What is with all the Grey Hunter Hate!

Yet another thread Spawned by my “What of you want from the Space Wolves 6th Edition Codex?” Thread.
Here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573473.page;jsessionid=3459D2D1CAB9EAFB1B2F9641B1122048

It keeps being derailed by Grey Hunter Discussions that go around and around in circles so I am creating about this thread just for this Discussions.

I say that Grey Hunters are fine as they are; the mod that really needs to be made is for them to pay for a second weapon.
There are others out that make me feel if I pulled out my two Grey Hunter Packs I would receive more Scornful Looks than a Triple Riptide, TauDar List.

What do you say?
Are they realy that OP?

Well in comparison to a tactical squad we have:

Cons:
Higher cost
No character in the unit
No Combat Tactics
No Chapter Tactics (by name anyway)
No Access to heavy weapons
Require a model from another unit to get above LD 9 (at a minimum of 18 points to add to the squad)

Pros:
Acute Senses
Counter Attack
Cheap Special Weapons
Extra CCW
Access to Mark of the Wulfen and Wolf Standard

In terms of an individual Grey Hunter compared to an individual Tactical Marine, I do think the Grey Hunter has an edge. But the thing is you don't buy them 1 off, you buy them as units and the presence of the character in the unit offsets the base cost.

To me, the bigger issue is the ricing on the Grey Hunter's special weapons. 5 points off the first weapon and the second for free is a huge advantage (about 2 points per model different if you go with two plasmas across a 10 model squad). Making the Hunters pay the same costs for upgrades as the Tacticals is the real difference maker in my mind.

Jefffar wrote:
To me, the bigger issue is the ricing on the Grey Hunter's special weapons. 5 points off the first weapon and the second for free is a huge advantage (about 2 points per model different if you go with two plasmas across a 10 model squad). Making the Hunters pay the same costs for upgrades as the Tacticals is the real difference maker in my mind.

Now that was pointed out, that is about the issue I have with them. It ould not even bother me if I had to pay for it.

This is why:

Marines +1.

Just another example of GW's poor rule writing.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
This is why:

Crazy Girl Eyes should be wourth at least 3 points if not 5.

We've had like 10 pages of discussion as to why people don't like GH on the other thread and people still don't understand why? Mmk, lol.

They cost only 1pt more than a tac marine and get 3 attacks when they get charged.

That's pretty much it.

You can talk about all the other differences between SM and SW, but IMO all that other stuff mostly is a wash. SM get vet sarges, SW get WG which are a worse option but also significantly cheaper and better/cheaper options, I call it a wash. SM get a heavy weapon + special weapon, SW get 2 special weapons, I personally think 2 special weapons is better than a heavy weapon + special weapon anyway, but lets call it a wash because some people like the heavy weapons. SW get acute senses which is worth absolutely nothing. SM get combat squads which is IMO a small advantage worth far less than a single point, it's only really beneficial when you want to take more than 6 small core units.

So all that other stuff is a wash IMO. In the end you're left with a tac marine who instead of chapter tactics gets a CCW and counter attack at a 1pt increase. IMO having CCW and counter attack is worth way more than a 1pt increase. Also, IMO, CCW and counter attack increases codex imbalance because it's useless against shooty armies and awesomeness against assault armies.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We've had like 10 pages of discussion as to why people don't like GH on the other thread and people still don't understand why? Mmk, lol.

They cost only 1pt more than a tac marine and get 3 attacks when they get charged.

That's pretty much it.

You can talk about all the other differences between SM and SW, but IMO all that other stuff mostly is a wash. SM get vet sarges, SW get WG which are a worse option but also significantly cheaper and better/cheaper options, I call it a wash. SM get a heavy weapon + special weapon, SW get 2 special weapons, I personally think 2 special weapons is better than a heavy weapon + special weapon anyway, but lets call it a wash because some people like the heavy weapons. SW get acute senses which is worth absolutely nothing. SM get combat squads which is IMO a small advantage worth far less than a single point, it's only really beneficial when you want to take more than 6 small core units.

So all that other stuff is a wash IMO. In the end you're left with a tac marine who instead of chapter tactics gets a CCW and counter attack at a 1pt increase. IMO having CCW and counter attack is worth way more than a 1pt increase. Also, IMO, CCW and counter attack increases codex imbalance because it's useless against shooty armies and awesomeness against assault armies.

It is also realy easy to compleatly nullify Counter Attack witch failes about 20%-30% of the time anyways.
Most other "Chapter Tactics" can not be made to be compleatly usless by the other army using the right tactics.

It's really easy to completely nullify counter attack if you are playing Tau or Eldar or IG. Not if you're playing 'nids or Orks or even a TAC Space Marine army. Hence, codex imbalance.

The special weapons discounted and the free CCW are probably the issue. The CCW is worth 1-2 ppm according to GW and FW rules for other units (even Carcharodons have to pay 1 ppm for that weapon and get an overall less useful CT than counter assault). When you come out of the costing you end with a unit that is ~30 pts cheaper than it's equivalents.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's really easy to completely nullify counter attack if you are playing Tau or Eldar or IG. Not if you're playing 'nids or Orks or even a TAC Space Marine army. Hence, codex imbalance.

Actualy the local Marines and Ork Player does a real good job at shooting me down without Assualting me. And the new Nids do a real number with thier shooting. And Grey Hunters are no match for full sized Geanstaler, expecialy when on I5 I take 6-10 Rending wounds before I4 comes up.

Don't have time to read that 48 page thread atm but isn't CA and AS there form of chapter tactics which variously boost there counterparts in different ways so , it balances out?

And I thought in 6th ed CC was redundant so?

 ansacs wrote:
The special weapons discounted and the free CCW are probably the issue. The CCW is worth 1-2 ppm according to GW and FW rules for other units (even Carcharodons have to pay 1 ppm for that weapon and get an overall less useful CT than counter assault). When you come out of the costing you end with a unit that is ~30 pts cheaper than it's equivalents.

CCW +1 and Chapter Tactics=15 points
No CCC and Chapter Tactics=14

We are paying for a CCW and Have one "Special Ability" that is worth somthing and one that is worthless.
Most other Space Marines have 2-3 Special Abilities and are 1 point cheeper.
I have alread Stated the free Special Weapon should be paid for.

Don't forget that special/special (even paid for) is far better than special/heavy.

Really, did you even need to make a topic after everyone tried to hammer it in to you why they are far better?

We know you play in a lower meta man, why does it bother you so much if they are actually nerfed to not be the best marine.

CSM cost 15 points if they take a CCW, they don't even get ATSKNF and a Chapter Tactic, and that is the SAME cost as GH, that should set off some sort of alarm.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Really, did you even need to make a topic after everyone tried to hammer it in to you why they are far better?

We know you play in a lower meta man, why does it bother you so much if they are actually nerfed to not be the best marine.

CSM cost 15 points if they take a CCW, they don't even get ATSKNF and a Chapter Tactic, and that is the SAME cost as GH, that should set off some sort of alarm.

Yes, the ed the Chaos Marines, that is not the Space Wolves falt, that was some hole at GW done how many years after the 5th Edition Space Wolf Codex.

Well to be honest about Counter Attack:
If 6th Edition Codex: Space Wolves lost it I will not cry “The Sky Is Falling” Because it was a Rule Change.
I defend it now, because we have it and I see nothing wrong with it or game breaking.

Awesome.... so now we have 2 threads where people just copy/paste their responses between them, that's really useful /sarcasm

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Awesome.... so now we have 2 threads where people just copy/paste their responses between them, that's really useful /sarcasm

Yes but the Grey Hunter discusion has moved to here so the other one can move on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
CSM cost 15 points if they take a CCW, they don't even get ATSKNF and a Chapter Tactic, and that is the SAME cost as GH, that should set off some sort of alarm.

Yeah, CSM are horridly priced, 'nuff said there. In comparison to C:SM though, Grey Hunters deserve to pay for that 2nd special and they need to nerf the Wolf Banner into the ground. After that, you could debate bumping them up 1pt, or make them 14 base with the option for a CCW at +2pts.

The Wolf Banner needs to die for including the sentence "...may call upon the power of the wolf".

People hate Grey Hunters because Grey Hunters are closer to what Space Marines should be on the tabletop, while tactical marines are one of the worst troop choices in the game.

Basically, people are allocating their hate incorrectly. Instead of hating Grey Hunters, people should wish Tac Squads were Grey Hunters.

Grey Hunters aren't that overpowered, it's just a couple minor things that make people mad:
Carryover from 5th ed. Back when the codex came out, Grey Hunters were a point cheaper than Tactical Marines, and Tacs didn't have anything near as useful as modern Chapter Tactics. Essentially, we got all our buffs for free.
Two special weapons wouldn't be a problem, a free second Special wouldn't be a problem, and a 5 point discount wouldn't be a problem. All three combined are too much.
Even in 6th ed, their power level remains on par with, if not slightly superior to, Tactical marines, when by all rights codex creep should have made Tactical Marines a better choice. Instead, Grey Hunters are still a better choice for some applications, and not any worse for others.


If it were just a matter of being slightly better when they came out, and having crept down to sub-standard (Like every other Marine codex has), it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, they were unfairly good when they came out and have remained very viable into late 6th edition.

If they had to pay for the second weapon would that be enough of a nerd for everyone to be happy.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People hate Grey Hunters because Grey Hunters are closer to what Space Marines should be on the tabletop, while tactical marines are one of the worst troop choices in the game.

Basically, people are allocating their hate incorrectly. Instead of hating Grey Hunters, people should wish Tac Squads were Grey Hunters.

There's some truth here.

