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.

I know the popular config for Space Wolves Long Fangs is 5 or 6 missile launchers, but what about 10 Long Fangs with Heavy Bolters?

Thats 30 Str 5 shots for 200 points and 10 wounds. Thats a bargain imo, and curious why its not used.

Well you can only take 6 Long Fangs per unit for one thing, and even Devestators (who can take 10 man units) can't get 10 Heavy Weapons in a single unit (they are in fact limited to 4, less than Long Fangs). Even assuming you take enough units to be able to field that many of them, Heavy Bolters are a massive waste. The can't deal with armour and bolters can take out pretty much anything they would be shooting at for cheaper (and every list is going to have bolters in any case as all your basic troops have them). The main advantage of missile launchers is that they are still pretty cheap but offer a strong ranged threat to light vehicles, can hurt MEQ in the open, ID most characters, deny FNP (usually) and can use the small blast to deal with other infantry if they have to.

I use long fang heavy bolters. They perform remarkably well. Some would prefer to have 3 squads of ML Long Fangs but i think 2 is enough.

scubasteve04 wrote:I know the popular config for Space Wolves Long Fangs is 5 or 6 missile launchers, but what about 10 Long Fangs with Heavy Bolters?

Thats 30 Str 5 shots for 200 points and 10 wounds. Thats a bargain imo, and curious why its not used.

Need to familiarize yourself with the codex entry.

Byte wrote:

scubasteve04 wrote:I know the popular config for Space Wolves Long Fangs is 5 or 6 missile launchers, but what about 10 Long Fangs with Heavy Bolters?

Thats 30 Str 5 shots for 200 points and 10 wounds. Thats a bargain imo, and curious why its not used.

Need to familiarize yourself with the codex entry.

He is talking about taking 2 squads of 5 men Long fangs with heavy bolters. which is 200 points.

Long Fangs with 5 lascannon do pretty weel especially against elite units like terminators and monstrous creatures such as the Carnifex

I haven't used Space Wolves but I have read the codex. Seems to me the ability to split fire is their biggest advantage and it's what sets them apart from Codex Astartes style Devastators. I don't really like Devastators because you can't take a smattering of different heavy weapons without inevitably wasting some shots on a less-than-ideal target for one or more of the weapons. Long Fangs get around that problem. Additionally, the 6 man squad size is just begging for a Razorback.

If I wanted a solid heavy weapon base in a smaller points game, I would take 6 Long Fangs with 2 heavy bolters, 2 missile launchers, and 1 lascannon mounted in a heavy bolter Razorback for 200 points.

The reasoning is that 2 krak missiles and a lascannon shot are quite a lot of anti-tank to pour into one vehicle target, averaging 2/3 hits at ST 8-9 (bye bye anything with less than AP12, and most things AP12 and possibly the 13-14s at least stand a chance of getting popped) and the 2 heavy bolter plus the twin linked heavy bolters are a fair amount of solid infanty killing. Against really big hordes, switch over one or both missiles to frags.

The way I see it, that gives you 1 vehicle per turn with an awfully good chance of getting whacked, and 1 squad potentially taking 9 (3xTL) or more (depending on frag missiles) hits to thin out their numbers. That is definitely not bad for 6 guys and a transport.

Anti-infantry is a secondary concern for dedicated heavy weapons squads as far as I can tell, as you have plenty of rapid firing regular bolters in the army to pour on the dakka with. However, being without a core AT unit can be rough if the opponent is (and many are) heavy on vehicles.

The split fire ability is unique to Long Fangs so I would think to take advantage of being able to do what other marines can not do (and say "nya nya ne nya nya" while doing so). Like so many things comparing the Space Wolves to the Codex Astartes type marines, this song goes through my head...

:anything you cam do I can do better. I can do everything better than you".

Yuber wrote:

Byte wrote:

scubasteve04 wrote:I know the popular config for Space Wolves Long Fangs is 5 or 6 missile launchers, but what about 10 Long Fangs with Heavy Bolters?

