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.

Here is part 2 of a 4 part series.

http://blackmoors40k.blogspot.com/2011/01/sprue-posse-gt-game-2.html

All I can say is ...ouch! Better luck next game (and hopefully not against space puppies again!).

Yeah, this was a brutal SW army.
By the way, good bat rep. Keep up the good work!

gotta love herohammer lists, makes the game almost no fun

Zid wrote:gotta love herohammer lists, makes the game almost no fun

I'll be honest... it doesn't look on paper to be all that bad...

I just think blackmoor was hit with a spot of bad luck!

wuestenfux wrote:Yeah, this was a brutal SW army.
By the way, good bat rep. Keep up the good work!

I second this.

Obviously it was never going to be easy, but with luck deserting you so badly and a couple of costly but minor mistakes (eg. underestimating long fangs) you never had a chance.
Unlucky Blackmoor.
Oh well, DE do have a learning curve!

Well, you can never hope to get less than a handful of Raiders alive when the LFs start targeting them.

God, I think at this point I'd be suffering from boredom in this tournament. Same table, essentially the same damn army. Yawn. SW's suck. I think I have as much bile and hatred towards that army now as I did back in 2nd edition. F**k that army.

It sucks you had to play at the same table twice in a row...I've never ran a tournament before but I did feel like they need to work on the method they used for assigning tables.

I hate playing space wolves, but these two armies feel quite different (I played them both). While they're both Long Fang Spam, the other 1500 points of the armies are totally different - one with 1200 points of TWC and Wolf Lords (I'm pretty sure there were 4 not three as Blackmoor listed) and the other spent those points on Dreads/Speeders/Bjorn/More Razorbacks.

CaptKaruthors wrote:God, I think at this point I'd be suffering from boredom in this tournament. Same table, essentially the same damn army. Yawn. SW's suck. I think I have as much bile and hatred towards that army now as I did back in 2nd edition. F**k that army.

lambadomy wrote:It sucks you had to play at the same table twice in a row...I've never ran a tournament before but I did feel like they need to work on the method they used for assigning tables.

I hate playing space wolves, but these two armies feel quite different (I played them both). While they're both Long Fang Spam, the other 1500 points of the armies are totally different - one with 1200 points of TWC and Wolf Lords (I'm pretty sure there were 4 not three as Blackmoor listed) and the other spent those points on Dreads/Speeders/Bjorn/More Razorbacks.

Second what Lambodomy said. They are the same codex but aside from long fang spam the remaining points in the army are very different. It's kinda silly to say they are the "same damn army". By that logic any MEQ is the same.

As for the tables and match-ups it just random luck. I swapped the table numbers for round 2 around but Blackmoor just happened to end up in the same place. There were 6 space wolves armies at the tournament. The chance of you seeing more than one wasn't completely unexpected. Blackmoor didn't see SW for the rest of the tournament.

Here is the correct list:

HQ

Wolf Lord (Thunderwolf Calvary, Power Fist and Stormshield, Runic Armor, Wolftail Talisman, Saga of the Bear)
Wolf Lord (Thunderwolf Calvary, Frost Weapon and Stormshield, Runic Armor, Wolftail Talisman, Saga of the Majesty)
Wolf Lord (Thunderwolf Calvary, Power Fist and Stormshield, Runic Armor, Wolftail Talisman, Saga of the Warrior Born)
Wolf Lord (Thunderwolf Calvary, Frost Weapon and Stormshield, Runic Armor, Wolftail Talisman)

Fast Attack

Thunderwolf Cavalry x3 (Power Fist + Storm Shield and Melta Bombs x3)

Troops

Grey Hunters x5 (Melta) w Razorback (TL Heavy Bolter)
Grey Hunters x5 (Melta) w Razorback (TL Heavy Bolter)

Heavy Support

Long Fangs x 6 (M.Launcher x5)
Long Fangs x 6 (M.Launcher x5)
Long Fangs x 6 (M.Launcher x5)

source: http://www.chaoswins.com/2011/01/playing-sprue-posse-grand-prix-army.html

I don't mean to start an argument, but both lists have the same idea. I pelt you with missiles and charge in with something big and nasty. Both lists have minimum troop units with razorbacks. The only difference is that one list borrows the rides and the other has them as dedicated. So all in all, about 50% of both lists function the same. Both lists use a hammer and anvil strategy. That's all I'm sayin...

CaptKaruthors wrote:I don't mean to start an argument, but both lists have the same idea. I pelt you with missiles and charge in with something big and nasty. Both lists have minimum troop units with razorbacks. The only difference is that one list borrows the rides and the other has them as dedicated. So all in all, about 50% of both lists function the same. Both lists use a hammer and anvil strategy. That's all I'm sayin...

Pelt with support fire + charge with something nasty is true for a lot of competitive lists not just space wolves. We could say the same for Blood Angels, Orks, Tyranids and even Dark Eldar. Minimum or close to minimum troops are also pretty standard in a competitive book mission tournament because troops are mandated units that often aren't otherwise very good as opposed to units people want to take, especially in the newer codices.

If you mean to say "these lists are good and they are built intelligently" then yes I agree with you. I'm not sure why you feel that has a negative connotation unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I guess it has to do with what someone else said in another thread about SW. The TWC Lords are about as tough as Bloodthirsters and much more survivable lost in another unit. The missile spam is point and click, especially in this country where LOS blocking terrain is rare. Someone with minimal 40k skill can reliably go 3-1 in a 4 game event with this list unless they run into highly skilled players with the same list.

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

kevin thats my list for the most part. Those two list are very different one is very shooty and really does not want to get into close combat. The other has enough shots to hurt the mech by slowing them down then the lords are on u. Your saying they are the same list but this is not correct the only things that are the same are the fangs and the grey hunters.

DarthDiggler wrote:I guess it has to do with what someone else said in another thread about SW. The TWC Lords are about as tough as Bloodthirsters and much more survivable lost in another unit. The missile spam is point and click, especially in this country where LOS blocking terrain is rare. Someone with minimal 40k skill can reliably go 3-1 in a 4 game event with this list unless they run into highly skilled players with the same list.

Wait what? The list now pilots itself? It's a good list yes but now someone with "minimal 40k skill can reliably go 3-1" seems hyperbolic.

Also when we're talking about tournaments, list selection is just as important as the ability to play it.

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

With no offense to Blackmoor the Wolfstar performed much better than his Dark Eldar did at this tournament. Blackmoor is a very skilled player and even he struggled with his Dark Eldar list. Perhaps he'll cite inexperience playing his list, or perhaps his list needs to be improved. I'll let him speak to that. But I'm not going to annoint a list that struggled with a quality general as "intelligently built".

Lists that perform well in a competitive environment are intelligently built. I don't care who built them. Most of the players who played wolfstar in this tournament have strong records on our circuit and are competent, if not good 40k players. They are not people with "minimal skill".

That is what I love about the DEldar codex and to some extent the Daemons codex.

The troops are the bees knees. My Wyches will take on anything and either hold it up for several turns or outright destroy it. Plaguebearers when taken at 10+ pack size can reliably kill anything that isn't a dreadnaught and even then they will hold that dread up for probably the rest of the game.

There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

Fateweaver wrote:That is what I love about the DEldar codex and to some extent the Daemons codex.

The troops are the bees knees. My Wyches will take on anything and either hold it up for several turns or outright destroy it. Plaguebearers when taken at 10+ pack size can reliably kill anything that isn't a dreadnaught and even then they will hold that dread up for probably the rest of the game.

There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

There appears to be a logic hole here. How did we go from liking some troop choices to "This is why I don't netlist". Can you better qualify this statement?