I rather like a 2x special weapon squad with an add-on "sergeant" that can take a matching combi-weapon, AND they get counter attack and an additional CCW.

 kronk wrote:
I rather like a 2x special weapon squad with an add-on "sergeant" that can take a matching combi-weapon, AND they get counter attack and an additional CCW.

And Marines get 2-3 Special Abilites/USRs, posibly more with a Special Character.

That's nice.

That's not reason enough to hate Grey Hunters.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm having a hard time with what Anpu is posting. A real hard time.

Let's address the insanity one step at a time, even though I doubt it will do any good.

1) Not assaulting is NOT a method of nullifying counter attack. Not assaulting is a RESULT of being unable to win a combat against GH even when they are assaulted. GH take away this combat option from most lists by just breathing. Ridiculous. LISTS ARE PAYING POINTS FOR ASSAULT CAPABILITIES THAT THEY CAN'T USE AGAINST YOU. I don't get a refund on all my now-useless BA assault tech when you put GH on the table. If I were able to switch over to all shooting after seeing GH, I'd agree that counter attack can be nullified. BUT I'M STUCK WITH THE LIST I BROUGHT, USELESS ASSAULT ELEMENTS AND ALL.

2) If you're taking 6-10 rends from genestealers, you are either the worst Space Wolf player ever, (in which case we can ignore you as incompetent), your opponent is lying about genestealer stats and cheating you, or they are using loaded dice and cheating you. There aren't too many other possibilities. Genestealers against GH get a whopping .11 rends per attack, so they would need 54 attacks to consistently generate 6 rends.

Given that I can't get jump pack BA across the board intact aginst SW, I'm going to assume that Tyranid players have at least as many problems with 5+ armor genestealers that are on foot. How are they generating this many attacks against you after double tap and overwatch fire?

3) If local marines and Orks are beating you in assault, you are again the worst Space Wolf player ever, or they are cheating you by lying about stats or using loaded dice. If I were an Ork player, I don't know how I'd even begin to approach SW. After the SW players kills my Nobz and Lootas, I'm dead in the water.

4) The particular combination of GH "chapter tactics" and CCW synergizes to make a combination that invalidates many lists. Straight up invalidates them. Yes, this combination is not particularly good against dedicated shooters, but against any kind of mixed approach or assault list, it's far, far more brutal than any lame ass chapter tactics from C:SM. You are just in pure denial about this. Maybe this is from playing people who are cheating you or you just not knowing a thing about this game or how balance in a game works. Can you name a C:SM chapter tactic that invalidates entire subsets of list types? I sure can't. So why shouldn't the SW combination be substantially more expensive, given that it has a much larger effect on how the game is played?

If it sounds like I'm getting exasperated, it's because I am. You have heard it from MULTIPLE posters and its been presented MULTIPLE ways. Anecdotally, mathematically, and hypothetically. If I didn't strongly suspect otherwise, I'd say you were trolling at this point.

Your wishlist thread can't really go anywhere until this issue of how SW completely invalidate a substantial chunk of lists *by putting base troops on the field* is addressed. Even Eldar and Tau don't start off with such a huge meta advantage. They have to at least bring in WS or Riptides.

Um, Martel... Are a half dozen or so S4 WS4 attacks REALLY causing that much damage? Really?

Waaaghpower wrote:
Um, Martel... Are a half dozen or so S4 WS4 attacks REALLY causing that much damage? Really?

Regular tac marines get 10 attacks when charged, GH get *30*. Last time I checked, 30-10 =/= HALF DOZEN. So yeah, they are causing that much damage. Because 20 attacks can cause a lot of damage.

From Counter-Attack. Grey Hunters won't survive unharmed before getting assaulted, (Even Ork Boys or Termagants will cause 3-4 wounds,) and one set of Chapter Tactics already accounts for the 2 CCW. So, a half dozen or so more attacks when being charged.

The disparity isn't as big as it was with the 6E core rules changes and 6E SM codex update, but TL;DR, Grey Hunters come out cheaper (particularly if taking a Wolf Guard sergeant replacement) while simultaneously being generally more effective. Countattack+CCW is huge, it puts equivalent units in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation at close ranges with no viable assault options, be they defensive or offensive, against an equivalent like a Tac squad and the GH unit can shoot back just as well. Having Sergeant equivalents that are cheaper with much cheaper weapon upgrades than SM Sergeants doesn't help either.

Lets compare 10 Grey Hunters in a Drop Pod to 30 Ork Boys. (A standard setup for me.) We'll even give the GH flamers.
When the Grey Hunters drop, they'll cause ~ 8 Wounds. (Assumimg 4 hits per flamer.) If the Orks have cover, which isn't unlikely, that drops to around 5.
Shoota Boys will then cause about 3 dead Grey Hunters with their shootas. If they charge, they'll take 2 more wounds.
The 7 Grey Hunters (IF they pass their LD test) will then get about 5 dead Orks. The remaining 18 Shoota boys then cause an average of 4.5 more dead Grey Hunters. We'll round that down to 4.
Orks are still fearless, so it's now 3 Grey Hunters versus 18 Ork Boys. The Grey Hunters will (Rounding up) cause 2 wounds. The Orks will cause 2 as well.
Last round, a single Grey Hunter will cause half a wound and die.

No, the Orks can't hurt the Drop Pod. So there's that.

But, victory goes to the Orks, who will still be at half strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you can't take Sergeants in a vehicle and still get your second special weapon. Footslogging a Marine is death. So, nobody ever uses the amazing incredible Wolf Sergeant.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Lets compare 10 Grey Hunters in a Drop Pod to 30 Ork Boys. (A standard setup for me.) We'll even give the GH flamers.
When the Grey Hunters drop, they'll cause ~ 8 Wounds. (Assumimg 4 hits per flamer.) If the Orks have cover, which isn't unlikely, that drops to around 5.
Shoota Boys will then cause about 3 dead Grey Hunters with their shootas. If they charge, they'll take 2 more wounds.
The 7 Grey Hunters (IF they pass their LD test) will then get about 5 dead Orks. The remaining 18 Shoota boys then cause an average of 4.5 more dead Grey Hunters. We'll round that down to 4.
Orks are still fearless, so it's now 3 Grey Hunters versus 18 Ork Boys. The Grey Hunters will (Rounding up) cause 2 wounds. The Orks will cause 2 as well.
Last round, a single Grey Hunter will cause half a wound and die.

No, the Orks can't hurt the Drop Pod. So there's that.

But, victory goes to the Orks, who will still be at half strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you can't take Sergeants in a vehicle and still get your second special weapon. Footslogging a Marine is death. So, nobody ever uses the amazing incredible Wolf Sergeant.

Yeup, that about sume it up.

Waaaghpower wrote:
From Counter-Attack. Grey Hunters won't survive unharmed before getting assaulted, (Even Ork Boys or Termagants will cause 3-4 wounds,) and one set of Chapter Tactics already accounts for the 2 CCW. So, a half dozen or so more attacks when being charged.

Half a dozen attacks if you have 3 remaining GHs, and that's still 300% of the attacks a Tactical Squad would be getting.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Lets compare 10 Grey Hunters in a Drop Pod to 30 Ork Boys. (A standard setup for me.) We'll even give the GH flamers.
When the Grey Hunters drop, they'll cause ~ 8 Wounds. (Assumimg 4 hits per flamer.) If the Orks have cover, which isn't unlikely, that drops to around 5.
Shoota Boys will then cause about 3 dead Grey Hunters with their shootas. If they charge, they'll take 2 more wounds.
The 7 Grey Hunters (IF they pass their LD test) will then get about 5 dead Orks. The remaining 18 Shoota boys then cause an average of 4.5 more dead Grey Hunters. We'll round that down to 4.
Orks are still fearless, so it's now 3 Grey Hunters versus 18 Ork Boys. The Grey Hunters will (Rounding up) cause 2 wounds. The Orks will cause 2 as well.
Last round, a single Grey Hunter will cause half a wound and die.

No, the Orks can't hurt the Drop Pod. So there's that.

But, victory goes to the Orks, who will still be at half strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you can't take Sergeants in a vehicle and still get your second special weapon. Footslogging a Marine is death. So, nobody ever uses the amazing incredible Wolf Sergeant.

There's a non-zero chance that all the Orks won't be able to fight. That's a big limiting factor whenever I take on Orks. You can bet all those GH are swinging.

Let's also not forget that shoota boyz are also an excellent troop. Care to game this out against most other troops? Didn't think so.

Sure. Let's try it against Tyranids.
30 Termagants with 16 Devourers. It's reasonable, omce again, to assume 5+ cover. In addition, the non-Devourers would bubble wrap the Devourers.
Upon deep striking, the Grey Hunters get 9 dead Gants.
The Gants have better shooting than the Ork Boys. They get 4.5 dead Grey Hunters. On the chatge they'll take 2 wounds.
The Grey Hunters get 18 attacks, 12 hits, 7 dead Gants. The Gants get 3 dead Grey Hunters.
Next round of combat, the last 3 Grey Hunters get 2 dead Gants.The Gants get 1 dead Grey Hunter.
2 and 1 again.
Then, 1 and 1.

It's closer, but the Gants still win.

I think a lot of hate comes from 5th edition (not that GH still are not good).

But when Tactical Marines were 1 point more expensive and got less...it was a big deal.

When those charging ork boyz blew up to fearless it was a big deal.

GH are good, but hardly OP these days. They are one of the better troops in the game, but not rediculously so.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Lets compare 10 Grey Hunters in a Drop Pod to 30 Ork Boys. (A standard setup for me.) We'll even give the GH flamers.
When the Grey Hunters drop, they'll cause ~ 8 Wounds. (Assumimg 4 hits per flamer.) If the Orks have cover, which isn't unlikely, that drops to around 5.
Shoota Boys will then cause about 3 dead Grey Hunters with their shootas. If they charge, they'll take 2 more wounds.
The 7 Grey Hunters (IF they pass their LD test) will then get about 5 dead Orks. The remaining 18 Shoota boys then cause an average of 4.5 more dead Grey Hunters. We'll round that down to 4.
Orks are still fearless, so it's now 3 Grey Hunters versus 18 Ork Boys. The Grey Hunters will (Rounding up) cause 2 wounds. The Orks will cause 2 as well.
Last round, a single Grey Hunter will cause half a wound and die.

No, the Orks can't hurt the Drop Pod. So there's that.

But, victory goes to the Orks, who will still be at half strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you can't take Sergeants in a vehicle and still get your second special weapon. Footslogging a Marine is death. So, nobody ever uses the amazing incredible Wolf Sergeant.

16 Bolter shots is 5.333... dead Orks, the Flamers add another 4, for 9 Orks down. 21 Shoota Boyz kill 2.333... Marines. Overwatch kills another 3 Orks (4 flamer hits + 2 bolter hits). The Marines kill 5 Boyz, the remaining 13 Orks kill 3.25 Marines. 13 Orks remaining against 4 Grey Hunters.

Next turn the Marines kill 1.666... Orks. 11 Orks swing back for 1.222... kills, leaving 11 Orks vs. 3 Grey Hunters.

Next turn the Marines kill 1.25 Orks. 10 Orks swing back for 1.111... dead Marines. Orks are no longer Fearless and have a small risk of being swept, winning the Grey Hunters combat outright.

Next turn, 2 Marines swing for 0.833... dead Orks. 9 Orks swing back for 1 dead Marine.

The turn after that, the last Grey Hunter kill 0.416... Orks. The Remaining 8 finish him off. So yeah, if "half strength" means "half of half strength" then yeah.

Now, compare this to normal Tactical Marines:

18 Bolter shots (only 1 flamer) is 6 dead Orks, plus 2 from the Flamer for 8 total. 22 Shoota Boyz kill 2.444... Marines. Another 2.5 Orks die to Overwatch, leaving 8 Marines to fight 19 Orks.

8 Marines kill 1.666... Orks, leaving 17 Orks to punch back for 4.25 dead Marines, leaving 3 Marines.

Next turn, those Marines kill 0.625 Orks, the remaining 16 Orks kill 1.777... Marines, leaving 1 Marine.

Next turn, Lonely McLonerson kills 0.2083... Orks before dying. The Ork horde wins with 16 remaining models, twice that of when they fought the Grey Hunters.

Now do you see the problem?

Heck, let's try it against Sisters of Frikkin' Battle. (15, with 2 Flamers.)
Grey Hunters arrive, get 3 dead Sisters.
Sisters return fire, and get 5 dead Grey Hunters They can't charge, because they fired Rapid Fire. They also used up their act of faith.
If the Grey Hunters continue exchanging vollies, they'll cause 2.5 more dead Sisters, who will cause about equal damage in return. Next turn, the Grey Hunters cause maybe 2 wounds and are whittled down to one man. They die without causing mire damage.

If the Grey Hunters want to charge, they will get 1.4 wounds with Pistols. Then, they'll take 1.4 wounds from Overwatch.
4 Grey Hunters get 2 dead Sisters of Battle. The Sisters, in exchange, cause a mere 1 wound.
The numbers are really close, but the Grey Hunters just slightly edge out, with perhaps one man left.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Sure. Let's try it against Tyranids.
30 Termagants with 16 Devourers. It's reasonable, omce again, to assume 5+ cover. In addition, the non-Devourers would bubble wrap the Devourers.
Upon deep striking, the Grey Hunters get 9 dead Gants.
The Gants have better shooting than the Ork Boys. They get 4.5 dead Grey Hunters. On the chatge they'll take 2 wounds.
The Grey Hunters get 18 attacks, 12 hits, 7 dead Gants. The Gants get 3 dead Grey Hunters.
Next round of combat, the last 3 Grey Hunters get 2 dead Gants.The Gants get 1 dead Grey Hunter.
2 and 1 again.
Then, 1 and 1.

It's closer, but the Gants still win.

I don't think assuming all the gaunts get to fight is super accurate, but I'm not sure what to do about that.

Now also repeat all these same scenarios for tac marines. Try not to vomit. Maybe the tac marine is just that bad.

Almightywalrus: I see a big problem. You didn't account for Chapter Tactics. Or account for the fact that Tacticals are slightly cheaper and could get different gear. White Scars could break from the combat and continue shooting. Salamanders would cause another wound with Flamers. (Not to memtion, you forgot to account for the Sergeant at least having a combi-flamer.)
Just with Salamandars and buying the sergeant a combi-weapon, that's 5 more wounds before blows are struck that you didn't account for.
I won't even get into FW Chapter Tactics.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Almightywalrus: I see a big problem. You didn't account for Chapter Tactics. Or account for the fact that Tacticals are slightly cheaper and could get different gear. White Scars could break from the combat and continue shooting. Salamanders would cause another wound with Flamers. (Not to memtion, you forgot to account for the Sergeant at least having a combi-flamer.)
Just with Salamandars and buying the sergeant a combi-weapon, that's 5 more wounds before blows are struck that you didn't account for.
I won't even get into FW Chapter Tactics.

I wouldn't call those "big problems". I'd call them the pittances they threw the tac marines in C:SM.

Also, don't these gaunt squads and Ork mobs cost more than the GH we are sending them after?

Not omce you account for the Drop Pod. (Which will, realistically, cause no damage but not die.)
I made some basic assumptions with my math.
Grey Hunters always get to hit first, because of their Drop Pods.
Flamers always get 4 Hits.
Counter Assault and other LD-Based powers go off.
5+ Cover everywhere.
Charges always make it, and are never slowed by terrain.
Everyone makes it into combat. (Assuming the squad is about 12" wide, this will really only happen about half the time. With smaller squads, it's easier to get everyone in.)
No buffs from anywhere else. (Gants do a lot better with a Tervigon nearby, Sisters are far better with a Priest (Or Uriah) in thrme squad, but this is base troop comparison.)

The best advantage i see from it is the double special choice.
Mainly because it keeps the entire unit mobile.

Marines would have to skip the heavy or combat squad and leave him plus half the unit behind.

 Jackal wrote:
The best advantage i see from it is the double special choice.
Mainly because it keeps the entire unit mobile.

Marines would have to skip the heavy or combat squad and leave him plus half the unit behind.

Or use all 5 man squads.

It's really a combination of several things.

As mentioned before, much of the loathing still comes from memories of 5th Edition where SW were one point less than tacticals and better in the vast majority of ways. Nowadays, Sm are now cheaper but that doesn't solve all problems.

There are probably 2 reasons why GH are so disliked. For starters, they still have cheaper special weapons with the first being on discount and the second free. This is huge. Few want to have a heavy weapon as that requires combat squading them out (reducing their leadership, whatever the heavy weapon is firing at likely is either out of range for the bolter guns or is something bolters can't take down, immobile, 5 marines is easier to kill than 10 and can be painful in killpoints or even providing first blood). What about GH? They can specialize their weapons and for cheaper! Although they cost more at start, after buying 2 weapons (as per the standard picture of a tactical marine squad and equivelant for SW), GH end up being cheaper by a decent margin. Finally, and probably the final kick is the combination of counter-attack and CCW. Individually, these are fine. The problem is they are together. This means that when charged, they always have a minimum of 2 attacks per model (doubling that of tacticals) and on a 70-80% chance of getting 3 per model. That is a dramatic difference from other tactical marines whilst, thanks to the GH you will be taking, likely cheaper.

Now then, I like bloodletters and I'll use them. The chaos daemon codex has very few shooting options. Along with that, there is a noticeable lack of grenades relying on a vehicle to provide them. Now, I shall ignore that and assume that, for whatever reason, your GH aren't behind cover. Let's make things equivalent. So a full unit of SW is approximately 150 points plus SW (I don't know the price of flamers which I believe are entirely free?). Now then, this amounts to a unit of 15 bloodletters. Now then, SW get a turn to rapid fire at bloodletters. That is 6.52 bloodletters dead. 10 GH vs 8 Bloodletters

Daemon's turn. Bloodletters charge. GH get overwatch. Bloodletters lose about 3.5555 bloodletters (not going to round up this time to balance the .52 from last time). So now, before the charge there are 10 GH vs 5 Bloodletters. Close combat time, Bloodletters swing and manage to kill 4.444 (so let us say 4 GH). GH swing at the same time, likely passing their leadership roll to get counter-attack. That's 5 bloodletters killed. And with that, 6 GH waltz out of an entirely equal fight besting bloodletters at the job they do best.

To be fair, though, Bloodletters really, really suck...

Waaaghpower wrote:
To be fair, though, Bloodletters really, really suck...

Trust me I know

Still, I had hoped they could do okay against GH sense ap3 swords and all. Sadly it seems they still can't do anything

I was mainly using it as an example of an extremely assault oriented unit built to kill such units exactly taking it on. It's, simply put, just not appealing enough to assault the SW player. The shooting, the overwatch, and then the vast number of attacks in close combat is just too much for some CC units.

Or use all 5 man squads.

5 man squad shooting then running into combat has no real use if its a marine.
Needs numbers there to weigh down the attacks more.

 Jackal wrote:

Or use all 5 man squads.

5 man squad shooting then running into combat has no real use if its a marine.
Needs numbers there to weigh down the attacks more.

2 X 5 man squads are like a 10 man squad with 2 special weapons. I'd balk at fielding more than 30 tac marines anyway. They are super terrible.

Martel732 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Um, Martel... Are a half dozen or so S4 WS4 attacks REALLY causing that much damage? Really?

Regular tac marines get 10 attacks when charged, GH get *30*. Last time I checked, 30-10 =/= HALF DOZEN. So yeah, they are causing that much damage. Because 20 attacks can cause a lot of damage.

Its still marines on marines, having only a 50/50 of hitting and wounding. I just can't get the special weapons shenanigans, which should and probably will get nerfed when they get their new codex.

 ace101 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Um, Martel... Are a half dozen or so S4 WS4 attacks REALLY causing that much damage? Really?

Regular tac marines get 10 attacks when charged, GH get *30*. Last time I checked, 30-10 =/= HALF DOZEN. So yeah, they are causing that much damage. Because 20 attacks can cause a lot of damage.

Its still marines on marines, having only a 50/50 of hitting and wounding. I just can't get the special weapons shenanigans, which should and probably will get nerfed when they get their new codex.

Actualy I expect we will just have to pay for both.

 StarTrotter wrote:
It's really a combination of several things.

As mentioned before, much of the loathing still comes from memories of 5th Edition where SW were one point less than tacticals and better in the vast majority of ways. Nowadays, Sm are now cheaper but that doesn't solve all problems.

There are probably 2 reasons why GH are so disliked. For starters, they still have cheaper special weapons with the first being on discount and the second free. This is huge. Few want to have a heavy weapon as that requires combat squading them out (reducing their leadership, whatever the heavy weapon is firing at likely is either out of range for the bolter guns or is something bolters can't take down, immobile, 5 marines is easier to kill than 10 and can be painful in killpoints or even providing first blood). What about GH? They can specialize their weapons and for cheaper! Although they cost more at start, after buying 2 weapons (as per the standard picture of a tactical marine squad and equivelant for SW), GH end up being cheaper by a decent margin. Finally, and probably the final kick is the combination of counter-attack and CCW. Individually, these are fine. The problem is they are together. This means that when charged, they always have a minimum of 2 attacks per model (doubling that of tacticals) and on a 70-80% chance of getting 3 per model. That is a dramatic difference from other tactical marines whilst, thanks to the GH you will be taking, likely cheaper.

Now then, I like bloodletters and I'll use them. The chaos daemon codex has very few shooting options. Along with that, there is a noticeable lack of grenades relying on a vehicle to provide them. Now, I shall ignore that and assume that, for whatever reason, your GH aren't behind cover. Let's make things equivalent. So a full unit of SW is approximately 150 points plus SW (I don't know the price of flamers which I believe are entirely free?). Now then, this amounts to a unit of 15 bloodletters. Now then, SW get a turn to rapid fire at bloodletters. That is 6.52 bloodletters dead. 10 GH vs 8 Bloodletters

Daemon's turn. Bloodletters charge. GH get overwatch. Bloodletters lose about 3.5555 bloodletters (not going to round up this time to balance the .52 from last time). So now, before the charge there are 10 GH vs 5 Bloodletters. Close combat time, Bloodletters swing and manage to kill 4.444 (so let us say 4 GH). GH swing at the same time, likely passing their leadership roll to get counter-attack. That's 5 bloodletters killed. And with that, 6 GH waltz out of an entirely equal fight besting bloodletters at the job they do best.

You forgot the winged daemon prince charging the squad as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

Or use all 5 man squads.

5 man squad shooting then running into combat has no real use if its a marine.
Needs numbers there to weigh down the attacks more.

2 X 5 man squads are like a 10 man squad with 2 special weapons. I'd balk at fielding more than 30 tac marines anyway. They are super terrible.

I actually know somebody testing a 60 marine MSU list that relies on forcing an opponent to wipe out a 5 man squad at a time. He's done very well with it too, though that may be more a case of the guy running it winning than the list doing it for him. Anything that CAN wipe out that many marines quickly he just hides from until the last two turns to mitigate their shooting

DOOMONYOU wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
It's really a combination of several things.

As mentioned before, much of the loathing still comes from memories of 5th Edition where SW were one point less than tacticals and better in the vast majority of ways. Nowadays, Sm are now cheaper but that doesn't solve all problems.

There are probably 2 reasons why GH are so disliked. For starters, they still have cheaper special weapons with the first being on discount and the second free. This is huge. Few want to have a heavy weapon as that requires combat squading them out (reducing their leadership, whatever the heavy weapon is firing at likely is either out of range for the bolter guns or is something bolters can't take down, immobile, 5 marines is easier to kill than 10 and can be painful in killpoints or even providing first blood). What about GH? They can specialize their weapons and for cheaper! Although they cost more at start, after buying 2 weapons (as per the standard picture of a tactical marine squad and equivelant for SW), GH end up being cheaper by a decent margin. Finally, and probably the final kick is the combination of counter-attack and CCW. Individually, these are fine. The problem is they are together. This means that when charged, they always have a minimum of 2 attacks per model (doubling that of tacticals) and on a 70-80% chance of getting 3 per model. That is a dramatic difference from other tactical marines whilst, thanks to the GH you will be taking, likely cheaper.

Now then, I like bloodletters and I'll use them. The chaos daemon codex has very few shooting options. Along with that, there is a noticeable lack of grenades relying on a vehicle to provide them. Now, I shall ignore that and assume that, for whatever reason, your GH aren't behind cover. Let's make things equivalent. So a full unit of SW is approximately 150 points plus SW (I don't know the price of flamers which I believe are entirely free?). Now then, this amounts to a unit of 15 bloodletters. Now then, SW get a turn to rapid fire at bloodletters. That is 6.52 bloodletters dead. 10 GH vs 8 Bloodletters

Daemon's turn. Bloodletters charge. GH get overwatch. Bloodletters lose about 3.5555 bloodletters (not going to round up this time to balance the .52 from last time). So now, before the charge there are 10 GH vs 5 Bloodletters. Close combat time, Bloodletters swing and manage to kill 4.444 (so let us say 4 GH). GH swing at the same time, likely passing their leadership roll to get counter-attack. That's 5 bloodletters killed. And with that, 6 GH waltz out of an entirely equal fight besting bloodletters at the job they do best.

You forgot the winged daemon prince charging the squad as well.

Except the winged daemon prince costs 195 points at the bare minimum, brings in a heavy/hq choice, and is notorious for only working if you make it costs hundreds of points (in reality the pricing is 195+rewards+psyker levels (likely ml2 or 3?). This is assuming taking no rewards, no psyker levels, no armor, and opting for the cheapest daemon rule. So don't start that arms race And at that point you deploy your Runepriest and ID everything to death

nobody wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

Or use all 5 man squads.

5 man squad shooting then running into combat has no real use if its a marine.
Needs numbers there to weigh down the attacks more.

2 X 5 man squads are like a 10 man squad with 2 special weapons. I'd balk at fielding more than 30 tac marines anyway. They are super terrible.

I actually know somebody testing a 60 marine MSU list that relies on forcing an opponent to wipe out a 5 man squad at a time. He's done very well with it too, though that may be more a case of the guy running it winning than the list doing it for him. Anything that CAN wipe out that many marines quickly he just hides from until the last two turns to mitigate their shooting

Eldar can beat this list pretty easily, as it has no way to silence their guns. About three turns of uncontested Eldar fire will kill around 50 marines. That's not enough left to cover objectives.

The problem with GH has been the no brainer upgrades, a Phil Kelly trademark (internal balance? pah! Brought to you by you-never-see-a-venom-with-only-one-venom-cannon)

Banner plus mark of wulfen. Up to 8 rending attacks hidden in a squad is bad enough, but when you reroll ALL ones for pretty much near everything, it gets worse. Especially for how cheap those upgrades are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The problem with GH has been the no brainer upgrades, a Phil Kelly trademark (internal balance? pah! Brought to you by you-never-see-a-venom-with-only-one-venom-cannon)

Banner plus mark of wulfen. Up to 8 rending attacks hidden in a squad is bad enough, but when you reroll ALL ones for pretty much near everything, it gets worse. Especially for how cheap those upgrades are.

To build on what you just said, it gets truly silly when one combines a Wolf Banner with Terminator Armour. In the example from earlier in the thread, if the Grey Hunters had a Terminator Sergeant the Orks wouldn't kill ANYONE the first turn, which means that it's 8 Grey Hunters and 1 Wolf Guard vs. 13 Orks (not even taking into account the higher level of damage cuased by rerolling 1's) turn 2 (assuming combi-flamer on the Wolf Guard). There just is nothing a Tactical Squad can do hope to ever get close to that sort of strength. Nothing.

"But we pay for it!" you say? Not enough, I say. If I paid 100 points to buy an Assault 6 60" Str 8 AP1 Melta weapon for everyone in my army (as in, 100 points total), would that be balanced? I pay for it, after all...

People just know that the grass is ALWAYS greener on your neighbours yard.

Thats pretty much it.

Which is why I've always felt the problem with the hunters isn't the hunters but their upgrades. They are extremely potent for their price. They are not never fail (I've had my banner sniped out more than once and bad luck on the Mark of the Wulfen rolls) but they are very strong.

2++ rerollable isn't "never fail" either, but I'd still argue that it's bad for the game as a whole.

Again, nerf Wolf Banners (a certainty for the new book), nerf Mark of the Wulfen (a certainty for the new book), and maybe make us pay a point for the extra CCW and the extra special weapon. Bam, Grey Hunters are still good, but not ridiculously so.

 Mywik wrote:
People just know that the grass is ALWAYS greener on your neighbours yard.

Thats pretty much it.

Except some of these people have actually played SW armies and think they are over the top.

I've traded armies with a SW player and several times over and have done far better then a Chaos list or SM list.

Not that hard to see the grass is greener when one can also play and actually see the math for it..

I can be super lazy and/or super aggressive with GH in terms of deployment against hordes and other assault threats.