Thats 30 Str 5 shots for 200 points and 10 wounds. Thats a bargain imo, and curious why its not used.

Need to familiarize yourself with the codex entry.

He is talking about taking 2 squads of 5 men Long fangs with heavy bolters. which is 200 points.

Ahh I get it, thanks.

yeenoghu wrote:I haven't used Space Wolves but I have read the codex. Seems to me the ability to split fire is their biggest advantage and it's what sets them apart from Codex Astartes style Devastators. I don't really like Devastators because you can't take a smattering of different heavy weapons without inevitably wasting some shots on a less-than-ideal target for one or more of the weapons. Long Fangs get around that problem. Additionally, the 6 man squad size is just begging for a Razorback.

If I wanted a solid heavy weapon base in a smaller points game, I would take 6 Long Fangs with 2 heavy bolters, 2 missile launchers, and 1 lascannon mounted in a heavy bolter Razorback for 200 points.

The reasoning is that 2 krak missiles and a lascannon shot are quite a lot of anti-tank to pour into one vehicle target, averaging 2/3 hits at ST 8-9 (bye bye anything with less than AP12, and most things AP12 and possibly the 13-14s at least stand a chance of getting popped) and the 2 heavy bolter plus the twin linked heavy bolters are a fair amount of solid infanty killing. Against really big hordes, switch over one or both missiles to frags.

The way I see it, that gives you 1 vehicle per turn with an awfully good chance of getting whacked, and 1 squad potentially taking 9 (3xTL) or more (depending on frag missiles) hits to thin out their numbers. That is definitely not bad for 6 guys and a transport.

Anti-infantry is a secondary concern for dedicated heavy weapons squads as far as I can tell, as you have plenty of rapid firing regular bolters in the army to pour on the dakka with. However, being without a core AT unit can be rough if the opponent is (and many are) heavy on vehicles.

The split fire ability is unique to Long Fangs so I would think to take advantage of being able to do what other marines can not do (and say "nya nya ne nya nya" while doing so). Like so many things comparing the Space Wolves to the Codex Astartes type marines, this song goes through my head...

:anything you cam do I can do better. I can do everything better than you".

You don't need different weapons to take advantage of split fire. I use split fire with my ML Long fangs to deny cover save to tanks.

Yuber wrote:You don't need different weapons to take advantage of split fire. I use split fire with my ML Long fangs to deny cover save to tanks.

I don't really understand how you are using firing rockets in 2 different direction "to deny cover save to tanks".

Mobility Denies cover to tanks; Firing at 2 targets just lets you... Fire at 2 targets.

The First half of this Quote is accurate however; their are 2 weapons that let you take advantage of split fire while all being the Same weapons: missile launchers and plasma Cannons. Of those two missile Launchers are Better: they don't run the risk of over heat, they crack armor better, and they cost less.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Yuber wrote:You don't need different weapons to take advantage of split fire. I use split fire with my ML Long fangs to deny cover save to tanks.

I don't really understand how you are using firing rockets in 2 different direction "to deny cover save to tanks".

Mobility Denies cover to tanks; Firing at 2 targets just lets you... Fire at 2 targets.

The First half of this Quote is accurate however; their are 2 weapons that let you take advantage of split fire while all being the Same weapons: missile launchers and plasma Cannons. Of those two missile Launchers are Better: they don't run the risk of over heat, they crack armor better, and they cost less.

Let me explain. Most of the time my Long fangs are deployed behind an obstruction to get a cover save. Inevitably as it is, half of your models will be obstructed. If half of them are obstructed, then the tank will get cover save if fired upon by the entire unit. And so, I declare models that aren't obstructed at all to fire at the main target. The rest can opt to fire on another target.

There is also another case that, when deployed at maximum coherency, vehicles that would normally get 3+ cover save because its facing cannot be seen by the rest of the squad can be mitigated by firing the long fangs who actually has the other facing pointed at them.