Kevin Nash wrote:

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

With no offense to Blackmoor the Wolfstar performed much better than his Dark Eldar did at this tournament. Blackmoor is a very skilled player and even he struggled with his Dark Eldar list. Perhaps he'll cite inexperience playing his list, or perhaps his list needs to be improved. I'll let him speak to that. But I'm not going to annoint a list that struggled with a quality general as "intelligently built".

Lists that perform well in a competitive environment are intelligently built. I don't care who built them. Most of the players who played wolfstar in this tournament have strong records on our circuit and are competent, if not good 40k players. They are not people with "minimal skill".

Blackmoor's list is a good concept with some unnecessary fat/wargear he took to make up points. In part because he lacked practice using it, he made repeated mistakes when playing it, which he openly states repeatedly in his reports. He's a tough player, but didn't get the practice he needed, made deployment mistakes, missed critical enemy units in the swap army lists stage, forgot critical wargear (LD re-roll), and also had some bad luck.

I'm not going to criticize Christian in any way. I don't know him. But his list is certainly a bit more on the point-and-click side. It's built to be reliable and easy to use. I'm noy saying it's unintelligent (I think DarthDiggler went a little far there), but it's not creative or particularly interesting. The SW list Blackmoor faced in the first round was also nasty, but more interesting and tactically-flexible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin Nash wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

There appears to be a logic hole here. How did we go from liking some troop choices to "This is why I don't netlist". Can you better qualify this statement?

I wouldn't recommend getting into it with him.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

With no offense to Blackmoor the Wolfstar performed much better than his Dark Eldar did at this tournament. Blackmoor is a very skilled player and even he struggled with his Dark Eldar list. Perhaps he'll cite inexperience playing his list, or perhaps his list needs to be improved. I'll let him speak to that. But I'm not going to annoint a list that struggled with a quality general as "intelligently built".

Lists that perform well in a competitive environment are intelligently built. I don't care who built them. Most of the players who played wolfstar in this tournament have strong records on our circuit and are competent, if not good 40k players. They are not people with "minimal skill".

Blackmoor's list is a good concept with some unnecessary fat/wargear he took to make up points. In part because he lacked practice using it, he made repeated mistakes when playing it, which he openly states repeatedly in his reports. He's a tough player, but didn't get the practice he needed, made deployment mistakes, missed critical enemy units in the swap army lists stage, forgot critical wargear (LD re-roll), and also had some bad luck.

I'm not going to criticize Christian in any way. I don't know him. But his list is certainly a bit more on the point-and-click side. It's built to be reliable and easy to use. I'm noy saying it's unintelligent (I think DarthDiggler went a little far there), but it's not creative or particularly interesting. The SW list Blackmoor faced in the first round was also nasty, but more interesting and tactically-flexible.

I guess I don't see taking quality units in a codex as necessarily being uncreative or interesting. I'm pretty sure Christian didn't create his list all by himself, I figure it was a collaborative effort from many people some who he knows and some maybe he doesn't personally. I do that with my lists all the time. WE all do that here on Dakka. There is an entire forum dedicated to it. There are no 100% original lists. I don't see anything wrong with that though. He's savvy enough to bring a quality list to a competitive tournament and frankly I think that's a very intelligent thing to do. I don't understand why we would criticize a player for being wise enough to do that. It's a good list and I think it has nice synergy with some interesting units unique to the codex. There are other ways to make space wolves lists. This is just one of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin Nash wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

There appears to be a logic hole here. How did we go from liking some troop choices to "This is why I don't netlist". Can you better qualify this statement?

I wouldn't recommend getting into it with him.

I was just gonna give him some rope and see what happened.

DarthDiggler wrote:I guess it has to do with what someone else said in another thread about SW. The TWC Lords are about as tough as Bloodthirsters and much more survivable lost in another unit. The missile spam is point and click, especially in this country where LOS blocking terrain is rare. Someone with minimal 40k skill can reliably go 3-1 in a 4 game event with this list unless they run into highly skilled players with the same list.

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

+1 and I agree with you Darth, but I didn't feel like debating it with others though .