What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks. I don't even take it be cates it really isn't worth it. Also, I think the bigger argument should be how a riptide can kill an entire squad of marines in a single turn

We have already established that SW advantages basically don't matter against pure shooty lists. They only matter against those who deign to try to fight them in HTH. They just make assault that much more miserable in 6th.

Martel732 wrote:
We have already established that SW advantages basically don't matter against pure shooty lists. They only matter against those who deign to try to fight them in HTH. They just make assault that much more miserable in 6th.

It also makes the game more unbalanced.

Njtrent59 wrote:
What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks.

50% chance of getting more attacks, of which 100% are rending.

Njtrent59 wrote:
What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks. I don't even take it be cates it really isn't worth it.

How is it a 50% chance? If you roll a 1, you get 2 attacks. That's the same as regular GH who gets 1 attack + 1 for the CCW. Roll a 2 to 6 and you get 1 to 5 more attacks. So it's an 83% chance of getting more attacks, on average you get 2.5 more attacks.

But you still need a 6 in order for it to cause a rending wound


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe it is overpowered. I really haven't used it enough to say it is or isn't, but from my experiences, it hasn't been worth the points

Probably because your dude got shot.

Last time I saw it run mathematically, Mark of the Wulfen does better than the Power Weapon option at the same price. This was against all comers, be they horde or marine. This was also back in 5th edition when the Power Weapon ignored armour and struck at initiative. I can't help but think its an even better option now.

I think a modern version should be 20 - 25 points as is or dumbed down to Rage and Rampage for like 10 points.

Njtrent59 wrote:
But you still need a 6 in order for it to cause a rending wound

And? You have 100% more attacks that are rending than you did before, for a ludicrously cheap price on a model that cannot be challenged or singled out normally.

When you pop the banner you reroll that "1" for attacks as well, so it is more than 50% of the time you will get more than your base number of attacks for a GH

The banner only works once though, and for only 1 round.

I've found the banner underwhelming myself as is. I usually see it sniped away or forget to trigger it.

It is strange to see this much hate for an army that isn't really showing up anywhere in the meta. Or causing any rage quitting, or shutting down entire phases like other armies are.

I chalk it up to codex balance. SM has some fliers, the thunderfire cannon, and some other sweet tricks up their sleeve. As well as chapter tactics, which basically give you ALL chapters outside of BA, SW, and DA. So not that it is an insane table top advantage, but the base SM book is pretty nice with that.

DA have awesome bikers to make up for less than awesome troops.

The only "OP" think SW have is the +4 nulify powers (which will be gone soon enough) JotWW (also, probably gone soon enough) and Grey Hunters. The fun tricks we have are TWC and Lone Wolves. Our bikes suck, our jump infantry sucks, and our TDA are very expensive if you want to run anything fancy.

A 10 man GH unit with a banner, 2 Special weapons and MotW is probably still one of the best troops in the game though. It is more akin to what people want from movie marines.

But this is the edition of shooting, or so everyone always says. Tau, eldar, flying circus and screamerstar are the only armies these days according to the same people who say GH are too powerful.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
It is strange to see this much hate for an army that isn't really showing up anywhere in the meta. Or causing any rage quitting, or shutting down entire phases like other armies are.

I chalk it up to codex balance. SM has some fliers, the thunderfire cannon, and some other sweet tricks up their sleeve. As well as chapter tactics, which basically give you ALL chapters outside of BA, SW, and DA. So not that it is an insane table top advantage, but the base SM book is pretty nice with that.

DA have awesome bikers to make up for less than awesome troops.

The only "OP" think SW have is the +4 nulify powers (which will be gone soon enough) JotWW (also, probably gone soon enough) and Grey Hunters. The fun tricks we have are TWC and Lone Wolves. Our bikes suck, our jump infantry sucks, and our TDA are very expensive if you want to run anything fancy.

A 10 man GH unit with a banner, 2 Special weapons and MotW is probably still one of the best troops in the game though. It is more akin to what people want from movie marines.

But this is the edition of shooting, or so everyone always says. Tau, eldar, flying circus and screamerstar are the only armies these days according to the same people who say GH are too powerful.

It's been stated multiple times (maybe in the other thread about this) that GH have practically no boost against Tau/Eldar and units with 2++ rerollable and this huge, enormous boost against more balanced lists. Just because those kinds of lists are not in vogue does not mean that SW unfairly hammer those lists.

As a marine player, both BA and counts-as C:SM, I can't field the shooting like Tau and Eldar can, so I can't ignore SW HTH capabilities. Make sense?

Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption appears to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

Edit:
Ergo, the reason people are so frustrated with this topic is this appearance. (submitted post without adding this)

 Toburk wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption seems to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

Jefffar wrote:
Last time I saw it run mathematically, Mark of the Wulfen does better than the Power Weapon option at the same price. This was against all comers, be they horde or marine. This was also back in 5th edition when the Power Weapon ignored armour and struck at initiative. I can't help but think its an even better option now.

I think a modern version should be 20 - 25 points as is or dumbed down to Rage and Rampage for like 10 points.

On average, in the first round of combat against a Ws4, T4 opponent with a

4+ save - MOTW: 0.917 unsaved wounds, PW on GH: 0.75 unsaved wounds

3+ save - MOTW: 0.764 unsaved wounds, PW on GH: 0.75 unsaved wounds

2+ save - MOTW: 0.611 unsaved wounds, PF on GH: 0.83 unsaved wounds, PAxe: 1 unsaved wound

I think 20pts is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

I've personally never tried to say that GH are so good they can just drop pod next to a unit of Orks or Tyranids. But they are many many times easier to play against those armies because instead of needing to almost wipe out the unit before it charges you, you only need to inflict comparatively small amount casualties before you're on equal footing with them, making GH much much harder to deal with for assault armies.

People might argue that GH fulfill a different roll to Tac marines... personally I would disagree, I think they fill the same role, it's just GH fill it much much better, especially when that opponent is an assault army (though, frankly, even against a shooty army where your goal is to suppress the shooting by assaulting).

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption seems to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

They can completely nullify assault, but they don't do it by dropping right next to other efficient units. Yeah, they can get away with that against losers like tactical marines, BA, or DE, but against these large mobs, the mobs are going to be shot to pieces by SW firepower before they dream of assaulting. Then the counter attack crushes their hopes and dreams.

I never said SW can nullify assault when played by a jello-head. I just said they can do it, which they shouldn't be able to do for their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

Boo-hoo, so does the drop pod for the lesser chapters.

You mistake correction for complaint, repeatedly. People said that Orks were helpless against Grey Hunters. I pointed out that this was incorrect.
Then, when I mentioned that the Drop Pod had points cost, I once again wasn't complaining. Rather, you had removed the 35 points when calculating the cost of the Grey Hunter squad. I was pointing out that your calculations were wrong, and that a maxed out squad of Grey Hunters do indeed cost as much as 30 boys. (If the Grey Hunters had not bought the Pod, they would have taken several more turns of shooting, and they are outgunned at 13-18" range, especially if they take flamers.)

I'm unsure why you think that a 30-boy mob will be shot to pieces by Space Wolf firepower, unless you mean a completely different unit in the Space Wolf codex, in which it's completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I was comparing Grey Hunters to Ork Boys, and that's all.

Extreme exaggerations of Grey Hunter capabilities ITT.

I wasn't aware that counter-attack made a unit completely invincible in CC.

Oh right that's because it doesn't.

Any dedicated shooting unit will outshoot them. Any dedicated assault unit will shred them. For 14ppm, you're paying to have a unit that's decent at everything but a master of nothing. Is that not the point of Space Marines? They're called "tactical marines" for a reason.

"M-muh blood angels!" Blood Angels is one of the worst codex's in the game. Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Blood Angels being ass.

"M-muh tactical marines!" Tactical marines are one of the worst troop choices in the game. Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass.

"Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass."

Why do GH get to not be ass for one more point? That's the whole crux of the complaints against GH. So yes, I WILL blame them.

Ooh, does that mean that I get to blame Grey Hunters for Sisters of Battle, too? Or Khorne Berzerkers? Hell. Let's blame Grey Hunters and get mad at them because every bad unit in the game isn't as good as them.

Waaaghpower wrote:
You mistake correction for complaint, repeatedly. People said that Orks were helpless against Grey Hunters. I pointed out that this was incorrect.
Then, when I mentioned that the Drop Pod had points cost, I once again wasn't complaining. Rather, you had removed the 35 points when calculating the cost of the Grey Hunter squad. I was pointing out that your calculations were wrong, and that a maxed out squad of Grey Hunters do indeed cost as much as 30 boys. (If the Grey Hunters had not bought the Pod, they would have taken several more turns of shooting, and they are outgunned at 13-18" range, especially if they take flamers.)

I'm unsure why you think that a 30-boy mob will be shot to pieces by Space Wolf firepower, unless you mean a completely different unit in the Space Wolf codex, in which it's completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I was comparing Grey Hunters to Ork Boys, and that's all.

I can't dispute the math presented. In the games I've observed, it's the fact that the other elements of the Space Wolf army whittle the Orks down to where they can't beat the GH in combat, whereas they still could beat tactical marines. The utter helplessness of tac marines compared to the capabilities of the GH still really stand out. And taken in context of a game, I think that GH do pretty much invalidate many assault elements far beyond what their point cost warrants.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Ooh, does that mean that I get to blame Grey Hunters for Sisters of Battle, too? Or Khorne Berzerkers? Hell. Let's blame Grey Hunters and get mad at them because every bad unit in the game isn't as good as them.

It's really hard to swallow as a non-SW marine player. And swallow it for 20 years now, with a brief interruption in 3rd edition. I've seen SW pull off so many wins that any other marine list would have lost. I might also add that all the other main loyalist books have had their turn at the bottom of the heap. Never these guys.

