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.

Hulksmash wrote:How are GH worse than tactical marines?

Combat Tactics and Combat Squads > Counterattack, ubergrit, and Acute Senses. Further, Tactical Marines can take a heavy weapon, can take Sergeants without using an Elites slot, and can take a special weapon, a heavy weapon, and a Sergeant. Grey Hunters have to pick two out of three, though they get a second special weapon instead of a heavy weapon. To compensate for their superiority, Tactical Marines cost 16 points each instead of 15. This higher cost is completely justified.

Hulksmash wrote:And how is a squad that does more for cheaper worse than assault marines? Just curious as to your reasoning behind it.

An Assault Marine costs 18 points, as does a Skyclaw. However, the Assault Marine has BS 4 and can actually shoot before charging. The Assault Marine's bolt pistol shot mitigates the Skyclaw's extra attack on the charge (in many cases, the bolt pistol is actually better), and the Assault Marine is both harder to hit in melee (WS 4) and can use special weapons (read: flamers) much more efficiently.

Defiler wrote:I'm sorry to single you out, but I keep seeing posts about the Mark Of The Wulfen. It replaces your attack characteristic with 2-7, and also can't be used in conjunction with any special weapon. Wolf claws, frost blade, power fist, runic weapon, anything.

I wouldn't put MotW on an IC. I wouldn't put it on a GH with a powerfist or powerweapon. But, it's my understanding from reading the codex at FLGS, that you could have one GH in a pack with a powerweapon or powerfist and a second with MotW. iirc, the GH entry allows for "one model" with powerweapon/fist, plasma pistol, wolf totem, and MotW, which means you could put them all on one model, or put them on 4 different models.

I don't think a powerfist on a grey hunter is worth it. I'm not sure a powerweapon is either. But, MotW is relatively cheap, gives you extra attacks, and gives the model rending - at the cost of losing his ranged weapons. I'm thinking MotW is a decent upgrade to a GH squad, and I'd probably take that over either the powerfist/weapon. It gives you more attacks against horde units, and with the extra rending attacks, is probably about as likely to wound an MEQ as a GH with a powerweapon.

But, if put a Wolf Guard with the unit, he's getting a powerfist since he is A2. But, then I would probably also add a combi-weapon, since that's relatively cheap (either a combi-melta if the unit is in a rhino, or a combi-flamer if the unit has 2 meltas). But, then you're looking at a model that's about 43 points (iirc). Now, arguably, he's replacing a 30-point-ish model (GH with a powerfist), so for 13 points, you get an extra powerfist attack, an extra leadership, and a combi-weapon (which, you don't need if you take 10 GHs).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man, I didn't realize that Assault Marines were only 18 points. Wow. Guess I need to play a little more often than quarterly.

I cannot imagine how one could claim GHs are worse than tacs- they can take 2 specials instead of 1 heavy and a special, don't pay for a mandatory sarge (but can get one with more options cheaper) and trade Combat Tactics and Squads for CSM loadout, CounterCharge and Acute Senses. Countercharge is better than Combat Tactics for flightier units and it's not like they lose ATSKNF. Transport options are almost identical. GHs benefit from more CC equipment options. I would say that in a non-Vulkan list, GHs are better than tacs. I would agree, though, that a 1A Pfist models seems odds. Especially when you can make him Wulfen.

BCs of all varieties suck thanks to losing their shooting phase when within 6 inches. Without that shooting, an assault marine squad generates just as man S4 attacks as the Skyclaws (10 man SCs=40 S4 attacks 10 man AM= 10 BP shots + 30 attacks) and can also carry more specials. A WG babysitter helps mitigate this, but the WS3/BS3 issue remains. SCs also can't have a JP Chaplain (the Priest is close, but only picks 1 category to get Preferred Enemy against).

BCs on bikes can sport heavy weapons but BS3 and headstrong means no thanks. And plain BCs are just as expensive as GH. Keep in mind, again, that GHs firing BPs get just as many S4 attacks when charging as BCs who can't fire.

