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.

You take 15 missile launchers because it is highly efficient and versatile.

Do you need another reason?

Anpu42 wrote:the other with a Devistator Las Cannon and a Flight Base for a Peg leg

Yaaar. 'Ere be laser-draaguns, boy!


While 15 missile launchers is boring and maybe not the most fluffy, neither are appropriate complaints in a tactics forum.

The thing that makes me laugh, besides the obviously pointless complaint about the aesthetics of a unit in a tactics forum, is why is that boring?

Is it exciting to see a long fang pack with all different weapons? Well, maybe it is because then you know you are playing a terrible list writer and that the unit will be totally ineffective.

What is exciting for me is playing a good player with a tough list. That is exciting, and engaging. I know everyone plays the game for a different reasons, but I wonder if sometimes people just line up their models and look at them or if they actually play the game?

Soup and a roll wrote:While 15 missile launchers is boring and maybe not the most fluffy, neither are appropriate complaints in a tactics forum.

My thoughts: the fluff is that the army starring in the novel, comic, or codex always wins, so taking an extremely successful unit in your list is fluffy.

Also, here's a neat trick I saw somebody talking about on the B&C, used in their wolfwing all-terminator list: Take a bunch of 5 man wolf guard terminator units with drop pods, the put Njal, Logan, and 6 missile launcher long fangs in a pod together. The turn they arrive, Logan gives the fangs relentless so they can shoot their missiles, then he & Njal split off to hit the enemy with their pointy sticks and evil mind powers.

This isn't complaint worthy, just economical.

Reecius wrote:The thing that makes me laugh, besides the obviously pointless complaint about the aesthetics of a unit in a tactics forum, is why is that boring?

Is it exciting to see a long fang pack with all different weapons? Well, maybe it is because then you know you are playing a terrible list writer and that the unit will be totally ineffective.

What is exciting for me is playing a good player with a tough list. That is exciting, and engaging. I know everyone plays the game for a different reasons, but I wonder if sometimes people just line up their models and look at them or if they actually play the game?

Actually it is boring, but you can say the same of any static gunline where lots of units don't move an inch all game and do nothing but unload heavy weapons firepower. Actually I can say it's boring because boring is a subjective opinion, and I'll go as far as defining a boring unit as a static heavy weapons team that does not move or assault at any point in the game. An entire army of static gun line units is boring to play against, and even more boring to play. The only good thing about the low cost of long fangs for non SW players is all those saved points will usually go towards buying more exciting units to play against. Even at 2,000 points taking 3 long fangs only takes about 20% of the SW player's points resulting in 20% of his army being "Boring". The thing is it's SW, so the other 80% are not going to be boring, which is what makes SW a fun army to play against.

Darth Badguy wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:

My thoughts: the fluff is that the army starring in the novel, comic, or codex always wins, so taking an extremely successful unit in your list is fluffy.

Also, here's a neat trick I saw somebody talking about on the B&C, used in their wolfwing all-terminator list: Take a bunch of 5 man wolf guard terminator units with drop pods, the put Njal, Logan, and 6 missile launcher long fangs in a pod together. The turn they arrive, Logan gives the fangs relentless so they can shoot their missiles, then he & Njal split off to hit the enemy with their pointy sticks and evil mind powers.

As cool as that is, why wouldn't you give them MM's in that scenario? You're planning on being close enough to use the two tough guys right? Then drop them within 12'' and fry two landraiders while your at it.

Humblesteve wrote:

Darth Badguy wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:

My thoughts: the fluff is that the army starring in the novel, comic, or codex always wins, so taking an extremely successful unit in your list is fluffy.

Also, here's a neat trick I saw somebody talking about on the B&C, used in their wolfwing all-terminator list: Take a bunch of 5 man wolf guard terminator units with drop pods, the put Njal, Logan, and 6 missile launcher long fangs in a pod together. The turn they arrive, Logan gives the fangs relentless so they can shoot their missiles, then he & Njal split off to hit the enemy with their pointy sticks and evil mind powers.

No I didn't. You are so sued!

schadenfreude wrote:Actually it is boring, but you can say the same of any static gunline where lots of units don't move an inch all game and do nothing but unload heavy weapons firepower. Actually I can say it's boring because boring is a subjective opinion, and I'll go as far as defining a boring unit as a static heavy weapons team that does not move or assault at any point in the game. An entire army of static gun line units is boring to play against, and even more boring to play. The only good thing about the low cost of long fangs for non SW players is all those saved points will usually go towards buying more exciting units to play against. Even at 2,000 points taking 3 long fangs only takes about 20% of the SW player's points resulting in 20% of his army being "Boring". The thing is it's SW, so the other 80% are not going to be boring, which is what makes SW a fun army to play against.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree with you! Haha.

I quite enjoy static heavy units that blow the gak out of my enemy. I very much enjoy putting 15 missiles a turn into potentially 6 different targets and seeing how well it compliments my army's strategy. I see nothing boring what so ever about it; should they hop around and do jumping jacks while they shoot, or perhaps sing some rousing songs?

I am just kidding with you, obviously, as I agree with what you said about boring being subjective. I rarely ever am bored playing 40K unless I am utterly crushing someone which is not enjoyable. When you play a good player, you have to protect the vulnerable long fangs which for the majority of your firepower. They are very easy to kill.

I also play a gunline IG infantry army form time to time and that army is not boring either (IMO) despite the fact that 80% of it never moves an inch. I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.

And again though, saying something is boring, while a fair enough statement, really has no place in a discussion of tactics. The only pertinent points would be about the efficacy of a unit, not the way it looks or if someone likes it or not for personal reasons.

I'll agree on one thing. Due to the fire control special rule Long Fangs are very very versatile, considering the armament they can take.

The ability of aiming at multiple targets is always useful no matter what armament you're using. I think it's part of the Space Wolf nature (to aim at multiple units) more than a testament to how they like to "individualize" their wargear. (saying the power is incorporated to tailor to their individualistic nature)

So IMO I think x5 missile launchers aiming at multiple units is more individual and space wolfy than multiple units w/ different weapons using the skill.

I see the unit as acting as a "pack" or "family" and thus it always goes against my fluffy feelings to change up the weapons. I always like to run, and see ran, units with the same weapons. Specially on devastator unit types.

Yeah, and how would it be fluffy to go to war with a crappy load out of weapons? If these guys are the best warriors, aged and hardened, they would take the best tool for the job, not a random mix of guns that don't work with one another just to be different. That really does not make any sense.

Reecius wrote:Yeah, and how would it be fluffy to go to war with a crappy load out of weapons? If these guys are the best warriors, aged and hardened, they would take the best tool for the job, not a random mix of guns that don't work with one another just to be different. That really does not make any sense.

Not to be snarky, but people do that in the real world all the time. In fact, effectiveness is often one of the last things that motivates people when choosing their weapons/tactics/etc. in war.

For example, during WWII the Germans had excellent tanks and machine guns, much better than what the Americans had. Why didn't the Americans copy them? Because we wanted to use American designed weapons, we wanted to make weapons that were calibrated to the dimensions used in our factories, and so on. Likewise, the Germans didn't copy American methods of using artillery, which were vastly superior to German methods.

I could list a hundred examples like that, but the fact is that effectiveness is not the only priority for people making war. Why would people in the 41st millenium be all that different?

I'm not saying that you should give all of your Longfangs different weapons or else you're a bad person - heck, I tend to give my units uniform equipment. But just keep in mind that the most 'realistic' 40k army - that is, the one most likely to correspond to how people actually are - would be the one where most units had a random, stupid assortment of weapons that corresponded to the tastes and prejudices of the individual soldiers and not to some 'master plan' devised by an overseeing general.

This is a tactics discussion. I'm not sure why fluffbunny realism is entering into it. It doesn't matter how realistic or unrealistic your unit choices are, what matters are whether they're tactically sound or whether they're mega gimp sauce.

The Missile Spam thing is nice, but there's reasons why it's cheap. If the Long Fangs are in a Razorback, then they can't shoot, and the turn that they deploy will be a turn that they won't shoot unless the Leader can plink away with a special weapon. If they're in a Rhino, then only two Missile Launchers can shoot and the other three are a waste. Also, you can silence them by Shaking or Stunning the Rhino, which isn't hard.

If they're not in a vehicle, then they're vulnerable, because every wound either kills the Leader and their ability to split fire, or a Missile Launcher with the proportional reduction in firepower. The Tyranid Mawloc was practically designed to annihilate small units like these, and they're pretty easy to kill, push back, or pin thanks to their small size.

Of all the Space Wolf units they're also the worst in close combat because they have to trade away their Bolt Pistols for Heavy Weapons, although their improvement in Leadership means they're much more likely to get the Counter-Attack attack bonus, it'll just be like attacking Grey Hunters that failed their Counter-Attack leadership test.

They're a good unit, but they're also small and vulnerable, which compensates for their excellent firepower.

Saber wrote:

Reecius wrote:Yeah, and how would it be fluffy to go to war with a crappy load out of weapons? If these guys are the best warriors, aged and hardened, they would take the best tool for the job, not a random mix of guns that don't work with one another just to be different. That really does not make any sense.

Not to be snarky, but people do that in the real world all the time. In fact, effectiveness is often one of the last things that motivates people when choosing their weapons/tactics/etc. in war.

For example, during WWII the Germans had excellent tanks and machine guns, much better than what the Americans had. Why didn't the Americans copy them? Because we wanted to use American designed weapons, we wanted to make weapons that were calibrated to the dimensions used in our factories, and so on. Likewise, the Germans didn't copy American methods of using artillery, which were vastly superior to German methods.

Try, they had expertise, skill, and a whole lot of equipment designed to produce what they had. Changing it to make somebody else's version would have cost them all of that, and that cost is significant. You can't simply 'copy' somebody else's complex gear at the drop of a hat, else the Russians would have had F-16s and nobody would be able to tell replicas from the real thing.

Admittedly, for some products these days (China, esp Africa) you can't tell. But that's because the people making the copies have been doing so for years and built up the skills needed to make them properly.

SW complain a lot about not having any ablative wounds in a long fangs pack, but I never see SW players add a bare bones wolf guard to a long fangs pack....

schadenfreude wrote:SW complain a lot about not having any ablative wounds in a long fangs pack, but I never see SW players add a bare bones wolf guard to a long fangs pack....

Because a whole ONE ablative wound is not something to write home about.

Reecius wrote:The thing that makes me laugh, besides the obviously pointless complaint about the aesthetics of a unit in a tactics forum, is why is that boring?

Is it exciting to see a long fang pack with all different weapons? Well, maybe it is because then you know you are playing a terrible list writer and that the unit will be totally ineffective.

What is exciting for me is playing a good player with a tough list. That is exciting, and engaging. I know everyone plays the game for a different reasons, but I wonder if sometimes people just line up their models and look at them or if they actually play the game?

I quite resent this quote I am a reasonably good list writer as my win/loss ratio shows and I run a LF pack with different weapons because it does work. Just because I don't run 5 ML doesn't mean I don't know how to build a list.

I use 2 LC 2ML and a PC when I split fire I use the LC to take out heavy armour and the ML and PC to take out light armour and infantry. If I find a LR steaming my way I fire the ML and the LC at it and the PC at something else. Yes 5 ML do work well but I agree with the OP that they are boring. My SW army is I hope full of character and I still win with it more often than not.

Mannahnin wrote:It's not necessarily anti-fluff, but if you're taking those three identical squads, it's probably a safe bet that fluff is not the motivating factor. If fluff was your priority, you might take one or two such squads, but spend the other points in other, more varied units.

As for the OP, yeah, MLs are really good, especially at 10pts each.

Agreed.

People that are spamming three identical units aren't usually worried about fluff or aesthetics.

CT GAMER wrote:Agreed.

People that are spamming three identical units aren't usually worried about fluff or aesthetics

Except that is not true. I take Missile Long Fangs, and I have played Space Wolves for 11 years, even with he old codex.
The only reason I even played with the old codex (and I took Long Fangs back then too, even though they sucked) Is because I care about fluff and aesthetics.

Caring about fluff doesn't automatically mean "Takes a crap list".

Gwar! wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Agreed.

People that are spamming three identical units aren't usually worried about fluff or aesthetics

Except that is not true. I take Missile Long Fangs, and I have played Space Wolves for 11 years, even with he old codex.
The only reason I even played with the old codex (and I took Long Fangs back then too, even though they sucked) Is because I care about fluff and aesthetics.

Caring about fluff doesn't automatically mean "Takes a crap list".

Agreed, but there IS some middle ground between "optimal unit" and "crap list". All missile launchers may be the "best" build for the unit (debatable), but it isn't the only viable unit build for them.

People who only build the optimal unit build and then spam it. Well, you bought the models so you free to play them, but lets not pretend it isn't what it is...

It's a fine line.

Also, the guy who has taken the time to model and convert the three squads so they look distinct and different lessens it to some degree.

The guy that has three squads of guys all with identical poses,heads, etc. Maybe not so much...

CT GAMER wrote:People who only build the optimal unit build and then spam it. Well, you bought the models so you free to play them, but lets not pretend it isn't what it is...

What's wrong, exactly, with using what you think is the optimal unit?

Or, rather, what's right, exactly, with intentionally using an inferior unit in the same role as the superior unit when the inferior unit is no more fluffy than the superior unit?

