Why long fangs are just that good

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.

**Vaktathi**

Nurglitch wrote:Vaktathi:

Conversely they're a glass hammer in an army of specialized units.

They're not *that* glass (T4 3+sv, probably 4+cover, 6 models, and you can have 3 units of them). Not super durable, but not IG HWS weak either. Likewise, SW's have probably the most flexible troops in the game. GH's can shoot on par with Tac's, outfight them even when assaulted themselves, and are cheaper both on a per model bases and after kit. WG's are far more flexible than SM vets in terms of role, Blood Claws are highly CC oriented yes but they can take the fight to a huge range of units, TWC likewise can wreak havoc on anything, Wolf Scouts can bring a wide assortment of kit to deal with just about any threat, etc. The SW army is probably the most flexible of any out there right now in terms of vectors of attack and how their units can be kit to deal with enemy units.

**Nurglitch**

Vaktathi:

I think you're working with a narrow definition of flexibility. Grey Hunters have a hard and fast range of 24", so they distinctly lack the ability to provide fire support. They can be locked down in assaults with Walkers. They can either have a Wolfguard or a special weapon if they're going to be mounted in a Rhino or a Drop Pod, and if they're small enough to fit in a Razorback then they're brittle.

They're a unit with a number of trade-offs, but they specialize in shooting within 12" range. They can fight off most other Troops at that range, but Elites are still going to grind them to paste when other Space Marines will be fleeing and surviving. It's like Counter-Attack is there to distract people from the risk of not being able to run away from the stuff that'll murder them.

I agree that Wolf Guard are more flexible than any single unit of Space Marine Veterans, but there's six Space Marine Veteran units include: Terminators, Assault Terminators, Vanguard Veterans, Sternguard Veterans, Command Squads, and Honour Guard. That's in addition to the Veteran that comes with every other squad. Space Marines can have three Dreadnoughts without sacrificing Sergeants in their squads, for example.

Overall I agree that the Space Wolves are a pretty flexible army, just not that they have flexible units. You're right about the redundancy though: it does mitigate the Long Fang's brittleness problem, but that's only if the enemy is unable to spread firepower around. If a Space Wolf player has redundancy of specialized units, then the Space Wolves are going to come across as more powerful than Space Marines when those units get used successfully in their intended roles.

Conversely, once caught out of those roles: Long Fangs engaged in combat, Grey Hunters engaged at 25"+ range, etc, the Space Wolf units don't have the flexibility that lets them try to change a losing game. Thunderwolves are never going to be able to sit back and shoot.

I think that may be why an earlier poster was recommending Lascannons and Missile Launchers because Long Fangs have no stamina, so getting as much in on the first turn of shooting is important.

**Vaktathi**

Most of those issues however are rather common amongst all armies. Very few Troops can engage enemy units with any chance of doing more than annoyance damage, if at all, beyond 24" aside from transport mounted guns and Imperial Guard. Also, SW's are perfectly capable of moving away from something they can't beat, and if we are talking about Combat Tactics, something has to have forced a morale test first, it's very situational, and is commonly traded for more powerful abilities.

Space Marines can have three Dreadnoughts without sacrificing Sergeants in their squads, for example.

True, but then again, so technically can SW's (Bjorn), though I get what you are aiming at, I also can't see that being a huge loss as WG's and SW Scouts are just such great unit I can't see any SW player willingly giving up all 3 elite slots for Dreads, just as honestly I can't see most SW players taking HW's in GH squads even if they had the option.

Long Fangs engaged in combat, Grey Hunters engaged at 25"+ range, etc, the Space Wolf units don't have the flexibility that lets them try to change a losing game. Thunderwolves are never going to be able to sit back and shoot.

Again though, this isn't unique to SW's at all. Dev's will commonly not like being engaged in CC as the majority of their points and purpose are wasted. Tac's only have the option of a single heavy weapon with which to engage foes at range which generally won't be much more than an annoyance factor. TH/SS termi's likewise can't shoot, like TWC's, but they are in almost every SM list I see as they can effectively engage just about anything, like TWC's.

I think that may be why an earlier poster was recommending Lascannons and Missile Launchers because Long Fangs have no stamina

They have some, let's be honest they aren't going down to anything less than a dedicated effort to destroy them, unlike something like IG HW Squads. They aren't the toughest things out there no, true, they are somewhat fragile yes, but not horrifically so.

so getting as much in on the first turn of shooting is important.

That's part of the problem, it gives an army that was billed as being highly CC competent and character oriented with little in the way of long range firepower, lots of Alpha Strikey long range firepower...

**DarknessEternal**

Nurglitch wrote:DarknessEternal:

Yup, and how much is that 90pts? It's 64%. So for a 64% increase in cost, they don't see the 60% loss of firepower that the Long Fangs see after 3 casualties, and the 100% loss of firepower that comes with 6 casualties. That extra cost comes with a commensurate benefit.

So you're saying 140 points loses to 230 points and this seems like a good argument in your head?

Of course it does. It's pointless to even bring it up.

90 points buys quite a lot and you're just throwing it out.

**Nurglitch**

Vaktathi:

Troops that can engage from beyond 24':

Tyranid Warriors
Imperial Guard Infantry Squads
Space Marine Tactical Squads
Space Marine Scout Squads
Chaos Space Marine Squads
Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors
Eldar Guardian Squads
Tau Fire Warrior Squads
Kroot Carnivore Squads

A Space Wolf squad in close combat with a Space Marine Dreadnought is unlikely to disengage safely while the Dreadnought kills them at a rate of 1-2 Grey Hunters a turn. This was something that came up again and again in 4th edition, that a Marine squad in combat with a Dreadnought would be slowly destroyed. Likewise they're pinned easier than Space Marine squads with Combat Tactics, since they cannot use a Morale test to escape from pinning, worse leadership aside.

Devastators and Tactical Squads that get caught in combat can not only exit combat much more easily, but they can use their heavy weapons upon regrouping. So the weakness of Space Wolves being specialists is actually pretty unique to them because other Space Marines can avoid weaknesses as well as leverage strengths.

Now I don't know what you call 'honesty' but let's consider what it'll take to put six Space Marines, Long Fangs or otherwise, in the ground. We can work backwards.

Bolters
For every unsaved wound, there will be two more saved wounds.
For every wound, there will be one hit that doesn't wound.
For every two hits, there will be one that misses.

So 6 unsaved wounds, 18 wounds, 36 hits, 54 shots. Or three Tactical Squads firing 9 Bolters at 12" range.

I suppose some might regard that as an aggregious misallocation of resources, but the point is that all it takes is Bolters. Throw in stuff that wounds on a 2+ and the Long Fangs are mulch. Even one Tactical Squad at 12" or two at 24" are likely to cause a Morale check.

In Space Marine terms, 6 bodies are more fragile than 10. 5/6 Heavy Weapons is more brittle than 4/10.

In addition the Long Fangs only have "first strikey" firepower if you're willing to deploy in front of them.

So Long Fangs are clearly good given optimal conditions of not being locked in combat, lots of large expensive targets, and the initiative, but have a serious drop-off if any of the above conditions isn't there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarknessEternal:

Your charity in describing my position is duly noted. However, I'm saying 140pts worth of Long Fangs can be expected to lose and lose disproportionately badly to 230pts of Devastators.

It's worth bringing up how badly because it underscores how the increase in cost of the Devastator Squad is commensurate with the increase in its effectiveness.

In other words those 90pts of difference are worth the investment and then some, because in a slugging match the Devastators will not only win, but can be reasonably expected to have all four Missile Launchers (and nothing else) left after two turns of slugging. In this situation a Space Marine player pays 90pts extra so that 230pts can reliably beat 140pts with four Missile Launchers left over.

**Vaktathi**

Troops that can engage from beyond 24':

You'll notice I said "with any chance of doing more than annoyance damage". Very few of those units that you listed are capable of doing more than annoyance damage beyond 24", especially if they don't want to put themselves at the mercy of opposing heavy weapons/ordnance. I don't think anything in that list disproves that.

A Space Wolf squad in close combat with a Space Marine Dreadnought is unlikely to disengage safely while the Dreadnought kills them at a rate of 1-2 Grey Hunters a turn. This was something that came up again and again in 4th edition, that a Marine squad in combat with a Dreadnought would be slowly destroyed. Likewise they're pinned easier than Space Marine squads with Combat Tactics, since they cannot use a Morale test to escape from pinning, worse leadership aside.

Right, but this goes for most armies, even almost all MEQ armies that isn't a BA force or Smurf army that hasn't traded their Combat Tactics for something else. CSM's, BT's, DA's, GK's, etc are all in the same boat. If anything, the GH's have a better chance of taking it on than most, as in addition to krak grenades which can at least glance, they can not only have a sergeant powerfist but a squad powerfist as well. Additionally, Combat Tactics is not without risk as there's still about a 50/50 chance you will be caught, take No Retreat! wounds, get stay stuck.

Now I don't know what you call 'honesty' but let's consider what it'll take to put six Space Marines, Long Fangs or otherwise, in the ground. We can work backwards.

Bolters
For every unsaved wound, there will be two more saved wounds.
For every wound, there will be one hit that doesn't wound.
For every two hits, there will be one that misses.

So 6 unsaved wounds, 18 wounds, 36 hits, 54 shots. Or three Tactical Squads firing 9 Bolters at 12" range.

I suppose some might regard that as an aggregious misallocation of resources, but the point is that all it takes is Bolters.

Yes, but that again also goes for just about any infantry unit in the game, and it means that the LF's are about as hard to kill with small arms as full squad of 12 Fire Warriors or 2 IG Missile Launcher Heavy Weapon Squads in cover, but with better Ld and combat abilities. That's still a good amount of firepower required to destroy them and be at half or a quarter of the range of the long fangs weapons. They're tough enough that it takes a dedicated effort to destroy them, and if you are bringing heavy/ordnance weapons into the mix, probably not much less than it would take to destroy a full Dev squad. More fragile than a 10man dev squad against small arms and stuff like heavy bolters? Yes, you won't get an argument from me about that. But they still put out decent firepower until they are down to about the last man.

In Space Marine terms, 6 bodies are more fragile than 10. 5/6 Heavy Weapons is more brittle than 4/10.

I'm not debating that they are more fragile than a fully fleshed out Tac/Dev squad. Really I'm not. What I'm saying is that they have *enough* survivability to likely make it at least the two turns they need to be there, especially if you have three squads of them for about the cost of two tac marine units after kit.

In addition the Long Fangs only have "first strikey" firepower if you're willing to deploy in front of them.

Well, not a lot of choice, with a 48" range and up to three units, they can cover the board pretty well, and that split fire thing helps mitigate cover a lot as you can direct firepower much better and sidestep a lot of LoS/Cover issues that you'd have to deal with otherwise.

Then there's also the option of attaching a Cyclone Termi WG to LF's that's sporting 2 additional missiles a turn with a 2+/5++sv for an extra...63pts? that single option also adds a ton of value to the unit.

**Nurglitch**

Vaktathi:

I'm sorry, but your concept of "annoyance damage" is incoherent. Damage is damage. The list of units merely gives the lie to your assertion that there are few units that can engage from beyond 24". A Barbed Strangler is not going to be an annoyance...

Likewise I'm sorry, but paying 25pts for a single Powerfist attack seems to me to demolish any notion of Grey Hunters being cost effective. You also got the math wrong for the odds of I4 Space Marines escaping a sweeping advance by an I4 Dreadnought. The Dreadnought has to roll equal or greater than the Tactical Space Marines to catch them.

That means that the squad has a 0.42 rate of escaping combat, which looks pretty bad until you realize that the Grey Hunters had a 0.42 rate of failing a Ld7 morale test in addition to a 0.42 rate of evading a sweeping advance, or 0.18 rate of successfully disengaging from combat.

I'm not going to address the opportunity cost of a 25pt Powerfist on a 15pt Grey Hunter.

I know you're not arguing that a full Devastator Missile Launcher Squad isn't as good as a full Long Fang Missile Launcher Squad. The thing is though that the Long Fangs take a serious hit from being so short-manned. After taking two casualties they have a 1/6 chance of failing a morale test, or a 1/6 of being pinned from one casualty. Every wound causes a big drop off in firepower. And thanks to their inherent Ld9 they're even more likely to be locked up in combat than Grey Hunters. That's the problem, they simply don't have spare bodies. All of the problems that result from not having those spare bodies makes their points value about right.

Adding a 63pt Terminator takes what little virtue the Long Fangs have by way of cheap weapons and wastes it. Speaking of wasting, I've always been curious as to why Space Wolf player so often seem inclined to waste the opportunity for a complex unit that Long Fangs offer.

**ivangterrace**

Nurglitch wrote:ivangterrace:

I don't think it was strictly necessary to repeat my entire post in one quote. Additionally I would be interested to see you justify limiting the options of Long Fangs to Missile Launcher and Lascannons instead of just asserting the notion.

Speaking of random assertions, did you know that sometimes in 40k people can shoot at one unit without wasting their fire on another unit? Some people play with as much as 25% of the board covered in terrain! True story...

As for not allowing Long Fangs to be assaulted, I had forgot that one could simply reach a gentleman's agreement with one's opponent to the effect that it would be bad sportsmanship if they didn't permit the Long Fangs to continue to operate unimpeded.

As for cover saves, the Long Fangs are going to take more armour saves than cover saves. They're infantry, why waste anti-vehicle fire on them? If they do take cover saves, they're going to be taking them on Cv4+ because Iron Priests can't fortify terrain, so they're going to suffer 17% more casualties than if they had an armour save. Either way you only need to cause six.

Hey, speaking of math, and by math I take it you mean "arithmetic", guess what a Devastator Squad can expect from 6 Bolters? At 24" that's 6 shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, or 0.66 expected unsaved wounds on Space Marines, and at 12" that's 1.22 expected unsaved wounds on Space Marines. Four Krak Missiles from a Devastator Squad on a Long Fangs Squad would cause 2.22 expected unsaved wounds, by comparison.

Five Krak Missiles from a Long Fangs Squad would cause 2.77 expected unsaved wounds on the Devastators. So apparently those five extra Bolters are worth more than one extra Missile Launcher in a duel situation.

Notice something here? A full Devastator Squad in a Missile duel with Long Fangs can expect to kill ~3 Long Fangs a turn while the Long Fangs can expect the same. Except that after absorbing the first turn of fire the Long Fangs would see a 60% loss in firepower whereas the Devastators would suffer 11% or 22% loss in firepower (if they were in 24" or 12" range, respectively).