If you get to complain about our Grey Hunters being better than Tactical Marines, we Space Wolf players get to complain about your bikers being better than ours. And your Assault Marines. And how you get most heavy weapons (Except Missile Launchers) cheaper on your devs. And how your TH/SS Terminators are way cheaper. And how you have AA. We've got one unit who, mathmatically, performs better in Close Combat, while losing a bit of ranged capability or durability (From Chapter Tactics) for 1 Point. You have a bunch of units who are better than ours. It balances out. Stop bitching.

Waaaghpower wrote:
If you get to complain about our Grey Hunters being better than Tactical Marines, we Space Wolf players get to complain about your bikers being better than ours. And your Assault Marines. And how you get most heavy weapons (Except Missile Launchers) cheaper on your devs. And how your TH/SS Terminators are way cheaper. And how you have AA. We've got one unit who, mathmatically, performs better in Close Combat, while losing a bit of ranged capability or durability (From Chapter Tactics) for 1 Point. You have a bunch of units who are better than ours. It balances out. Stop bitching.

No. It doesn't balance at all. That's what you guys can't see. Having a TROOP that is so much better in practice that anything the other loyalist books have is really hard to overcome. And it's pathetic that the C:SM had to get a codex update to even get the things you listed off. Want to bet SW are hands down better than C:SM once they get a new codex?

"while losing a bit of ranged capability "

They actually gain, because heavy weapons in tac squads are dumpster fires, whereas double special is $$.

Also, SW players are known not to take these units you speak of. They just don't use them. Just as other marine players don't use the bad units from the other codices.

Depends on the gear. And once again, I was saying that because of Chapter Tactics. Preferred Enemy for a turn, or re-roll ones to hit with Boltguns, twin-linked everything for a turn, Rending 1 Heavy variation for all bolt weapons, are all Chapter Tactic boosts to shooting. For Durability, FNP 6+ everything, or adding Apothecaries to squads are both options.

Also, your secondary troop option, (Scouts,) are vastly better than our secondary troop option (Blood Claws.)

Who cares? SW players don't use Blood Claws. You only need the one super troop. Yeah, it's kinda boring, but welcome to 40k, where 65% of the units are mathematically unfieldable.

I don't know the FW chapter tactics. Do any of them actually make tacs not stink up the joint? Does any of this allow regular marines to actually out gun double plasma GH? Probably not enough to make up for how far behind in assault they are. This is not a trivial matter for meqs, since meqs don't have the firepower to keep the Wolves at bay like Taudar.

Martel732 wrote:
Who cares? SW players don't use Blood Claws. You only need the one super troop. Yeah, it's kinda boring, but welcome to 40k, where 65% of the units are mathematically unfieldable.

I don't know the FW chapter tactics. Do any of them actually make tacs not stink up the joint?

Most are pretty gravy. Some of them include:
Replace tactical sergeants with Apothecaries, for free. (But no Camo Cloaks.)
Fear, and after destroying a squad in assault gain RAGE!. Also, they can replace their Boltgun with a chainsword for free, or buy a CCW for +1 point. (So they can be Grey Hunters with Rage and Fear instead of Counter-Assault.)
All Bolt Weapons can be fired as heavy 1, Rending. (Yes, even pistols.)

Waaaghpower wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Who cares? SW players don't use Blood Claws. You only need the one super troop. Yeah, it's kinda boring, but welcome to 40k, where 65% of the units are mathematically unfieldable.

I don't know the FW chapter tactics. Do any of them actually make tacs not stink up the joint?

Most are pretty gravy. Some of them include:
Replace tactical sergeants with Apothecaries, for free. (But no Camo Cloaks.)
Fear, and after destroying a squad in assault gain RAGE!. Also, they can replace their Boltgun with a chainsword for free, or buy a CCW for +1 point. (So they can be Grey Hunters with Rage and Fear instead of Counter-Assault.)
All Bolt Weapons can be fired as heavy 1, Rending. (Yes, even pistols.)

The apothecaries just make them BA with Sanguinary Priest, but cheaper. Been there, done that, GH still win. They will live longer against shooty Xenos with AP 2/3 that don't double us out, but that's actually pretty rare. Eldar spam wounds with AP worse than 3 and Tau double us out with ion accelerators. I guess it's good against pulse rifles. Yay.

Getting Rage after winning an assault doesn't help against GH, because they won't win against GH, nor will they destroy them if they do because ATSKNF. Omg, ATSKNF actually matters in this case. Rage isn't even that good, because any jackass that spoiling assaults you turns it off. Counter attack is much, much better. Trust me, I know rage. It sucks.

Firing bolters as heavy 1 rending is great vs MCs, but lowers kills against GH more than likely. GH still win. It gives them an option that GH don't have, yes. Is it better than GH just dragging down MCs with mass attacks? I don't know.

"I have all these options that are great in specific applications" must be better than "I have exactly one option, which is generally useful." Or am I misunderstanding you?

None of these options have the built-in anti-horde/anti-assault capability of the GH just standing there being a GH. In practice, GH don't care if they are assaulted by weakened assault troops. And in 6th ed, the assault troops will be weakened. All these other chapter tactics space marines still care. SW lists don't have to bring anti-horde weapons in their builds, and for TAC lists, that's incredibly valuable and powerful.

And as I pointed out, these chapter tactics don't allow these chapters to take on the SW in an even footing. I realize that C:SM is better against Taudar, but in a head to head match up, I'm not sure if SW are not still better than C:SM.

I guess the way most SW lists are built, grav centurions would be a headache. And a rather dangerous headache at that.

Martel732 wrote:
None of these options have the built-in anti-horde/anti-assault capability of the GH just standing there being a GH. In practice, GH don't care if they are assaulted by weakened assault troops. And in 6th ed, the assault troops will be weakened. All these other chapter tactics space marines still care. SW lists don't have to bring anti-horde weapons in their builds, and for TAC lists, that's incredibly valuable and powerful.

And as I pointed out, these chapter tactics don't allow these chapters to take on the SW in an even footing. I realize that C:SM is better against Taudar, but in a head to head match up, I'm not sure if SW are not still better than C:SM.

C:SM Wins. We have better Librarians, situationally better Tacs, and better Missile Launcher devs. And, we can bring combi-weapons in a Drop Pod for cheaper with our equivalent veterans.
Space Marines have grav-weapons, better Wolf Lords, better Wolf Priests, better scouts, better Veterans overall, better bikes, flyers, Centurions, better non-missile Devs, better Terminators, better SCs, more types of vehicle (Admittedly only for AA), most of your tanks are cheaper, Thunderfire Cannons are awesome, and better Techmarines.

A few of these are from codex creep, sure. A lot of them aren't.

C:SM is better than C:SW at the moment as long as C:SM plays to its own strengths and that which 6th edition has brought to offer. However, allies, data slates, and all that other crap that is outside of the codexs changes things in favor of whomever planned ahead the most.

I still feel like this matchup is like SW vs gimped Tau or Eldar, which is what GW is forcing C:SM to play like. If you get C:SM in assault, you're going to pound them with SW. C:SM are paying points for HTH capabilities that won't swing any battles for them against SW. I suppose SW don't have too many awesome answers from White Scars grav bikers, since they will never engage you in HTH and get 4+ jink vs the mass GH plasma.

I don't think that GK are hated . But they are a sad bunch of dudes. We had a dude start GK this week , bought 3 boxs of terminators , 2 strike squads , NDK and a storm raven for a noob league. His first game was against tau , second was against grav marines using IF supplement as ally , third was my IG and then tyranids . I think the only army against which he actualy scored a point was me and the tyranid player. Against the nid player he managed a lucky 12" charge and killed a unit of 30 guants and against me he killed two five man vet squads.
I have never seen a guy as sad about money he spent on something then him

We're talking about Grey Hunters, not Grey Knights. Although I dislike them greatly, as well.

Oh my bad. I don't hate GH . I have 20 of them and a RP in my IG list .

Waaaghpower wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of these options have the built-in anti-horde/anti-assault capability of the GH just standing there being a GH. In practice, GH don't care if they are assaulted by weakened assault troops. And in 6th ed, the assault troops will be weakened. All these other chapter tactics space marines still care. SW lists don't have to bring anti-horde weapons in their builds, and for TAC lists, that's incredibly valuable and powerful.

And as I pointed out, these chapter tactics don't allow these chapters to take on the SW in an even footing. I realize that C:SM is better against Taudar, but in a head to head match up, I'm not sure if SW are not still better than C:SM.

C:SM Wins. We have better Librarians, situationally better Tacs, and better Missile Launcher devs. And, we can bring combi-weapons in a Drop Pod for cheaper with our equivalent veterans.
Space Marines have grav-weapons, better Wolf Lords, better Wolf Priests, better scouts, better Veterans overall, better bikes, flyers, Centurions, better non-missile Devs, better Terminators, better SCs, more types of vehicle (Admittedly only for AA), most of your tanks are cheaper, Thunderfire Cannons are awesome, and better Techmarines.

A few of these are from codex creep, sure. A lot of them aren't.

Lets see..

Better Librarians: You get divination and wolf powers, ours are cheaper though..But not as good, and don't get a 24" denial bubble for blessings.

Better Tacs: Haha no.

Better Missile Launcher Devs...Are you kidding me?

Combi-Weapons, they can do the same and in terminator armor.

Better SC: Okay yes this is a win for SM.

Better Terminators: In an edition where terminators are horrible and even assault ones aren't that good anymore.

More types of Vehicles: That aren't used cause they don't do much

Cheaper Vehicles: I think? Should be about the same for some.

Thunderfire Awesome: Yes

Tech-Marines: People use these?

Martel732 wrote:
"Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass."