I have to agree. The more that I think about it, the more the BCs depress me. Cheap jump pack troops and the bike troops are nice, but they compete with Wolves on Wolves, Land Speeders, and even just plain wolves. If BCs on foot were cheaper than GHs, they'd be a little more attractive. Being Init 4 and WS 3 means they get badly mauled by a lot of units. They're not even worth putting with Ragnar, who by the fluff, generally is running around with some BCs.

I also have to say the Wolves on Wolves concept just doesn't work for me. I may end up fielding them just because I'm an awful win-at-all-costs type of person. If they had Storm Shields and Spears, or similar, I might find it a little easier to accept. Plus, I can't shake the image of Steve Carrell riding a "fuzzy tractor" from Anchorman out of my head whenever I think of Wolves on Wolves.

As someone at the FLGS said, it'd be like making Cowboy Space Marines. There's some archetypes that stay 'cool' in the translation, and some that don't.

jmurph wrote:I cannot imagine how one could claim GHs are worse than tacs- they can take 2 specials instead of 1 heavy and a special, don't pay for a mandatory sarge (but can get one with more options cheaper) and trade Combat Tactics and Squads for CSM loadout, CounterCharge and Acute Senses. Countercharge is better than Combat Tactics for flightier units and it's not like they lose ATSKNF. Transport options are almost identical. GHs benefit from more CC equipment options. I would say that in a non-Vulkan list, GHs are better than tacs. I would agree, though, that a 1A Pfist models seems odds. Especially when you can make him Wulfen.

The Space Marine Sergeant is far better than the Wolf Guard. If you can't understand why having to use an Elites slot and losing your second weapon option in order to have a Sergeant is extremely bad, I don't know what to say. Vulkan Tacs are worse than normal Tacs, so I'm not sure what you're saying there either.

GHs are different that Tac Marines or CSM marines. Not sure that any of them are significantly better or worse. GHs don't need a Sgt equivalent to get a PP, PW, MotW, or Wolf Totem. 2 specials can be better than combat-squading a heavy and special weapon. GHs get more attacks than Tac Marines. CSM can't combat squad and can't rally below 50% of squad size, and have to have 10 models to get a heavy weapon.

Well the power fist was originally not my consensus, I've added it into my squads to see if it would work. Only testing will prove it's worth. I've sadly been on the receiving end of SW testing and haven't had a chance to test my theories.
ATM it's there for the off chance that it kills something good. But I can see where you guys are coming from in regards to being against it.
As for GH being worse than Tac Marines - absolutely not!
GH get more attacks when charged, have uber grit and are point for point better than Tac Marines. Same goes for Skyclaws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and they get MOTW. That option is full of win in squads.

Fetterkey wrote:Combat Tactics and Combat Squads > Counterattack, ubergrit, and Acute Senses. Further, Tactical Marines can take a heavy weapon, can take Sergeants without using an Elites slot, and can take a special weapon, a heavy weapon, and a Sergeant. Grey Hunters have to pick two out of three, though they get a second special weapon instead of a heavy weapon. To compensate for their superiority, Tactical Marines cost 16 points each instead of 15. This higher cost is completely justified.

cool, i get to post this twice! luckily i've already mathhammered the two units. first off, here's my opinion on the special rules for each. combat tactics = countercharge and acute senses = combat squads in real world value. i think countercharge (especially for an army that excels in CC like the wolves) is easily worth the value of fleet/stubborn/etc that you can opt out for with combat tactics with regular marine special characters. both acute senses and combat squads are rarely used in my experience so they're about equal. does that mean noone uses them every time and feels that it's awesome? nope, just not in my area. people prefer to have larger squads (rhino sized) where i play for concentrated fire and survivability and rarely split their squads. i'm the only person in my two FLGS that has used combat squads in the past 6 months roughly and that's only because my BA army was made up in the 3rd edition days of 5 man las plas tact squads and i don't feel like painting more grunts. now for the more nondebatable analysis:


5 man grey hunter squad with free flamer and WG upgrade (so that takes the vet serg out of the equation): 5x15+18=93pts
5 man tact squad with "free" sergeant plus additional marine (for equal total of 6): 90+16=106pts

so, to recap, for -13 points, a space wolf squad gets 1.5x to 3x the punch in close combat attacks and a free flamer (with the other special rules supposedly equaled out). does the marine situation get a bit better at a full squad of 10 (max rhino rush squad size)? yes, but they're still not equal.

9*greyhunters plus free flamer plus WG (no upgrades) = 9*15+18=153
5 man tact squad with vet serg plus 5 additional marines including free missle launcher and free flamer = 90+5*16=170

traditionally in tact squads, a heavy bolter costs 5pts and a missle launcher costs 10points so the difference between the two squads adjusted for the most likely (and expensive) free heavy weapon is 7points in favor of the wolves. so to recap, at 10 men, the wolves "pay" -7 points for 1.5 to 3 times the close combat ability with all other costs accounted for. while i agree some (not all) of the special characters in the wolf army are overcosted, their regular units gain plenty of benefits for little to no (or in this case) negative cost. frankly, i resent that i have to take a vet sergeant in regular marine squads as i rarely saw the utility in taking on prior to the requirements. it's a BENEFIT that the wolves can CHOOSE to take one or not, not a disadvantage. the wolf guard give you almost complete customization options that having to spend a single elite slot on them (while at the same time able to take a termie squad and buff multiple other troops/fast attack slots with leaders) is hardly worth complaining about. IMO, long fangs deserve a discount on their heavy weapons cost because they have some real downsides (no buffer red shirt marines). grey hunters are all meat with no filler; they have no real downside and that's why lots of people are planning on spamming them.

Please explain how Skyclaws are better than or even equal to Assault Marines. As for Grey Hunters, you don't *want* Tactical Marines and the like to be good in assault. You want them to lose combat and fall back so the rest of your army can shoot the assault unit to hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:combat tactics = countercharge and acute senses = combat squads in real world value. i think countercharge (especially for an army that excels in CC like the wolves) is easily worth the value of fleet/stubborn/etc that you can opt out for with combat tactics with regular marine special characters.

Sure, but Combat Tactics (the actual rule) is far better than Fleet, Stubborn, or any of those things.

warboss wrote:both acute senses and combat squads are rarely used in my experience so they're about equal. does that mean noone uses them every time and feels that it's awesome? nope, just not in my area. people prefer to have larger squads (rhino sized) where i play for concentrated fire and survivability and rarely split their squads.

Combat Squads give you *more* concentrated firepower and survivability, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

warboss wrote:now for the more nondebatable analysis:


5 man grey hunter squad with free flamer and WG upgrade (so that takes the vet serg out of the equation): 5x15+18=93pts
5 man tact squad with "free" sergeant plus additional marine (for equal total of 6): 90+16=106pts

This is an illogical comparison. Nobody fields six-man squads with nothing. Further, their lack of Combat Tactics means that Space Wolves can't escape from undesirable assaults. For example, a Dreadnought can easily kill a full unit of Grey Hunters, whereas a Tactical unit can escape reliably. This means that Space Wolves need to field special CCWs to avoid being bogged down and killed in such assaults, which adds to their cost. For example, a standard Tactical Squad with flamer, multi-melta, and Rhino costs 205 points; the same squad, if fielded in a Space Wolves force, would lose the multi-melta for a meltagun and be forced to take an expensive power fist (and probably a Wolf Guard as well) in order to safely fulfill the same role, thanks to their lack of Combat Tactics. By my calculations, the SW unit would cost more and be worse.

warboss wrote:it's a BENEFIT that the wolves can CHOOSE to take one or not, not a disadvantage. the wolf guard give you almost complete customization options that having to spend a single elite slot on them (while at the same time able to take a termie squad and buff multiple other troops/fast attack slots with leaders) is hardly worth complaining about.