The Long Fangs are only 60% of the cost of a Devastator Squad and it shows when the other player notices you bought your Heavy Support from the bargain basement rather than spending points on something with survivability (like a Land Raider...).

Now a Land Raider can also split fire, has better accuracy on 3/4 Heavy Weapons, can move and fire, can transport troops, has AV14, so complete immunity to S7- weapons, and so on for only a few more points.

Similarly a Predator or Vindicator is also less vulnerable, either either a similar load of Lascannons, or a weapon that's better than a Lascannon within 24", and more mobile.

As for Whirlwinds, well, there we're getting into Rock-Scissors-Paper territory.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams:

Au contraire. The Librarian cannot be completely wasted if he centres his Psychic Hood on the Devastators, uses Force Dome to preserve them in the face of weapons that ignore the cover they're camping in, or to help them survive the onslaught of power-weapon armed enemies, and the Gate of Infinity can put them in position without wasting their Bolters and Bolt Pistol shots since a run will unclench them from their Deep Strike vulnerability to blast and template weapons.

However, I think it's an interesting notion you have there that if you aren't firing a Heavy Weapon every turn that you're somehow wasting it. It's a notion I share to some extent, for surely it is the case that Long Fangs in combat are being put at comparative disadvantage to Long Fangs that can shoot. But I'm also inclined to think of shots in terms of quality and target selection: Sometimes you'll benefit from forgoing shooting to move into a position for a better shot.

Do you play 40k? Or just talk about it?

If someone shoots at my long fangs, that means they are not using firepower on my units moving forward. Oh, I am glad that your devastators can beat my long fangs because while you were shooting at the long fangs, my assault units just got to move forward, oh, and typically I'll have meltaguns with those types of units or in them. You think people are just going to rely on their long fangs and nothing else for popping tanks and killing infantry? Maybe if my grey hunters cannot use meltaguns and they no longer get to attack in CC.

Heres the big problem with a land raider, a lucky S9 or 10 long-range shot or meltas. Goodbye 3 (4 if multimelta) guns and 250ish points. It gets stunned? Down to one gun. No, they are not a good replacement for long fangs because if your opponent gets lucky with a long range shot early in the game, you are SoL. But hey, I don't have that problem with long fangs, a lascannon shot or two isn't going to kill all of them, and again, you could have just popped a rhino with that lascannon, or put a wound on a TWC unit.

Predators are the only thing I can agree with that contests long fangs for a HS slot because the predators are falling around the same cost, and they are harder to assault, but predators can't switch roles as easily as ML long fangs.

Gentleman's agreement? What? You should really stop trying to be stelek when it comes to sarcasm in posts and all that crap. Are you suggesting I can't deploy in a way to keep my long fangs safe from infiltrate/outflank/scout moves which end up in assaults? Depends on terrain in on the board but what prevents me from say, deploying them away from the board edges or deploying other units to stop infiltrating/scout moves that would put the long fangs in danger.

I don't understand why you are comparing devastators to long fangs in the first place when you are also comparing long fangs to land raiders and predators, I can't take devastators in my codex so why are you bringing them up?

___________________________________________________

Going with nurglich's suggestions, a typical SW assaulty list should look like this (No special characters because I can't fit them and I don't want to spark a debate or more OT goodness.

2000 Pts - Space Wolves Roster

Heavy Support: Land Raider

Heavy Support: Land Raider

Heavy Support: Land Raider

Troops: Grey Hunters Pack
10 Grey Hunters Pack 2x meltagun, MotW, wolf banner

Troops: Grey Hunters Pack
10 Grey Hunters Pack 2x meltagun, MotW, wolf banner

Fast Attack: Thunderwolf Cavalry
4 TWC. 1 with a PF, 1 with SS, 1 with meltabombs, 1 with normal wargear

Fast Attack: Thunderwolf Cavalry
4 TWC. 1 with a PF, 1 with SS, 1 with meltabombs, 1 with normal wargear

Fast Attack: Thunderwolf Cavalry
4 TWC. 1 with a PF, 1 with SS, 1 with meltabombs, 1 with normal wargear

HQ: WGBL
Thunderwolf mount, runic armor

Total Roster Cost: 2000

Edit: I forgot to put my grey hunters in rhinos so they get land raiders lol. Keep this in mind for my next, unedited paragraph

I suppose I could just put those empty land raiders up front to block LoS of my rhinos/TWC but I'll only have 3 or 6 lascannon shots a turn as I'm moving up and that is with the assumption that no one manages to damage them as they move. Maybe throw the grey hunters in those land raiders? But wait, I thought we were gonna put the land raiders in back and let them shoot in place of the long fangs that are usually back there shooting. Okay so I do that and they get shot to ribbons because those land raiders won't be enough to really do much to an enemy army. I'll take my 15 MLs and take a chance with losing some heavy weapons to enemy fire, and I'll get to take a bunch of other stuff too because long fangs are cheaper than land raiders.