Why do GH get to not be ass for one more point? That's the whole crux of the complaints against GH. So yes, I WILL blame them.

So because they are space marines, they have to be as good or as bad as other space marines?

I'm sorry, but no. While I recognize that tactical marines and blood angels are not good troop choices, is the hate of grey hunters a result of the grey hunters being overpowered or a case of the troops they are most often compared to being underpowered and lackluster? If the former, yes a nerf is perfectly fine. If the latter, why aren't you asking for a buff?

Keep in mind that the in the event of a new codex, grey hunters won't retain their 5th edition features (free second weapon) and choices will be re-costed I honestly think that would be enough. Not to bring them on the same level of tactical marines (which are lackluster) but to update them with the codex . In fact, most of the issues with space wolves are the result of them being a 5th edition codex and haven't been updated to reflect the 6th editions rules.

I think next codex we should get our own version of the Thunderfire cannon which fires wolves.

Ogopogo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass."

Why do GH get to not be ass for one more point? That's the whole crux of the complaints against GH. So yes, I WILL blame them.

So because they are space marines, they have to be as good or as bad as other space marines?

I'm sorry, but no. While I recognize that tactical marines and blood angels are not good troop choices, is the hate of grey hunters a result of the grey hunters being overpowered or a case of the troops they are most often compared to being underpowered and lackluster? If the former, yes a nerf is perfectly fine. If the latter, why aren't you asking for a buff?

Keep in mind that the in the event of a new codex, grey hunters won't retain their 5th edition features (free second weapon) and choices will be re-costed I honestly think that would be enough. Not to bring them on the same level of tactical marines (which are lackluster) but to update them with the codex . In fact, most of the issues with space wolves are the result of them being a 5th edition codex and haven't been updated to reflect the 6th editions rules.

Because we tried a thread about buffing tactical marines, and SW players came and told us tacticals were fine. Or, at least, Anpu did. That, and all the cries of "ATSKNF is so OP!". I'd rather have appropriately costed troops that have legitimate uses and no ATSKNF than the steaming piles of whale dung that pass for C:SM troops.

Martel732 wrote:
That, and all the cries of "ATSKNF is so OP!". I'd rather have appropriately costed troops that have legitimate uses and no ATSKNF than the steaming piles of whale dung that pass for C:SM troops.

I would rather have appropriately costed troops that have legitimate uses than the steaming piles of whale dung without ATSKNF that pass for Sisters of Battle troops .

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of these options have the built-in anti-horde/anti-assault capability of the GH just standing there being a GH. In practice, GH don't care if they are assaulted by weakened assault troops. And in 6th ed, the assault troops will be weakened. All these other chapter tactics space marines still care. SW lists don't have to bring anti-horde weapons in their builds, and for TAC lists, that's incredibly valuable and powerful.

And as I pointed out, these chapter tactics don't allow these chapters to take on the SW in an even footing. I realize that C:SM is better against Taudar, but in a head to head match up, I'm not sure if SW are not still better than C:SM.

C:SM Wins. We have better Librarians, situationally better Tacs, and better Missile Launcher devs. And, we can bring combi-weapons in a Drop Pod for cheaper with our equivalent veterans.
Space Marines have grav-weapons, better Wolf Lords, better Wolf Priests, better scouts, better Veterans overall, better bikes, flyers, Centurions, better non-missile Devs, better Terminators, better SCs, more types of vehicle (Admittedly only for AA), most of your tanks are cheaper, Thunderfire Cannons are awesome, and better Techmarines.

A few of these are from codex creep, sure. A lot of them aren't.

Lets see..

Better Librarians: You get divination and wolf powers, ours are cheaper though..But not as good, and don't get a 24" denial bubble for blessings.

Better Tacs: Haha no.

Better Missile Launcher Devs...Are you kidding me?

Combi-Weapons, they can do the same and in terminator armor.

Better SC: Okay yes this is a win for SM.

Better Terminators: In an edition where terminators are horrible and even assault ones aren't that good anymore.

More types of Vehicles: That aren't used cause they don't do much

Cheaper Vehicles: I think? Should be about the same for some.

Thunderfire Awesome: Yes

Tech-Marines: People use these?

You misunderstand, I perhaps wasn't clear enough. When I said 'We' I meant SW units.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That, and all the cries of "ATSKNF is so OP!". I'd rather have appropriately costed troops that have legitimate uses and no ATSKNF than the steaming piles of whale dung that pass for C:SM troops.

I would rather have appropriately costed troops that have legitimate uses than the steaming piles of whale dung without ATSKNF that pass for Sisters of Battle troops .

Sisters of Battle definitely have their problems as well. I never once have claimed that Sisters have it good. Because I know they are a bit like marine -1. Although they still give up fewer pts when they fail a 3+ save vs a scatterlaser. When you have to play marines like Orks, cheaper is almost always better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of these options have the built-in anti-horde/anti-assault capability of the GH just standing there being a GH. In practice, GH don't care if they are assaulted by weakened assault troops. And in 6th ed, the assault troops will be weakened. All these other chapter tactics space marines still care. SW lists don't have to bring anti-horde weapons in their builds, and for TAC lists, that's incredibly valuable and powerful.

And as I pointed out, these chapter tactics don't allow these chapters to take on the SW in an even footing. I realize that C:SM is better against Taudar, but in a head to head match up, I'm not sure if SW are not still better than C:SM.

C:SM Wins. We have better Librarians, situationally better Tacs, and better Missile Launcher devs. And, we can bring combi-weapons in a Drop Pod for cheaper with our equivalent veterans.
Space Marines have grav-weapons, better Wolf Lords, better Wolf Priests, better scouts, better Veterans overall, better bikes, flyers, Centurions, better non-missile Devs, better Terminators, better SCs, more types of vehicle (Admittedly only for AA), most of your tanks are cheaper, Thunderfire Cannons are awesome, and better Techmarines.

A few of these are from codex creep, sure. A lot of them aren't.

Lets see..

Better Librarians: You get divination and wolf powers, ours are cheaper though..But not as good, and don't get a 24" denial bubble for blessings.

Better Tacs: Haha no.

Better Missile Launcher Devs...Are you kidding me?

Combi-Weapons, they can do the same and in terminator armor.

Better SC: Okay yes this is a win for SM.

Better Terminators: In an edition where terminators are horrible and even assault ones aren't that good anymore.

More types of Vehicles: That aren't used cause they don't do much

Cheaper Vehicles: I think? Should be about the same for some.

Thunderfire Awesome: Yes

Tech-Marines: People use these?

You misunderstand, I perhaps wasn't clear enough. When I said 'We' I meant SW units.

As I said, SW players don't use the stuff that is worse. I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming GW.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, SW players don't use the stuff that is worse. I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming GW.

Amen, GW please give us some damn choices in the next book? I'd like to use something other than 2x Rune Priest + 6x Grey Hunters + 3x Long Fangs.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, SW players don't use the stuff that is worse. I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming GW.

Amen, GW please give us some damn choices in the next book? I'd like to use something other than 2x Rune Priest + 6x Grey Hunters + 3x Long Fangs.

That is totally on you.

I personally only have 25 grey hunters in my army, 1 rune priest, and one long fang squad. Everything else is vindicators, Bloodclaws or terminator squad, dreadnaught, and some land speeders. I have a winning record over against some very stiff competition. The army has been great fun and I've never once had anyone complain of cheese. Even back in 5th edition.

You just have to play to the strength of your army, something I've learned to do regardless of what units I bring.


I also have some bad news for all you haters out there. When the codex gets redone, its not going to get any better for you. This is all my opinion, but I've watched GW for over 15 years. They make unit stats to move plastic models and seeing as how the Wolf pack box is used to make Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Scouts, and Wolf Guard, regardless of what happens to those individual units I expect a few of them are going to be a titch overpowered. After all GW isn't going to nerf four units and risk loosing the model sales for those units. In fact it would be to their benifit to make at least two of those units even more attractive than they are now.

Then there is a second option. They introduce a new troop choice. Its a new unit, thus requires a new box of plastic men. We all know that GW likes to overpower their new models to promote sales of the new box. So yeah, they nerf GH, BC, Scouts, or WG but now you have the SW version of the riptide to deal with.

I guess you can continue to be happy, after all you still get to vent your hate, just in a slightly different direction. GW is all about the new shiny after all.

I guess I'll continue to hate then, and laugh when bad things happen to SW units. Your point?

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, SW players don't use the stuff that is worse. I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming GW.

Amen, GW please give us some damn choices in the next book? I'd like to use something other than 2x Rune Priest + 6x Grey Hunters + 3x Long Fangs.

That is totally on you.

I personally only have 25 grey hunters in my army, 1 rune priest, and one long fang squad. Everything else is vindicators, Bloodclaws or terminator squad, dreadnaught, and some land speeders. I have a winning record over against some very stiff competition. The army has been great fun and I've never once had anyone complain of cheese. Even back in 5th edition.

You just have to play to the strength of your army, something I've learned to do regardless of what units I bring.


I also have some bad news for all you haters out there. When the codex gets redone, its not going to get any better for you. This is all my opinion, but I've watched GW for over 15 years. They make unit stats to move plastic models and seeing as how the Wolf pack box is used to make Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Scouts, and Wolf Guard, regardless of what happens to those individual units I expect a few of them are going to be a titch overpowered. After all GW isn't going to nerf four units and risk loosing the model sales for those units. In fact it would be to their benifit to make at least two of those units even more attractive than they are now.

Then there is a second option. They introduce a new troop choice. Its a new unit, thus requires a new box of plastic men. We all know that GW likes to overpower their new models to promote sales of the new box. So yeah, they nerf GH, BC, Scouts, or WG but now you have the SW version of the riptide to deal with.