Nope. I'd rather have mandatory Sergeants and another Dreadnought.

Fetterkey wrote:Please explain how Skyclaws are better than or even equal to Assault Marines. As for Grey Hunters, you don't *want* Tactical Marines and the like to be good in assault. You want them to lose combat and fall back so the rest of your army can shoot the assault unit to hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:combat tactics = countercharge and acute senses = combat squads in real world value. i think countercharge (especially for an army that excels in CC like the wolves) is easily worth the value of fleet/stubborn/etc that you can opt out for with combat tactics with regular marine special characters.

Sure, but Combat Tactics (the actual rule) is far better than Fleet, Stubborn, or any of those things.

warboss wrote:both acute senses and combat squads are rarely used in my experience so they're about equal. does that mean noone uses them every time and feels that it's awesome? nope, just not in my area. people prefer to have larger squads (rhino sized) where i play for concentrated fire and survivability and rarely split their squads.

Combat Squads give you *more* concentrated firepower and survivability, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

warboss wrote:now for the more nondebatable analysis:


5 man grey hunter squad with free flamer and WG upgrade (so that takes the vet serg out of the equation): 5x15+18=93pts
5 man tact squad with "free" sergeant plus additional marine (for equal total of 6): 90+16=106pts

This is an illogical comparison. Nobody fields six-man squads with nothing. Further, their lack of Combat Tactics means that Space Wolves can't escape from undesirable assaults. For example, a Dreadnought can easily kill a full unit of Grey Hunters, whereas a Tactical unit can escape reliably. This means that Space Wolves need to field special CCWs to avoid being bogged down and killed in such assaults, which adds to their cost. For example, a standard Tactical Squad with flamer, multi-melta, and Rhino costs 205 points; the same squad, if fielded in a Space Wolves force, would lose the multi-melta for a meltagun and be forced to take an expensive power fist (and probably a Wolf Guard as well) in order to safely fulfill the same role, thanks to their lack of Combat Tactics. By my calculations, the SW unit would cost more and be worse.

warboss wrote:it's a BENEFIT that the wolves can CHOOSE to take one or not, not a disadvantage. the wolf guard give you almost complete customization options that having to spend a single elite slot on them (while at the same time able to take a termie squad and buff multiple other troops/fast attack slots with leaders) is hardly worth complaining about.

Nope. I'd rather have mandatory Sergeants and another Dreadnought.

1.people play alot of mech 2.if your going to have heavy weapons that means your squad isn't going anywhere which means a deepstriking shooty unit is going to take it out easily especially if your near your edge of the table(falling back) 3.wolves are a close combat army so just because you got one squad in clsoe combat doesn't mean you can just blast them away...there will be another 5 right behind it 4.you put too much faith in dreads

1. Yes, this is one of many factors that go against the Wolves.

2. Deepstriking shooty units are generally not good and can be defeated with trivially obvious "tactics." I would gladly trade a combat squad for almost any deep strike unit in the game.

3. I don't know what this means, please clarify.

4. You put too much faith in... krak grenades? 1 attack powerfists? I'm not really sure what you think will allow Grey Hunters to beat Dreadnoughts in assault, but I'd love to know what it is. Please enlighten me.

Fetterkey wrote:[Sure, but Combat Tactics (the actual rule) is far better than Fleet, Stubborn, or any of those things..

i agree that it's quite useful and better than some of the other special options but the important point is that it's of equal value to countercharge. the wolves will be beasts in ANYONE'S first turn of close combat.

Fetterkey wrote:[Combat Squads give you *more* concentrated firepower and survivability, so I'm not sure what you mean here..

5 guys = 1 killpoint. 10 guys = 1 killpoint. 10 guys more survivable. also, 5 guys with 2 casualties = moral, 3 casualties for 10 = morale so your guys don't move themselves outside of their preferred 12" killing range. also, if you have a squad of 10 shot, you can remove the guys from the back to still be within charge range the next turn (and you want to charge or be charged with wolves) i'm not sure how you come up with more concentrated firepower by SPLITTING a squad. in actuality, most people will be tempted to split their shots or hold one still and move the other instead of concentrating.

Fetterkey wrote:[This is an illogical comparison. Nobody fields six-man squads with nothing. Further, their lack of Combat Tactics means that Space Wolves can't escape from undesirable assaults. For example, a Dreadnought can easily kill a full unit of Grey Hunters, whereas a Tactical unit can escape reliably. This means that Space Wolves need to field special CCWs to avoid being bogged down and killed in such assaults, which adds to their cost. For example, a standard Tactical Squad with flamer, multi-melta, and Rhino costs 205 points; the same squad, if fielded in a Space Wolves force, would lose the multi-melta for a meltagun and be forced to take an expensive power fist (and probably a Wolf Guard as well) in order to safely fulfill the same role, thanks to their lack of Combat Tactics. By my calculations, the SW unit would cost more and be worse..

Fetterkey wrote:[Nope. I'd rather have mandatory Sergeants and another Dreadnought.

i put 6 man squads in there so we could compare the value of like squads, apples to apples, oranges to oranges. will i field 6man squads? nope, because i don't see the utility of putting a wolf guard. granted, the SW don't have an easy button to escape undesirable assaults but there will be far fewer of them since they are so much better at assault than regular marines. 1.5 to 3x the attacks on the first turn (and that's when they're the ones being charged!) plus the bonus non-character powerfist option means that they'll take a much heftier bite out of a unit charging them then regular marines would.

as for your "calculations", i don't see a single number in there. you're comparing a two different squads and claiming an advantage. what's the purpose of your flamer multimelta squad? (i.e. it's role that you mention) the closest REAL comparison would be taking a grey hunter squad with a free flamer and regular melta.

tac squad with vet serg, 10 guys and free flamer/multimelta: 90+5*16=170
GH squad of 10 guys with free flamer and melta (?5pts?): 10*15 + 5= 155

so, (assuming combat tactics and squads = acute senses and countercharge, debatable but IMO they are) you trade the vet serg (who according to your own post you don't want because he'll increase squad leadership and make you stay in undesirable assaults) and multimelta for a melta, 1.5 to 3x the close combat strength, and 15 bonus points to use elsewhere. GH are pure win.. they're tactical squads with a big red "easy" button above them on the battlefield and i suspect you'll be seeing ALOT of them for the next couple of years.

as for the skyclaws, i don't know enough about them personally to do the above analysis. with my few minutes of handson time with the codex, i focused more on the GH and WG entries. from the rumors, they don't sound more powerful than assault marines mainly due to the fact that they can't shoot within 6". how many points less are they compared to regular assault marines?

warboss wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:[Sure, but Combat Tactics (the actual rule) is far better than Fleet, Stubborn, or any of those things..

i agree that it's quite useful and better than some of the other special options but the important point is that it's of equal value to countercharge. the wolves will be beasts in ANYONE'S first turn of close combat.

I disagree, but your mileage may vary; nonetheless, even if it is an equal ability, the benefits provided by the superior Marine organization make them a better unit overall.

warboss wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:[Combat Squads give you *more* concentrated firepower and survivability, so I'm not sure what you mean here..

5 guys = 1 killpoint. 10 guys = 1 killpoint. 10 guys more survivable. also, 5 guys with 2 casualties = moral, 3 casualties for 10 = morale so your guys don't move themselves outside of their preferred 12" killing range. also, if you have a squad of 10 shot, you can remove the guys from the back to still be within charge range the next turn (and you want to charge or be charged with wolves) i'm not sure how you come up with more concentrated firepower by SPLITTING a squad. in actuality, most people will be tempted to split their shots or hold one still and move the other instead of concentrating.

Kill Points are only in effect 1/3 of the time. 2/3 of the time, 2 Combat Squads = 2 units to contest or capture objectives. Further, Combat Squads gives you a choice of which format to use, so you can choose whichever is more efficient for the scenario. As for superior survivability and concentration, a standard Tactical Squad is unable to efficiently focus its fire because the special and heavy weapons are unlikely to both be usable at the same time.

warboss wrote:granted, the SW don't have an easy button to escape undesirable assaults but there will be far fewer of them since they are so much better at assault than regular marines. 1.5 to 3x the attacks on the first turn (and that's when they're the ones being charged!) plus the bonus non-character powerfist option means that they'll take a much heftier bite out of a unit charging them then regular marines would.

A powerfist on a one-attack model isn't efficient. Further, most of the undesirable assaults you'll face are against units where basic attacks are useless or quasi-useless (Biker Councils, Dreadnoughts, etc.)

warboss wrote:as for your "calculations", i don't see a single number in there. you're comparing a two different squads and claiming an advantage. what's the purpose of your flamer multimelta squad? (i.e. it's role that you mention) the closest REAL comparison would be taking a grey hunter squad with a free flamer and regular melta.

The flamer/multimelta/Rhino squad is a very common feature in "competitive" Marine lists that I've seen. The Rhino advances downfield to claim objectives while the multimelta threatens enemies from the top hatch. Ideally, the squad never dismounts, but if it does have to rapidfire, the flamer greatly augments that attack.

warboss wrote:tac squad with vet serg, 10 guys and free flamer/multimelta: 90+5*16=170
GH squad of 10 guys with free flamer and melta (?5pts?): 10*15 + 5 or 10= 155

so, (assuming combat tactics and squads = acute senses and countercharge, debatable but IMO they are) you trade the vet serg (who according to your own post you don't want because he'll increase squad leadership and make you stay in undesirable assaults) and multimelta for a melta, 1.5 to 3x the close combat strength, and 15 bonus points to use elsewhere. GH are pure win.. they're tactical squads with a big red "easy" button above them on the battlefield and i suspect you'll be seeing ALOT of them for the next couple of years.

You want to have a Veteran Sergeant for Space Wolves because you want to be able to overcome the enemy in assault and want to avoid being panicked by shooting. Hoping that you will flee when you lose assault is not reliable. Non-suicidal units that can flee assault don't need special CC powers; non-suicidal units that can't flee do need such weapons, as their best hope is that they can overcome the enemy in the first place. Further, if you play Space Wolves as an assault army, special close combat weapons are obviously important.

You're right, of course, when you say that Grey Hunters are easier to use than Tactical Marines, and that many people will field them, but that doesn't make them better. People field all kinds of terrible stuff all the time; I'm just trying to point out from the start that this unit is overrated and that Tactical Marines can perform just as well, if not better, in the hands of an experienced player.

warboss wrote:as for the skyclaws, i don't know enough about them personally to do the above analysis. with my few minutes of handson time with the codex, i focused more on the GH and WG entries. from the rumors, they don't sound more powerful than assault marines mainly due to the fact that they can't shoot within 6". how many points less are they compared to regular assault marines?

Skyclaws cost the same as Assault Marines. They are not worth their points; Assault Marines are dubiously worth it already, and Skyclaws are worse for the same cost.

Fetterkey:

A Space Marine squad's Multi-Melta can't fire out of the top hatch of the Rhino if the Rhino moves. That's the advantage of the Razorback.

Well IMHO Im the WG Sgt type (What can I say, I like to have heroes)

Clarification please: MotW removes ALL previous equipment and bans upgrades? Thats the gist I've been getting...?

Oh, and 2 BS4 melta would litteraly toast a Dread (except Bjorn who'd just get them all drunk)

Nurglitch wrote:Fetterkey:

A Space Marine squad's Multi-Melta can't fire out of the top hatch of the Rhino if the Rhino moves. That's the advantage of the Razorback.