A big reason for me not wanting to mix weapons in a unit like this is when you lose your squad leader, you lose the ability to split fire. I want the unit to either be dual purpose (Missile Launcher), anti tank (Missile Launcher, Lascannon or all Multi Meltas) or anti infantry (Heavy Bolters).

Mixing weapons like Lascannons and Heavy Bolters just invites further degradation of a unit once the squad leader goes down.

So apply intelligent use of wound allocation really if you are taking six wounds on a Long Fangs squad you are not protecting them well enough.

Ed_Bodger wrote:So apply intelligent use of wound allocation really if you are taking six wounds on a Long Fangs squad you are not protecting them well enough.

Except, as is pointed out, Long Fangs have no Ablative wounds, so if you are taking only a single wound, you always put it on the pack leader.

Not necessarily I would rather loose a missile launcher in turn 1/2 than the ability to split fire. At the end of the game yes loose the pack leaser but not till then.

Gwar! wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:SW complain a lot about not having any ablative wounds in a long fangs pack, but I never see SW players add a bare bones wolf guard to a long fangs pack....

Because a whole ONE ablative wound is not something to write home about.

I could respect the opinion of SW players who take the ONE ablative wound and complain about only having one, but as I said before too many SW players complain about having no ablative wounds and don't take the option for ONE ablative wound.

Ablative wounds offer diminishing returns. The last ablative wound that a unit has is the most important one, the 2nd to last is the 2nd most important one, 3rd is 3rd and so on.... The more ablative wounds a unit can (or must) take the less useful subsequent ablative wounds become.

That being said there is an easy conclusion and a difficult question. The easy conclusion is Long Fangs should always take their ONE, last, and most important ablative wound. The difficult question is how many ablative wounds is the perfect number of ablative wounds? Most SW players think 1 is not enough, while most Codex Marines think 5 is too many. Like every other difficult 40k question the answer lies in asking the ruinous powers of chaos for the answer. Chaos Havocs can take as few as 1 ablative wound, and as many as 16. The thought of 16 ablative wounds on a missile launcher squad comically illustrates the affect of diminishing returns on ablative wounds, and most codex marines already agree that 5 is a bit excessive. The answer seems to be somewhere between 2 and 4 ablative wounds for an ideal number of ablative wounds on a MEQ heavy weapons squad.

Back to the topic of long fangs. The other thing I rarely see is a bare bones WG terminator added to the squad. A 2+ armor save on one model can be very useful in the place of an ablative wound. Melta and Plasma guns are unlikely to reach that deep into the SW lines without a nasty SW CC unit being in assault range of the melta/plasma guns, and las cannons are very unlikely to be shot at long fangs as long as high threat vehicle targets like dreads are still alive. The most likely thing for long fangs to be shot with are poor AP weapons, or missiles. In the case of krak missiles from a dev squad having 1 ablative termie will mean 1 less cover save per turn, and against a typhoon it would be extremity effective. Add to that the squad now has a power weapon and a bare bones termie is a good deal, it's just rarely seen.

This thread is like a HAAC invasion (OP) into WAAC territory (Tactics Board)..

I love those acronyms they make everyone sound silly.

HAAC?

You always drop the pack leader first as losing (and it is lose not loose) him does nothing to your damage output potential.

If you give the squad all the same weapons, then it is not a big loss to get rid of the pack leader. If you have three squads of fangs, it is even less of a loss.

That is why you identically equip the squad, it just flat out makes sense to do so.

Missile Launchers are clearly the best choice because they can damage any vehicle and they are superior at anti infantry. I have put 30 hits on a tightly packed squad with frags, which is devastating.

The other weapons are either too expensive, or simply inferior choices. The only other load out I have seen that works is the 5 las cannon squad with logan to either make them move and shoot or tank hunters for the strength 10 shots (although, you could do this with missile launchers as well for str 9 and frags).

As for giving them ablative wounds, it does make sense if you have an elites slot available to take a small unit of wolf guard. Especially adding a terminator with a cyclone missile launcher, as this gives you a 2+ to soak a heavy weapon wound and adds two more missiles a turn. Some lists do not, I for example take all 3 elites slots. I also have never lost all of my long fangs in a game before either, if you protect them well, they will survive.

Identical units also increases redundancy and target saturation. If you have three units that perform the same function, your opponent can not chose the target that is most dangerous and single it out.

So to each their own, but splitting weapons in a squad or only taking a single unit of fangs is truly not the most sound decision from a tactics perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HAAC = Hobby at all costs