4x heavy bolter = 12 S5 AP4 shots/turn

On average nine should hit. They are great against hordes and even MEQ. Against T4 six should wound. Against T3 eight should wound. Due to the prevalence of mech higher strength weapons are more popular. If DE should become popular with raider spam lists then I think there is a good chance we will see a rise in the use of heavy bolters again.

I could see Heavy bolter spam being a good counter against DE.

All those shots would tear their skimmers apart

Yuber wrote:

Let me explain. Most of the time my Long fangs are deployed behind an obstruction to get a cover save. Inevitably as it is, half of your models will be obstructed. If half of them are obstructed, then the tank will get cover save if fired upon by the entire unit. And so, I declare models that aren't obstructed at all to fire at the main target. The rest can opt to fire on another target.

There is also another case that, when deployed at maximum coherency, vehicles that would normally get 3+ cover save because its facing cannot be seen by the rest of the squad can be mitigated by firing the long fangs who actually has the other facing pointed at them.

You do know that Being within Base contact of the barrier in question grants you the Cover save but denies it to the enemy correct? or that the target vehicle model must be at least 50% obscured to the Firing model to gain the "obscured" cover save(not just any portion like with non-vehicle/non-MC models)?

Regular devastators can also get around the second bit simply by declaring they are firing their pistols instead of the Heavy weapons.

And in either case when you have models that are in the Clear, and models that are not in the Clear/ grant the obstructed status to a vehicle; go ahead and fire with all of them. just use different colored dice to indicate which models grant the save and which do not. While you get a cover save for an entire unit when at least half of them are in cover it does not go the other way around. You do not get Cover from all shots that come from a unit when any or most of them would grant cover. those shots that do not grant cover... do not grant cover; those shots that do, do.

So in both your examples your half of the unit that you would not shoot(because those firers grant cover) hold no bearing on the shots that do not grant cover. If you want it dead shoot with all of them, the ones that grant cover saves may or may get saved, but the ones that do not grant saves can never be saved.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Yuber wrote:

Let me explain. Most of the time my Long fangs are deployed behind an obstruction to get a cover save. Inevitably as it is, half of your models will be obstructed. If half of them are obstructed, then the tank will get cover save if fired upon by the entire unit. And so, I declare models that aren't obstructed at all to fire at the main target. The rest can opt to fire on another target.

There is also another case that, when deployed at maximum coherency, vehicles that would normally get 3+ cover save because its facing cannot be seen by the rest of the squad can be mitigated by firing the long fangs who actually has the other facing pointed at them.

You do know that Being within Base contact of the barrier in question grants you the Cover save but denies it to the enemy correct? or that the target vehicle model must be at least 50% obscured to the Firing model to gain the "obscured" cover save(not just any portion like with non-vehicle/non-MC models)?

Regular devastators can also get around the second bit simply by declaring they are firing their pistols instead of the Heavy weapons.

And in either case when you have models that are in the Clear, and models that are not in the Clear/ grant the obstructed status to a vehicle; go ahead and fire with all of them. just use different colored dice to indicate which models grant the save and which do not. While you get a cover save for an entire unit when at least half of them are in cover it does not go the other way around. You do not get Cover from all shots that come from a unit when any or most of them would grant cover. those shots that do not grant cover... do not grant cover; those shots that do, do.

So in both your examples your half of the unit that you would not shoot(because those firers grant cover) hold no bearing on the shots that do not grant cover. If you want it dead shoot with all of them, the ones that grant cover saves may or may get saved, but the ones that do not grant saves can never be saved.

Yes I think i got my rules wrong. Thanks man, I have seem to have forgotten how it works against vehicles.

No problem; i really just hope i didn't come off snarky or anything, once I figured out what you meant I realized it was misinterpretation(or misremembering) of rules that lead you to those beliefs. I have been in this game for a long time and read each rulebook rather carefully(and even I miss stuff/remember things incorrectly or from earlier editions fairly often)

I actually had to double check the it about being in base contact with the obstacle as i had thought it was within a certain distance of it(I believe it was that way in 3rd and maybe 4th editions)