I know this. Nonetheless, the unit is commonly used; it moves up, then sits in midfield and threatens enemy movement options.

Sorry, at first glance you gave the impression that your group was playing as if they could. I'm certainly a fan of squads firing out of Rhinos, particularly Devastator and Havoc squads, but I've noticed recently that while passengers are protected within a transport, their ability to attack the enemy is vulnerable to the damage effects of vehicles - at least you get a leadership test against pinning, for example.

I'd predict that Space Wolf players will gravitate towards multiple small units mounted in Razorbacks as a result of the trade-offs involved in equipping Grey Hunters.

Yeah, I am trying to figure out why Sky Claws are worst than Assualt Squads.

Assualt squads are dedicated CC squads...not shooters, so the los of 1 BS is not as big a deal and you wourld probably equip them with a flamer anyways.

You can add a WG without losing any options (unlike with GH in a rhino/DP), thus preempting the head strong rule.

With a WG you have 2 special CC weapons in a squad.

The boost in counter assault or berserk charge makes them much more effective CC units compared to normal assault marines despite the WS 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote: I'm certainly a fan of squads firing out of Rhinos, particularly Devastator and Havoc squads, but I've noticed recently that while passengers are protected within a transport, their ability to attack the enemy is vulnerable to the damage effects of vehicles - at least you get a leadership test against pinning, for example.

Hi Nurglitch, I don't quite follow. Are you saying that the stunned/shaken results for a transport affect a passengers ability to fire? I wasn't aware of this caviot. Was this FAQ recently?

The WS3 really lets them down, despite the added potential of Berserk Charge. Let's suppose that a unit of 10 Blood Claws attacked a unit of 30 Orks. The Blood Claws would get 40 attacks, but only 20 would hit on average, and 10 wound, 2 saves, for 8 dead Orks. 10 Assault Marines would only get 30 attacks, 15 hits, 8 wounds, 1 save, for 7 dead Orks. But...

22 Orks attacking back against Blood Claws would hit on 3+. Supposing Slugga Boyz, you'd have 66 attacks, 44 would hit, 15 wounds, 10 saves, and five dead Blood Claws.

23 Orks attacking back against Assault Marines would hit on 4+. Supposing Slugga Boyz again, you'd have 66 attacks, 33 would hit, 11 wounds, 7 saves, and four dead Assault Marines.

7:4 rather than 8:5 is in favour of Assault Marines, since they would sustain less casualties.

The Blood Claws (Sky Claws, etc) would be especially boned when it comes to engaging dedicated assault troops. I think I've already shown where a pack of Blood Claws would be destroyed by Lucius, on average, if they charged him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WyomingFox:

See p.67 of the Rulebook, in the Vehicles section, the second page on Transport vehicles.

Thanks Nurglitch

Blood claws with a wolf guard to allow them to fire before charging make them superior to standard assault marines. Without the wolf guard to lead them however they are worse.

I would always take grey hunters over tac marines unless I had vulkan. Cheaper weapons, and a good cc leader or a free 2nd special weapon. Of course you don't think vulkan is good either so

Nurglitch wrote:I'd predict that Space Wolf players will gravitate towards multiple small units mounted in Razorbacks as a result of the trade-offs involved in equipping Grey Hunters.

I agree with this assessment; Razorbacks are not very efficient for Tactical Squads, but can be used very effectively with Grey Hunter squads.

wyomingfox wrote:Assualt squads are dedicated CC squads...not shooters, so the los of 1 BS is not as big a deal and you wourld probably equip them with a flamer anyways.

You can add a WG without losing any options (unlike with GH in a rhino/DP), thus preempting the head strong rule.