**Vaktathi**

Nurglitch wrote:Vaktathi:

I'm sorry, but your concept of "annoyance damage" is incoherent. Damage is damage.

By annoyance damage I mean something that's going to, on average, going to do more than *maybe* get rid of one or two ablative wounds. Nothing that is generally going to cripple, stall or destroy an enemy unit.

The list of units merely gives the lie to your assertion that there are few units that can engage from beyond 24".

I didn't say that there were few units that could engage, I've repeatedly stated this, my assertion was only that most weren't going to be threatening more than a wound or two for the most part.

A Barbed Strangler is not going to be an annoyance...

Depends on what it's targeting. With a Prime in the unit against Kabalite Trueborn in the open? Sure, devestating. At BS3 against a unit of spread out SM's or guardsmen in cover, you'll be lucky to get a wound to stick.

Likewise I'm sorry, but paying 25pts for a single Powerfist attack seems to me to demolish any notion of Grey Hunters being cost effective.

They have the *option*, I'm not saying that particular option is remarkably cost effective (although even with it they certainly aren't suddenly going to be overcosted as a unit...), but that given the units options as a whole, they aren't any worse off than anyone else when facing the issue you described, maybe better.

You also got the math wrong for the odds of I4 Space Marines escaping a sweeping advance by an I4 Dreadnought. The Dreadnought has to roll equal or greater than the Tactical Space Marines to catch them.

Ah correct, so the Dread has a better chance of sweeping (further mitigating the usesfulness of Combat Tactics)

which looks pretty bad until you realize that the Grey Hunters had a 0.42 rate of failing a Ld7 morale test

Are we assuming to WG or Pfist is in the unit and that the dread hits and wounds with both attacks? With a Pfist WG in the unit there's a not insignificant chance of destruction of the dread or of a tie (even a glancing hit counts towards combat resolution)

I know you're not arguing that a full Devastator Missile Launcher Squad isn't as good as a full Long Fang Missile Launcher Squad. The thing is though that the Long Fangs take a serious hit from being so short-manned.

As the game goes on yes, but their critical usefulness is the first and second turns they will typically stick around.

After taking two casualties they have a 1/6 chance of failing a morale test, or a 1/6 of being pinned from one casualty. Every wound causes a big drop off in firepower.

Every wound after the first, the first is likely to remove utility of firepower (most people will take the sergeant), big, but does not reduce overall firepower.

And thanks to their inherent Ld9 they're even more likely to be locked up in combat than Grey Hunters. That's the problem, they simply don't have spare bodies. All of the problems that result from not having those spare bodies makes their points value about right.

The issue is that even with these vulnerabilities they are still fairly hardy, and the firepower they put out is unparalleled for their cost. A barebones dev or Havoc squad of 5 dudes with 4 ML's is 30pts more than a Long Fang squad with 6 dudes, split fire capability, and 5 ML's. Yes they can take more dudes, but you're paying for ablativeness at that point, and their weapons cost significantly more. Two IG Missile HWS's are 40pts more and far less sturdy (they get an extra gun and between the two units get to split fire, but are both individually and collectively much easier to destroy, especially with stuff like Scatterlasers and their lower Ld).

If Long Fangs were 30pts more with 5 ML's do you think you'd see a drastic drop in their use? I don't. They'd still be fantastic buys. If I ran SW's I'd still seriously consider them at 170pts. That tells me they are markedly undercosted.

additionally, it gives an otherwise extremely effective CC oriented army more ranged fire support than is really warranted given their CC capabilities (lower upgrade char p-weapon/pfist costs, army wide Counterattack, reroll banners, etc) and relatively low cost on everything else.

It really makes me look at my CSM army and think "why am I not using this codex? It does everything my CSM's do, but with counterattack and more points to spare."

Adding a 63pt Terminator takes what little virtue the Long Fangs have by way of cheap weapons and wastes it.

How so? Adding 2 more missile shots a turn, in addition to a powerweapon and stormbolter to alleviate their CC weakness (despite still having Counterattack...) with a 2+ save that can still fire if the unit needs to relocate? Maybe not an always buy, but a solid option nonetheless.

Speaking of wasting, I've always been curious as to why Space Wolf player so often seem inclined to waste the opportunity for a complex unit that Long Fangs offer.

You mean like 3 HB's and 2 LC's or something? Probably because the ML's are so versatile when massed.

**Nurglitch**

ivangterrace:

If you don't like sarcasm, then first deal with it in your own posts and I'll be sure to reciporicate. While you're at it you can drop the personal attacks against me, such as comparing me to Stelek, and take points about facts of the game personally if it was a personal affront to suggest you might not able to dictate the course of the game to your opponent.

For example, suggesting you might not be able to protect your Long Fangs from a T2 assault does not mean you're an idiot, unless you believe it can be done against all opponents. There's plenty of units that can assault on T2, either from a Deep Strike or simply moving upfield fast. It's no slight against you that this is possible. There's some situations where you could actively deny an assault by surrounding the Long Fangs with another unit of Fearless Space Wolves, but the opportunity cost does make that option stupid given that it requires another unit and makes both vulnerable to blasts and templates.

Likewise the notion of Long Fangs distracting fire from units moving forward is pointless when the Long Fangs are both an immediate threat and only require anti-infantry firepower to suppress and/or destroy. If a Land Raider is vulnerable to S8+ weapons, Long Fangs are vulnerable to everything. Drawing a Lascannon shot away from Razorbacks and Rhinos to risk on a Land Raider is a hard decision, but Bolters will need an infantry target or be wasted. Unless you're planning on an infantry horde, Long Fangs are not going to detract from the opposing army's ability to engage because they aren't going to maximize armour saturation and they're going to give them an opportunity to use anti-infantry weapons on a nice soft target.

Incidentally I'm comparing Long Fangs to Devastators because they're extremely similar units. Indeed, one could say that Long Fangs are the Space Wolves' Devastators. Likewise I'm comparing Long Fangs to Land Raider, Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds because those are all competing with the Long Fangs for Heavy Support choices in Space Wolf armies. In a word, they're relevant when the topic is whether Long Fangs are that good.

**zeekill**

Nurglitch wrote:Long Fangs are over-rated.

They need a surviving Pack Leader who isn't shooting, and multiple targets to take advantage of Fire Control.
And how is this such a bad thing? Worst case scenario the absolutely rape one enemy light tank or MC.

Being such a small unit means that each unsaved wound is going to lose the unit either a Heavy Weapon or the Pack Leader and thus Fire Control. Sometimes the torrent of fire they absorb will determine that for you.
Firstly, always the packleader first. he is there to die, his ability is just a bonus. Secondly, if you mass your fire at them, you are ignoring the other 4/5 of my army, which I am totally fine with.

Finally, they have to exchange their Bolt Pistol for a Heavy Weapon, so they're the worst Space Wolves at Counter-Attack. In fact they're pretty vulnerable to Walkers, Monstrous Creatures, and even Independent Characters. I stand bewildered and puzzled as to why the presence of Long Fangs does not tee off a builded up Mawlocs on gaming tables.
And how many of those are actually going to get near the long fangs without getting blown to bits? Plus they have to get past my 3 grey hunter squads.

Conversely Devastators keep their Bolt Pistols so they can shoot on the move, and suffer no reduction in the efficacy of Combat Tactics, and gain more benefits because they have more Heavy Weapons than any other Space Marine squad.
And yet LF get more of those weapons for cheaper and can split fire. You can keep your crummy bolt pistols, if you choose to shoot them you're just stupid.

Having spare 16pt Space Marines to catch bullets makes it harder for an enemy unit to reduce their firepower output by a significant amount, and Combat Squads not only allows a Devastator squad to become two units each capable of engaging a unit, but also become two units each requiring a separate unit to engage it.
And yet none of this matters because I have 15 missile launchers in my army for 420 points that can shoot at 6 targets every turn. Getting extra marines on dev squads is a waste of points.

And that's discounting the Signum.
Big whoop. Hit on a 2+. My ability is 8x better, and my squad is much cheaper.

If you think Long Fangs are cheap, then add to their cost 50pts, because that's the difference between them and a Land Raider, and you're better off with a Land Raider.
What? They are 140 points. A Land raider is 250+. And even then a Land Raider sucks compared to my LF.

**Nurglitch**

zeekill:

Thank god I undersatnd the forum posting rules, especially with regards to politeness when dealing with other users !

**J'santai Khan**

I don't care what any of you think! They are that much better because they are SPACE WOLVES!!! I am DIEING to run up against an opponent that whips out his calculator every time it's his(her?) turn to figure some percentages. It will be the LAST time they get any table time with me (or my friends, for that matter!). What ever happened to just getting together and playing a game of 40K?!? Where have the days of throwing together a fluffy army list and win or lose, having a good time gone?!? After reading through this post, the only thing I have decided is that there are still SOME people who play this game for all of the WRONG reasons and should probably seek a bit of counseling before they risk life & limb trying to force thier opinions down someone else's throat... I'm just sayin'.........

**ivangterrace**

Edit: Zeekil beat me. I knew I should not have gone and made dinner.

He makes good points nurg, why don't you stop blessing us with your wisdom? His makes more sense.

**Nurglitch**

Yes, how dare I try to force my opinion down your throat... What do I think this is, a discussion forum?

**ivangterrace**

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, how dare I try to force my opinion down your throat... What do I think this is, a discussion forum?

When you use situations that can be avoided or otherwise unrepresentative of what actually happens to back up your opinion, yeah, people call out your opinion and will generally ridicule it and/or you at the same time.

**Nurglitch**

ivangterrace:

By all means please explain exactly how you thing the situations I've brought can be avoided. Because so far what I'm hearing is "Nuh uh, I'm too awesome to fall for that." If your opinion is the right one, then you can explain how it is that your opinion is right so that everyone can agree with the correction position.

Because firstly, there's a reason why some of the situations I've described aren't representative of what you will commonly find on the table. If these situations were all that common then it wouldn't be received wisdom that Long Fangs are that good. It's only in the case where Long Fangs seem unusually good that uncommon situations balancing out their value become relevant.

I'm not saying Long Fangs aren't popular; they clearly are. I'm working from the position that every Space Wolf player I know fields them, and everyone I've read about fields them indicates some sort of popularity. But they're popular because current hobby trends in strategies and tactics favour them, not because they're particularly good in any absolute sense of the term.

In other words, if my suggestions seem strange and unusual, it's because you haven't thought of it yourself yet.

On the bright side, whenever a unit develops this kind of ubiquity tactically minded people work out those unusual situations that are rock to their scissors, and learn how to engineer them on the table. I suppose it's the case of the nail standing out begs to be hammered down.

**AspireToGlory**

Nurglitch wrote:Long Fangs are over-rated.

They need a surviving Pack Leader who isn't shooting, and multiple targets to take advantage of Fire Control.

Being such a small unit means that each unsaved wound is going to lose the unit either a Heavy Weapon or the Pack Leader and thus Fire Control. Sometimes the torrent of fire they absorb will determine that for you.

Finally, they have to exchange their Bolt Pistol for a Heavy Weapon, so they're the worst Space Wolves at Counter-Attack. In fact they're pretty vulnerable to Walkers, Monstrous Creatures, and even Independent Characters. I stand bewildered and puzzled as to why the presence of Long Fangs does not tee off a builded up Mawlocs on gaming tables.

Conversely Devastators keep their Bolt Pistols so they can shoot on the move, and suffer no reduction in the efficacy of Combat Tactics, and gain more benefits because they have more Heavy Weapons than any other Space Marine squad.

Having spare 16pt Space Marines to catch bullets makes it harder for an enemy unit to reduce their firepower output by a significant amount, and Combat Squads not only allows a Devastator squad to become two units each capable of engaging a unit, but also become two units each requiring a separate unit to engage it.

And that's discounting the Signum.

If you think Long Fangs are cheap, then add to their cost 50pts, because that's the difference between them and a Land Raider, and you're better off with a Land Raider.

It also increases their cost/firepower ratio, which is not what you want. You're paying for 6 marines to sit their and DO NOTHING the entire game except maybe catch bullets. That's point inefficient.

Re the signum: Fire control is better. Oh, and they have counter attack, and they're cheaper. And they can take more heavy weapons.

**Nurglitch**

AspireToGlory:

Hey, good work reading that post and ignoring the rest of the thread. That takes talent.

I especially like the blank reiteration of points I've already shown to be variously wrong (re: 6 extra Marines, they add considerable anti-infantry firepower, aid in claiming cover, the ability to use Combat Tactics, etc), points others have shown to be wrong (Fire Control preferable to a Signum), and other points that are either false or irrelevant.

(1) "they're cheaper" not really, since the 90pts premium for the Devastators in a duel leads 120pts of surviving Devastators: if they were cheaper than Devastators then that would be only 90pts of surviving Devastators. The Long Fangs can't even be expected to kill their own points value in Devastators on a reliable basis. Actually, I change my mind, if we're using "cheaper" in the sense of quality as well as expense.

(2)"they have Counter-Attack" is basically so what? On 2+, unless they were already pinned or locked in combat, they get +1A on top of the 1 they already have. Not impressive when they need to either escape from, or defeat, assault units.

(3) "they can take more heavy weapons" is entirely 100% true. It doesn't stop the unit with fewer Heavy Weapons from winning a duel more often, see (1).

Mind you, it's pretty interesting that the worst Devastator Squad configuration is probably the best Long Fang configuration (Sergeant/Leader, four Heavy Weapons). The Devastators give up nearly all of their advantages without gaining the Long Fang's advantages of being cheap.

**ivangterrace**

Nurglitch wrote:ivangterrace:

By all means please explain exactly how you thing the situations I've brought can be avoided. Because so far what I'm hearing is "Nuh uh, I'm too awesome to fall for that." If your opinion is the right one, then you can explain how it is that your opinion is right so that everyone can agree with the correction position.

Because firstly, there's a reason why some of the situations I've described aren't representative of what you will commonly find on the table. If these situations were all that common then it wouldn't be received wisdom that Long Fangs are that good. It's only in the case where Long Fangs seem unusually good that uncommon situations balancing out their value become relevant.

I'm not saying Long Fangs aren't popular; they clearly are. I'm working from the position that every Space Wolf player I know fields them, and everyone I've read about fields them indicates some sort of popularity. But they're popular because current hobby trends in strategies and tactics favour them, not because they're particularly good in any absolute sense of the term.

In other words, if my suggestions seem strange and unusual, it's because you haven't thought of it yourself yet.

On the bright side, whenever a unit develops this kind of ubiquity tactically minded people work out those unusual situations that are rock to their scissors, and learn how to engineer them on the table. I suppose it's the case of the nail standing out begs to be hammered down.

I already told you what can be avoided. Those are the common ones. What is unusual are units that DS and assault the same turn (You said it happens) and units moving across the board in one turn. I only see vanguard vets and DE at the frontier for those threats that are too difficult to avoid. But does that happen a lot? No, it doesn't, only BA vanguard vet lists and new DE lists which are not that common. These things don't happen enough to be a threat to the "that good" argument of long fangs. When dark eldar get more models and thus catch on, you betcha the metagame is going to change to predators of all kinds.

What do "more dark eldar models" have to do with this? Well right now, I don't see a lot of DE armies showing up on the competitive scene (the one that matters) because of all the conversion work involved. Sure you can say that other armies that are common need conversion work for "good" units (tervigons, TWC) but those conversions are not as difficult.

So now you are saying LFs are not good. @_@ you say lots of different things.

I've thought of your ideas, the common situations are avoidable and the unavoidable/difficult to avoid ones rarely happen and are not representative to what actually happens on the tabletop

But yeah, like I said, once DE gain popularity, you won't see long fangs any more, until then, they are going to be better at blowing crap up better than any of the other things in the SW HS choices.

**Ed_Bodger**

Nurglitch, normally I agree with most of what you say however in this particular case I think your opinion and mine will not agree (that is me trying to say I think you are wrong without belittling your opinion if that makes sense.). Long Fangs are certainly not a glass hammer there are various way you can ensure that they are protected:

1/ They are always in cover.
2/Outflanking units in your opponents army - stay in the center of your back area and have your troops choice that defends your home objective/forms your tactical reserve standing by to intercept outflankers.
3/ No outflankers if you can get through my 1700 or so points of TWC, Grey Hunters and characters to get to my LF then you have outplayed me and the LF's dieing are the least of my worries.
4/You want to sit back and shoot at me. Hello drop pods and wolf scouts bye bye your heavy weapons.

I agree with your point that there are limitations to this unit but then this is Space Wolves not Imperial Guard and the strength of the army is not sitting back and shooting, however LF's give you the ability to have a reliable unit/couple of units that can put out a proportionally high amount of Long Range firepower. Looking at the armies in 40K the only armies that can outshoot 3 packs of Longfangs will not want to be shooting them with their big guns as the real danger to their army is being engaged in cc by the rest of a SW army.

**sourclams**

Any argument made against Long Fangs is going to apply at least equally against Devastators with the addendum that in any conceivable loadout Long Fangs are at least 10 points cheaper and have one more heavy gun.

The only dubious advantage that Devastators possess is the opportunity to pay 90 points for bullet catchers.

For 90 points (plus the inherent discount) Space Wolves could add an entire Rune Priest with Living Lightning or a WGPL in Terminator armor with a weapon upgrade and CML for a total of 7 missile shots/turn.

Since maximizing strengths, not minimizing weaknesses tends to be a game-winning mantra, I'm willing to bet that the majority of players would rather have a 7 missile LF squad or a missile/rune priest squad for 240 or fewer points rather than 10 non-scoring Tactical Marines with four heavy weapons.

**DarknessEternal**

I prefer to think of the 90 points as representing a Typhoon Landspeeder. So not only is it still 2 more missiles, but it's also a second target.

**sourclams**

Or a las/plas razorback for far greater mobility during Dawn of War deployments and more guns plus a tank...

The point being, of course, that 90 points is not at all inconsiderable and you have unlimited freedom with what to spend it on with a LF squad.

**Asgeirr Darkwolf**

Thank god the personal attacks have gone down a bit... to be honest, while anyone can tout statistics (no matter how correct they may be) statistics are, in fact, only statistics, not real life. There are many things in game that you can't put into a calculator.

Now, not to spark the whole Devs discussion again, and Nurglitch did point out his reason for comparing them, this thread is about LF being the 'best' (and no, I do not agree with this. Though they are awesomeness, other HS choices have their merits, and you can't as LF's to do a LR's job, or vice versa.) SW choice! Not wether they are better than devs! This began to start being an interesting thread, I odn't want to have to read through post after post of insult, and 'my armies better', everyone neeeds to just take a breather, tunr off the 'net, adn go outside.

There. Don't you feel better?

This isn't meant to come off as condescending, just my view on this heated debate...

Anyway, my view is this:

For ninety points, there are a miriad of other oprions and targets that all do diffeerent jobs in the SW codex, so I'd rather not spend that on regular marines. (incidentally, 5 SW are generally better than 5 SM, and the same points...).

Also, LF are cheap and cheerful, and you can't expect them to survive everything (though a rune priest helps). They fufill the long range support role better than everything else in the SW codex, adn that's what they belong doing.

**J'santai Khan**

And besides that, they are SPACE WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!