I guess you can continue to be happy, after all you still get to vent your hate, just in a slightly different direction. GW is all about the new shiny after all.

To be fair I can't even argue that. GW just.... is odd. They release new models without good rules quite frequently and some of their greatest units are units that arguably are the most odd units ever. Example, make the transports op which is something most vet eldar likely have a few of lying around anyways. Still, you are correct that there will likely be something else that is really good (although GW might make SW in general bad it would take a lot of work)

 Jayden63 wrote:
They make unit stats to move plastic models […] We all know that GW likes to overpower their new models to promote sales of the new box.[…]GW is all about the new shiny after all.

Haha, no.Gw do not do that. They rather use some kind of a lottery system.

So this is 4 pages of people correctly pointing out that Tactical Marines/Chaos Marines suck and therefor Grey Hunters should too?

No. This is not a solution.

You see Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marine squads SO RARELY in C:SM or C:CSM lists that they may as well not be there. Outside of Scouting Tacs in Rhinos with the OP White Scars tactics, Drop Pod Sallies and Bolter Banner Dark Angels, Marine infantry is literally appalling in 6th Edition. It is the one great failing of GW that C:SM failed to make the posterboys of the entire universe worth using.

Bikes/Scouts/Chaos Cultists are what you will *mostly* see in lists from people who actually want a good chance of winning games against other competent players.

If you nerf Grey Hunters, may I ask what the go to choice is for Space Wolf players? Blood Claws? Really? Really....

I totally agree UNITS of Grey Hunters are too cheap. Bring the overall cost up a bit. Either make them 16pts a model and remain EXACTLY as they are, or make them pay for the second special weapon. Basically the same thing. Although paying for a second Plasmagun incurs a higher cost.

Marines in foot in power armour are underperforming in 6th edition. There are too many high strength twin linked shots in the game currently to make a 3+ save worth 14pts on a model.

Grey Hunters are where Tac Marines should be. They've had Counter Attack (or the equivalent) for 4 editions now. It's not going anywhere. They've had 2 Special Weapons since the metal box came out in the 90s. That's not changing. 16pts per model I would happily swallow. As long as we got the equivalent price drop on upgrades like Storm Shields, Bikes and the like.

People are still upset about grey hunters almost 5 years after 5th ed SW release? (oct 2009 release)

 ivangterrace wrote:
People are still upset about grey hunters almost 5 years after 5th ed SW release? (oct 2009 release)

Upset that Tactical Marines still suck 5 years later

Yup. As long as people keep using them, we always have fresh reminders.

AlexRae wrote:

I totally agree UNITS of Grey Hunters are too cheap. Bring the overall cost up a bit. Either make them 16pts a model and remain EXACTLY as they are, or make them pay for the second special weapon. Basically the same thing. Although paying for a second Plasmagun incurs a higher cost.

The second free weapon is a feature of fifth edition, where space marines would also get a free missile launcher or (I forget the other choice). I fully expect that rule to be tossed out come a new codex. Same sort of thing with the physic protection on the Rune Priests, where it is so much better than the current editions' physic defenses, which used to be more like the rune priests' in previous editions.

My prediction is that when Space Wolves are brought into line with 6th edition a lot of these problems will go away. That said, Grey Hunters will be better than Tactical Squads. They have to be because, as already said, Space Wolves don't have anything else.

Let's say that Rune Priests, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs are nerfed hard. What else in the Codex is even worth putting on the table? Thunder Wolves are fun, but they're expensive for their capabilities. Blood Claws are fun, but virtually unplayable without at least a Wolf Guard. Skyclaws? Puh-lease. Swiftclaws are expensive inferior bikers. Being unable to assault after entering the table Wolf Scouts are pretty hard done by too. Wolf Guard are cool, but they are easy to make expensive and they still die like 3+ and 2+ units.

Basically the reason people play the Rune/Grey/Long armies is because that's about the only thing that works in the Space Wolf Codex (perhaps a bit of hyperbole there).

Counter attacks problems arise from the fact that when it was originally given to Space Wolves it just meant that every model in the unit could move into combat after being charged. When everyone else got that ability they changed it to gaining an attack after a successful leadership test. A 20 attack Grey Hunter unit is good, but not game breaking. A 30 attack Grey Hunter unit is probably too good.

no idea

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
My prediction is that when Space Wolves are brought into line with 6th edition a lot of these problems will go away. That said, Grey Hunters will be better than Tactical Squads. They have to be because, as already said, Space Wolves don't have anything else.

Let's say that Rune Priests, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs are nerfed hard. What else in the Codex is even worth putting on the table? Thunder Wolves are fun, but they're expensive for their capabilities. Blood Claws are fun, but virtually unplayable without at least a Wolf Guard. Skyclaws? Puh-lease. Swiftclaws are expensive inferior bikers. Being unable to assault after entering the table Wolf Scouts are pretty hard done by too. Wolf Guard are cool, but they are easy to make expensive and they still die like 3+ and 2+ units.

Basically the reason people play the Rune/Grey/Long armies is because that's about the only thing that works in the Space Wolf Codex (perhaps a bit of hyperbole there).

Counter attacks problems arise from the fact that when it was originally given to Space Wolves it just meant that every model in the unit could move into combat after being charged. When everyone else got that ability they changed it to gaining an attack after a successful leadership test. A 20 attack Grey Hunter unit is good, but not game breaking. A 30 attack Grey Hunter unit is probably too good.

SM players are not asking for everything good in the SW codex to be

nerfed hard

.
We're asking for this thing called balance (insert rainbow and sparkles here)
We don't see why GH are better than ever other MEQ troop and also completely deny assault armies when Tacs suck balls. We don't want them to be nerfed and be bad, we want them to be on par with that, in 6th edition, every other MEQ codex has been burdened with.
We also want people to stop pretending that GH are fine. They're not. Maybe they're fine when you drop them into ridiculous situations that any gak head would be able to avoid, but, given a normal game the guy on the other end (so long as they're not playing C:Waveserpent or C:Riptide) is pretty much scuppered.

In terms of Wolf Guard in comparison to Vanguard Veterans.. Please, V Vets are far more useless than Wolf Guard, at least you get to stick your guys in termy armour and then put them in OP troop choices, ours just die.

Balancing GHs to be as bad as Tac marines will see Space Wolves left on shelves accruing dust, or being played as Codex Ultramarines.

Power Armoured infantry are ineffective. But making Grey Hunters crap too isn't gonna solve anything

AlexRae wrote:
Balancing GHs to be as bad as Tac marines will see Space Wolves left on shelves accruing dust, or being played as Codex Ultramarines.

Power Armoured infantry are ineffective. But making Grey Hunters crap too isn't gonna solve anything

Just like how it was the opposite in 5th edition, where everyone jumped on the SW train.

So as I've ignored the past few pages, can someone explain to me why they think it's a better idea to make Grey Hunters as terrible as Tactical Marines, rather than making Tactical Marines as good as Grey Hunters?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So as I've ignored the past few pages, can someone explain to me why they think it's a better idea to make Grey Hunters as terrible as Tactical Marines, rather than making Tactical Marines as good as Grey Hunters?

Probably because aside from BA, all the other MEQ's aren't getting an update?

Short of 7th edition dropping, there's really nothing one can do to make them better.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
don't want them to be nerfed and be bad, we want them to be on par with that, in 6th edition, every other MEQ codex has been burdened with.

So, you don't want them to be bad, yet you want them to be bad as most other tactical marines are. You're contradicting yourself there.

i think this topic is pretty stupid when you think about it. comparing the worst unit in the whole SM codex to one of the best in the space wolf books just doesn't make any sense. if i was to compare grey hunters to an sm unit it would be bike marines. One other issue that people dont seem to take into account is that SW drop pods are capacity 10 and thus cant take the extra leaership/combi weapon if they want the free special weapon which keeps them very balanced.(though 12 slot drop pods would be AMAZING for wolves if they stay the same)

Comparable units:

Bikes in white scars
5 bikes 2x grav guns and an attack bike for 190 points

vs

grey hunters (same price)
10x 2 melta
and a drop pod

I dont know but if you ask an competitive player what unit has the most functionality 9 out of 10 times the bikes come out on top. They have t5, hit and run, 4+ jink save, and are a super mobile scoring unit that can take down the strongest of enemy heavily armored units and vehicles to boot.

Now im not saying that grey hunters are bad but if I saw any of the nerfs that people are recommending I for one would never pick them over bikers. (kind of why bikes are so popular in the new sm book) I dont know but this community always wants to take away the viability of units because they dont pair up to X thing and then months later complain why no one ever takes said unit. I mean even with how "OP" the greyhunter is I havent seen or heard of wolves being used for anything more than runic weapon allies>.>.

Bikes aren't scoring by default. That's not a valid comparison.

Martel732 wrote:
Bikes aren't scoring by default. That's not a valid comparison.

And this is the reason that 70% of units in the books are useless and never used. I dont know a single competitive sm list that doesn't use bikes I wouldn't blame the players but instead blame GW for putting tactical marines in such a bad place that they cant be used. I feel similarly for chaos marines as well and this just shows the weakness of GW balancing. (tacs should have been 10ish each)

The issue is not, are Grey Hunters balanced against Tactical Marines? No, most certainly Grey Hunters are much better, but the question is rather, are Space Wolves balanced against Space Marines? The answer again is "no", Space Marines are a much better army.

Space Marines have greater flexibility, greater variety, and greater ability against a wider range of foes. Space Wolves have Rune Priests, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs, with maybe a few Wolf Guard mixed in. When they work sure they mulch assault armies but this is sixth edition, how many assault armies are there?

Against the real armies of sixth edition Space Wolves fold up and die just as quickly as any other army wearing power armour.