The Sky Claws, thanks to their Headstrong rule, are not able to shoot before they charge, flamer or no flamer. Therefore, a Sky Claw gets 4 Strength 4 WS 3 (generally hit on 4+) melee attacks on the charge. This sounds good until you realize that an Assault Marine gets 3 Strength 4 WS 4 (hit on 4+ or 3+ depending on target) melee attacks on the charge, 1 Strength 4 BS 4 AP 5 attack that takes place before the combat (so is essentially initiative infinity), is harder to hit, and can use his special weapons better. Also, Assault Marines don't need an Elite slot for Sergeants.

tl;dr version: An S4 AP5 bolt pistol shot that hits before combat on a 3+ is better than a S4 AP- chainsword attack that hits during combat on a 4+.

ph34r wrote:I would always take grey hunters over tac marines unless I had vulkan.

Vulkan tacs are worse than standard tacs, sooooo...

Tomorrow is Friday and Advance Orders these days are normally posted on Fridays on the GW website. It might be worth checking there tomorrow to see if any of this Space Wolf product is up for Advance Order at that time.

Maybe you should stop trying to convince people that SW are worse off and actually let people play them.

kitsunez wrote:Maybe you should stop trying to convince people that SW are worse off and actually let people play them.

Space Wolves aren't worse off. They have several viable options. I'm just trying to let people know that they're not all they've been made out to be.

I do not know about debate on the Power Fist GH/BC packs.

I have always used power fist, but I may be dropping them from my GH.

With Blood Claws though; I run 15 fig BC packs with Power Fist and a Golf Guard Leader with either a PF or TH.
If I can get a charge that is 5 S8 hits [not as good as it used to be, but with Ragnar…] this could just pop a MC or Vehicle.

Though I am thinking using a Skyclaw pack or two for MC/Tank Hunter
Wolf Guard: Combi-Melta, Thunder Hammer
Blood Claw Pack: Plasma Pistol, Melta Gun, Power Fist

RogueMarket wrote:
215 pts can buy me a 6-man 5x lascannon Long Fang Team.

I know this is an early post, but can anyone confirm this?

6 guys at 15pts each is 90pts. So with 125pts left for 5 lascannons that puts them at 10pts cheaper than what sm devestators can take. And they can split fire?

If this is correct, why are people complaining that wolves have no long range AT?

Long Fangs have a serious problem, which is that any wound threatens an important model.

Plus the ability to split fire isn't as useful as having more units firing. A unit of Long Fangs would have to declare one or two targets, and resolve firing against both. One combat squad of Devastators could select a target, and then depending on the result of its firing another combat squad of Devastators could either continue piling fire into that unit, or move onto a new target. This 'ranging shot' method makes for more efficiently distributed firepower.

Ok, I tried the single PF in a squad and it was a bit hit and miss.

One squad killed nothing with it, where as the other squad killed a Dread.

Verdict - not really worth the points. It's very hit and miss and generally doesn't do enough.

On with my blurbing about other stuff...

BC's suck now, WS: 3 really hurts them and they are just not worth it.
The Skyclaws with the extra attack on the charge and with WS: 3 hit as often as a SM assault squad. Again I don't think they are worth it.
Swiftclaws - See above.

GH spam is a very valid tactic as they are really good. Don't bother with the WG, just get 10 guys into a Rhino with either 2 MG or 2 PG (which I still like) and 1 MOTW, bomb'em up the field and let rip. Used in conjunction with some close combat units, these guys can be pretty deadly.
BTW - Plasma Gun or not to Plasma Gun? It seems to soften up infantry a fair bit and is awesome against termies, which I have been having trouble against with MG.
Tanks haven't been giving me much of a problem with my Long Fangs packing 2 Lascannon in each unit.
I'd like a bit of info on that actually please folks.

A word on characters...

Does anybody think that as a delivery system for a character a Thunderwolf is better than a bike or jump pack? We tested a WGBL on TW with 4 TWC as back up and it worked much better than having him on a bike with a bike squad as a meat shield. Seems to me that the TW upgrade is a bit too good. Downside is the base size and model profile, but when he's in a unit of TWC, that doesn't matter as much. Any comments???