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

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.