hits a varghulf 20/36 shots (1:6 misfire taken into account), 2+ to wound, D6 wounds, no save = ~1.62 wounds.
If the first shot does any wounds, regen is lost, and the 2nd shot is the same. If the first fails, then the 2nd shot allows regeneration and does ~0.82 wounds.
Support fire might finish him off, wounding on 5+.

Against Terrorghiest: 24/36 shots hit (1:6 misfire, 2" scatters always hit, which means 4" scatters miss), 2+ to wound D6 wounds, no save = ~1.94 wounds.
If regen is not lost, 2nd shot does 1.62 wounds. Support fire needs 6's to wound.

Support fire vs Varghulf: 5+ to wound, with either no save (due to previous flaming) or 4+ regenerate.
Support fire vs Terror: 6+ to wound, with either no save, or 6+ regenerate. (which means the terror weathers the support fire the same, or better).

You've got a good shot at surviving the first round of grudge throwers, and more than likely dying in the second volley; which seems about right for 265 points of warmachines.

Of course, I did say at 1500 points, take Wraiths, or Wraiths and Blood Knights.
Grudge throwers do very little to either unit, and a big unit of wraiths is a huge problem for a 1500 point dwarf army.
How many of those guys are going to have magical attacks in combat?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/25 08:20:46


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Again, I don't know why you're doing this, but you pick and choose the best scenario for you case and worse for anything else. Normally it's just silly but not everyone is going to know you're making it up.

For instance, saying grudge throwers, which you've declared will be magic attacks, don't do anything to low stat ethereal is wacky.

If you want to keep pretending Varghulfs are horrible, which they aren't, and vastly worse than Terrors, which they aren't, knock yourself out. Just when you're making up scenarios to prove your point, maybe put disclaimers or something.

   
Made in gb
Ghastly Grave Guard





Cambridge, UK

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Again, I don't know why you're doing this, but you pick and choose the best scenario for you case and worse for anything else. Normally it's just silly but not everyone is going to know you're making it up.

For instance, saying grudge throwers, which you've declared will be magic attacks, don't do anything to low stat ethereal is wacky.

If you want to keep pretending Varghulfs are horrible, which they aren't, and vastly worse than Terrors, which they aren't, knock yourself out. Just when you're making up scenarios to prove your point, maybe put disclaimers or something.


I know you're just responding to Matt but I gave a bunch of reasons as to why he's not worth his points that have nothing to do with cherry-picked scenarios.

1500
500
Vampire Counts 2400
300
Circle Orboros 20 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Again, I don't know why you're doing this, but you pick and choose the best scenario for you case and worse for anything else. Normally it's just silly but not everyone is going to know you're making it up.

For instance, saying grudge throwers, which you've declared will be magic attacks, don't do anything to low stat ethereal is wacky.

If you want to keep pretending Varghulfs are horrible, which they aren't, and vastly worse than Terrors, which they aren't, knock yourself out. Just when you're making up scenarios to prove your point, maybe put disclaimers or something.


Effectively nothing to ethereals.
With accuracy, you're averaging less than 2 wounds inflicted per shot, against a unit with 14 wounds. Unlike the other rare choice, you cannot pile in support fire to finish a unit.
If you're fighting against vampire units, if you don't shoot it dead, you run the risk of losing all your headway in a single magic phase.

Two magical grudge throwers cannot kill a unit of 7 wraiths in a shooting phase. At most, with a lot of luck, they do 6 wounds.

It's not my Scenario, it's yours.

My scenario would be a game of 2,000 to 2500 points, because that's most of the game I see. I very rarely see a 1500 point game, but even at that level, other rare choices are better.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: