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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote: Somehow, given that you are the sole voice of hatred against it on this thread, I doubt you're doing anything of the kind.
After all, ultimately, it is down to the player, not the codex. My friends have proved that to me enough times, trust me there.

A. The OP explicitly asked for why the Space Wolf Codex is considered bad and overpowered. Cannot blame me for answering questions that are asked.

B. Even though this thread is just a single page so far, there's already two other posters that acknowledge that somethings fishy about Space Wolf balance.

C. I never denied that creative and committed players can wring some value out of even a -Codex like the Space Wolf one. Doesn't change the fact that virtually all other 5th Edition Codexes still stand miles above the Space Wolf book in quality of both fluff and rules.



You don't like my assessment? Well don't start (or read) topics explicitly asking for reasons why the current Space Wolves are such a horrid book.

Actually it said overpowered, not horrid or rubbish or awful.
Slight difference, perhaps, but a worthy one.

Yes, and it's ultimately OP because it is awful; written by an inept of a Codex writer incapable of grasping either the functionality of the rule-system as well as ignorant or careless about the established fluff, theme and background of the 40K universe, Space Marines and the Space Wolves in particular.

Sometimes, such ineptitude leads to weak Codexes (e.g. Tyranids, Dark Eldar), sometimes to overpowered (or too easy, if you prefer) ones (e.g. Space Wolves, Imperial Guard). The point remains that lack of interest and talent in writing a Codexes and a poor grasp of the game on behalf of the lead designer inevitably leads to issues of balance more often than not.

I disagree. The Eldar codex, (written by Phil Kelly) is an excellent codex, and I've had it proven time and again that it's competitiveness is undiminished.
The SW codex, I'm afraid to say, is nowhere near as overpowered as it is made out to be, nor is it the gak you believe. The SW, if anything, seem to be one of the more reasonable of the so-called "broken" codexes in my experience. You have stated they are awful, and fair enough, but your points seem to be heavily focussed on the idea that people were playing them like an artillery army; they aren't, for the most part. I certainly place a hell of a lot of emphasis on the charge, knowing that Counterattack will protect me from the inevitable reaction charge from, say, my pal's Khorne Berserker. It's clear that, yes, there's more emphasis on firepower than they used to be, but it certainly hasn't destabilized the traditional tactics of the SW to anywhere near the extent that you claim.

Did you even play 4th Edition?

The Eldar Codex singlehandeldy drove away more people in frustration that I care to remember with cheese falcons and whatnot. 5th Edition arguably became necessary in no small part because the Eldar book so unhinged the game.

Dark Eldar is weak?

Hardly

Zweischneid wrote:Did you even play 4th Edition?

The Eldar Codex singlehandeldy drove away more people in frustration that I care to remember with cheese falcons and whatnot. 5th Edition arguably became necessary in no small part because the Eldar book so unhinged the game.

Yes, I did, so I can only presume those people were the kind to get butthurt over a new codex and scream to the high heavens "IT IS UNBEATABLE" rather than genuinely try to find ways of beating it. I've played that codex enough times using the 4th ed rules to know that you're talking nonsense.

Zweischneid wrote:The current Space Wolves book has three key problems.

Unimaginative Spam-lists:
Nearly all other 5th Codexes, especially the Marine-books, excel at providing unprecedented variety and opportunity in list building. The Space Marine Codex obviously set the gold standard with Chapter Tactics. But also the BA Codex allows a great many viable builds, ranging from all-Jumpers, Golder Army, Dread-list, Mech-lists, Termy-Deathststars, Death Company, etc.. . In comparison, all Space Wolves armies look alike, spamming Grey Hunters, Long Fangs and usually JoTWW-Priests. The current SW Codex is thus flawed by unimaginative list-writing, poor variety of available builds and a singular absence of variety.

This is absolute rubbish

So far this year I have played in three UK Tournamnents, the Cali open, the UK GT and Open War and faced space wolves 5 times, and played Wolves in all of those tournaments, not one of the armies that I have played have been like mine or overly similar.

Yes you have a lot of Rune priests, Grey Hunters and Long Fangs but you also have a lot of variation. A lot of people are now running some thunderwolves, either as a lone lord or 3 man squads. A lot are running speeders while others want scouts. There is a big debate between MSU and full complements of Grey Hunters, there are stilll a lot of Logan wings out there.

There is certainly not a cookie cutter list being used on the UK tournament scene for wolves.

Zweischneid wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
All of the current MeQ Codices allow for 'unimaginative spam-lists', this is by no way exclusive to the Space Wolves nor something that can be blamed solely on the Codex; it's a result of the player. To say that 'all Space Wolves armies look alike' is IMHO very generalised and a strong suggestion of your bias. Space Wolves, like most 5th edition Codices can accomodate for a wide variety of builds: Mechanised/Ranged-mechanised/Footslog/Close Combat/Wolf-based/Wolf Guard-based/drop pod and more. It's just some general tournament armies that 'spam' Grey Hunters, Long Fangs and Priests. Priests who'd usually have LL, not JotWW. Whilst I don't deny that there are some flaws with the Codex and that Fangs/Hunters and Priests are the most powerful choices and could do with a points increase, to say that all Space Wolf armies are the same says a lot about your apparent bias.

We had come to a general consensus that it's not that the SW are overpowered, but that they're simply the easiest to use. Now you come in waving around what can only appear to be your anti-Space Wolf opinion.

Simply not true. The other 5th MeQ-Codexes allow a great variety of different viable lists as outlined in my previous post. FoC-swaps are common. Different synergy options exist. A Blood Angel Golden Army will look nothing at all like a Blood Angel Death Company Force which will again look nothing like a Blood Angel Raz-Mech-Force. Some of the basic Marines. Wolves are simply lacking.

I don't know who "we" is that came to a general consensus, but "easiest to use" sounds like a weakly disguised euphemism for saying they are (too) strong, just as Dark-Eldar self-delusions of "expert-army" hide the fact that they are (too) weak. A well balanced army is balanced at equal levels of skill. Oh.. and I quite love my Space Wolves. I just hate the abomination they've become in the hands of Phil Kelly.

The Blood Angel armies you've described are possible builds that result from a special character and the difference between these variant Blood Angel lists and the variant Space Wolves list is that the BA ones are in different colours (). Space Wovles can also build an all-terminator armour (compare to 'Golden Army') and a Wolf-based army (compare to 'Death Company force') and a Razorspam army (compare to BA razorspam). Obviously these are all variant builds that are different to a very similar extent as the Blood Angels and the main difference between the available variances is that the BA's are in different colours. It's not suitable in a debate to only look at one side.

'We' is pretty much what the OP had come to believe and what everyone had pretty much said before you commented; see for yourself. Easiest to use is different from 'too strong'. The Mech-vets/Guard army is arguably OP, however it's not necessarily easy to use because of its obvious weaknesses, similarly, unless you're a skilled player, the DE and Nids are difficult to use it seems. Dark Eldar are not "(too) weak" at all and they are capable of winning games and tournaments alike, so long as they are fielded by a competent player; because, whilst powerful, they are not particularly easy to use.

I admit, I prefer the old Space Wolf Codex; however the current one isn't as bad or OP as you seem to be making it out to be.

Just Dave wrote:
I will note that Phil Kelly is widely regarded as the best Codex writer, although I'd say the DE is his best work.
Nonetheless, the Space Wolf codex infact favours aggressive, close quarters gameplay IMHO, AS THE FLUFF SUGGESTS IT SHOULD. Just because you think all Space Wolf armies revolve around Razorbacks and Long Fangs, does not make it the case, nor does it mean that it's unfluffy. That's simply a result of some players exploiting flaws within the points costs of the Codex.

Actually, Phil Kelly is widely regarded as the worst. By far. And if players exploit flaws, they do so because the Codex is.. well.. flawed. Ergo, the Codex writer responsible for the flaws wasn't up to the job.

So, for example, people 'spamming' Purifiers, Dreadnoughts with Psy-ammo, Sanguinary Priests, Razorbacks, Long Fangs, TWC, Ravagers, Venoms, Hive Guard, Tervigons, Chimeras, Vendettas, Veterans, Manticores and more... This is a problem with the Codex rather than the player?
So therefore there is a problem with all the 5th edition Codices? Therefore if there is a problem in everything it arguably becomes the norm?
When they made the Codices, the writers weren't intending for you to spam the Codex, they were trying to create as many options as possible, but it's the player that abuses this.

As for Phil Kelly widely regarded as being the worst, I see no evidence for this and you're honestly the ONLY person I've ever seen say that. Google Mat Ward and you come up with hateful threads and images and people commonly criticise Cruddance for his job on the Nid Codex, Daemons Codex/army book, making the IG 'OP' and many other things. Mat Ward even had a petition trying to get rid of him.

Just Dave wrote:
I don't deny, some of the SW fluff is bad. Very bad. But to say its the worst is off the mark IMHO. I dislike the idea of TWC and the overly-rebellious Blood Claws, however some of what you're saying screams ignorance IMHO. Womanising Blood Claws were not Blood Claws; they were normal Fenrisians. The use of wolf-names in units isn't nearly as bad as everyone claims and it's always been there.
For example, Wolf Claws are claws. Wolves have claws; its a sensible use of the word. Wolf Tail Talismans are wolf-tails, what else are you gonna call them?! Same goes for Wolf-tooth necklaces. Lone Wolves is also clever wording, a Lone Wolf being a one many warrior/unit, both in the meaning of the term and use in the SW Codex. Canis Wolfborn - whilst a horrible character - was raised by Wolves.

Let's look elsewhere however; Blood Fists are dreadnought close combat weapons; they are not fists of blood and they are already an existing piece of weaponry. Bloodstrike missiles don't fire blood. Bloodshard bolt-rounds aren't shards of blood. Compare the needless use of some of these terms, to the appropriate use of Wolf terminology. The same goes for Nemesis Doomfists; they're simply DCCW's (notice the Space Wolves haven't renamed them Wolf Fists or anything).

I don't deny it, some of the SW fluff is BAD. I despise Lukas, some of the battles (including those under-water) are horrible and Canis and other TWC are just bad. However, these aren't alliances with Necrons, The Sanguinor, Deep-striking Land Raiders, writing a name on a Daemon Primarchs heart, staying the head of a Chapter despite never being there, being feared by the gods of Chaos and much more. I'd really say, despite how bad some of it is, the SW fluff is still better than that of the Blood Angels.


I'm a Space Wolves player, however I played them long-before their new Codex and whilst I don't deny their power and the poor quality of some of their fluff; it's not the horrible Codex you make it out to be, nor are they the horrible, over-powered army you make it out to be. I try to see the argument from both sides and contribute to a discussion. Much of what you said came across a blatant bias IMHO. As the rest of us pretty much agreed; they're not over-powered. Just easy to use.

Blood Fists aint no worse than Blood Claws. And unlike Lightning Claws, DCCW was a horribly dry acronym that sorely needed replacing. And Wolves do not have claws for fighting or self-defense. They're not cats. They have one dew claw on the fifth toe to assist primarily in digging, as well as claw-like toes for traction.

Land Raiders dropped from Thunderhawks have been canon for a long time. Adding them to the usually smaller, regular game via the Deep Strike rule was a brilliant move to bring the feel of larger battlefields and war "around" the table actually played to the game, particularly for those not playing Apoc games with a fortune worth of Thunderhawks every night.

The Sanguinor is a brilliant and much needed counter to the Blood Angel thematic of slow doom through the Black Rage. A symbol of salvation certainly fitting the overall thematic and, at the very least, no worse than, say, Vulkan's intergalactic schnitzel-hunt for treasure or the corny "Wolf Time" prophecy of Russ.

And the Necron-BA alliance for the first time made Necron's into more than mindlessly metal-zombies, hinted at an intelligence behind them that plausibly once was a galactic empire and, not least of all, acknowledged in the fluff the highly popular doubles-tournaments that are increasingly common in the 40K scene.

In the end, whether you like these entries in the BA-Codex or not, they are all there to serve a specific reason on the table, be it bringing new charactes, different deployment strategies or variant ways of playing the game into focus. Underwater-Wolves or Ferris Bueller-Blood Claws do none of that. They are inconsequental stupidity for the sake of stupidity which wastes good paper that would've been better served as a pink slip to Phil Kelly.

Blood Fists are worse than Blood Claws, because Blood Fists ARE dreadnought close combat weapons (see the previous BA rulebooks) and there is no need for them to be renamed. Similarly, Blood Claws don't share the title of their parent Codex, unlike Blood Fists/Angels. Furthermore DCCW is no worse an acronym that ATSKNF, was never used in the Codex as an acronym and being an acronym is no reason to remove something.
And sorry, the problem with Wolf Claws is that Wolves don't use their claws for combat? Whereas Blood uses its fists for combat? Or its shards? Or its strikemissiles? Like Psylencer and Dreadknight (albeit to a lesser extent), Wolf Claws is a play on words that actually signifies something different.

So the Thunderhawk Transporter typically drops these relics of the Chapter and rare and expensive heavy battle tanks into the middle of a battle, from the air, at velocity and all without being shot? And this sounds completely reasonable to you? I know they existed beforehand, but like this?! Furthermore, who uses this tactic in a game?!

Whilst the Sanguinor does provide good juxtapostition to the Death Company, he is also a Space Marine that belongs to a specific chapter who only appears when most needed and is unknown how he manifests or who he is and even his own chapter doesn't know? He's not a horribly bad character I admit, but to have him as such a horribly over-stereotypical saving grace type character isn't exactly a good thing IMHO.

I won't go into detail in the flaws of the Necron/BA alliance, but it goes something like this: Alliance with life-hating, genocidal race by humanity's protectors and "particularly well known for their bloodthirsty nature in battle" (Lexicanum) Chapter -- organic life-eating tyranids attack non-organic, non-life Necrons -- unrelenting genocidal race that can rebuild itself then leaves in peace (despite previously turning their guns on Tau in a similar situation), as does the "bloodthirsty" chapter known for its aggression and tactical acumen who could have arguably finished off the Necrons/phase out etc...

I haven't denied it, the Thunderhawk-stealing Blood Claws and under-water fights IS stupid, but like your seemingly desperate attempts to salvage some quality out of other fluff, this can potentially highlight the anti-authoritarian nature of the Space Wolves and their punishment methods, as well as their ability and willingness to fight under all situations. It can work both ways.

It's a solid codex and some options are a little underpriced. They're essentially Marines +1, and still die like Marines. They're tougher in assault and have some wacky character abilities. Personally I liked their old codex more.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Did you even play 4th Edition?

The Eldar Codex singlehandeldy drove away more people in frustration that I care to remember with cheese falcons and whatnot. 5th Edition arguably became necessary in no small part because the Eldar book so unhinged the game.

Yes, I did, so I can only presume those people were the kind to get butthurt over a new codex and scream to the high heavens "IT IS UNBEATABLE" rather than genuinely try to find ways of beating it. I've played that codex enough times using the 4th ed rules to know that you're talking nonsense.

In this respect, he really isn't talking nonsense. The 4E Eldar book was extremely broken during 4th edition. It abused every aspect of the 4E rules it possibly could. It was not a fun army to play against and was very difficult to lose with. I remember playing against it in 4E and being happy to kill 1 wave serpent while losing 8 tanks of my own in a 6 turn game and feeling accomplished. The 4E skimmer rules were very powerful, and the Eldar book came along and made it easily possible to remove all their downsides. Couple this with the 4E LoS, IC, and assault rules, and it wasn't uncommon to see games where opponents never got off a shot or just couldn't hurt anything. It's part of why Eldar costing seems so bad now, many things people complain about being overly expensive now were in fact underpriced then.

In many respects SW's are 5E's equivalent of 4E Eldar. Not quite as silly in the "we can't be hurt or you can't see us" department, but they are *the* bandwagon army in most cases. Again, look at the Adepticon numbers, the most represented faction was Space Wolves, but nearly 90% of those armies were "counts as" Space Wolves, and I don't think anyone is going to make the case it was for "fluff".

This sort of thing is a hallmark of Phil Kelly's writing.

Cruddace had nothing to do with WHFB Daemons. The book was written before he was even employed by the company!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cruddace had nothing to do with WHFB Daemons. The book was written before he was even employed by the company!

Oh yep, that was Ward, I do apologise. The rest of my point still stands however.

Rogueyopants wrote:Why are space wolves OP, there just another army, like Dark angles, or blood angles, orks, Etc. So why do I hear all these haters going on about how Space Wolves are OP, well if you can't beat them, figure out a new tactic, or go whine and cry somewhere else (Seems a bit silly when people start acting this way....it is still....just a game)

Lol @ comparing space wolves to dark angels