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Blackmoor's list is a good concept with some unnecessary fat/wargear he took to make up points. In part because he lacked practice using it, he made repeated mistakes when playing it, which he openly states repeatedly in his reports. He's a tough player, but didn't get the practice he needed, made deployment mistakes, missed critical enemy units in the swap army lists stage, forgot critical wargear (LD re-roll), and also had some bad luck.

I'm not going to criticize Christian in any way. I don't know him. But his list is certainly a bit more on the point-and-click side. It's built to be reliable and easy to use. I'm noy saying it's unintelligent (I think DarthDiggler went a little far there), but it's not creative or particularly interesting. The SW list Blackmoor faced in the first round was also nasty, but more interesting and tactically-flexible.

I guess I don't see taking quality units in a codex as necessarily being uncreative or interesting. I'm pretty sure Christian didn't create his list all by himself, I figure it was a collaborative effort from many people some who he knows and some maybe he doesn't personally. I do that with my lists all the time. WE all do that here on Dakka. There is an entire forum dedicated to it. There are no 100% original lists. I don't see anything wrong with that though. He's savvy enough to bring a quality list to a competitive tournament and frankly I think that's a very intelligent thing to do. I don't understand why we would criticize a player for being wise enough to do that. It's a good list and I think it has nice synergy with some interesting units unique to the codex. There are other ways to make space wolves lists. This is just one of them.

I personally feel that army lists which are primarily made by C&Ping a couple of the best units in the codex are dull, uncreative, and uninteresting. They can be fun to face once or twice and present an interesting tactical challenge a couple of times, but I would not personally be interested in fielding an army like the SW army in this report. I suppose it's more a matter of subjective taste and personal preference. I think the Diggler ( ) made an excessively-negative word choice in implying that it was not intelligent, but it is a significant investment of time, money & effort to build a 40k army, and I prefer for mine to have a bit more depth and variety. IMO the prior SW list, and Blackmoor's list, are much more interesting from my standpoint; either considering them as an opponent or considering the prospect of running them.

Kevin Nash wrote:

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

With no offense to Blackmoor the Wolfstar performed much better than his Dark Eldar did at this tournament. Blackmoor is a very skilled player and even he struggled with his Dark Eldar list. Perhaps he'll cite inexperience playing his list, or perhaps his list needs to be improved. I'll let him speak to that. But I'm not going to annoint a list that struggled with a quality general as "intelligently built".

Lists that perform well in a competitive environment are intelligently built. I don't care who built them. Most of the players who played wolfstar in this tournament have strong records on our circuit and are competent, if not good 40k players. They are not people with "minimal skill".

Not to derail things, but I strongly suspect that Darth refers NOT to Blackmoor's DE list, but rather to his Footdar, which are pretty nasty.

And Blackmoor - as one of "they," I still think you played mission #1 wrong.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:That is what I love about the DEldar codex and to some extent the Daemons codex.

The troops are the bees knees. My Wyches will take on anything and either hold it up for several turns or outright destroy it. Plaguebearers when taken at 10+ pack size can reliably kill anything that isn't a dreadnaught and even then they will hold that dread up for probably the rest of the game.

There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

There appears to be a logic hole here. How did we go from liking some troop choices to "This is why I don't netlist". Can you better qualify this statement?

Someone mentioned that Troops in most armies aren't good choices compared to Troops in other armies. I don't feel that is a correct assertion. Tactical Squads not as good as Hormogaunts or Ork Boyz? bs I say. IG Vets not good compared to Dire Avengers? Again, bs.

The people not liking the Troops from their codex and only taking a min. of 2 are players who are either WAAC players or can't play to their Troops strengths. Ork Boyz butchering your tac squads? Don't let them get assaulted by the orks. Hormogaunts getting shot to pieces before they reach assault? Either stop putting them out in front of the army in the open or start playing the rest of the nids to deal with squads hiding in vehicles (there is a reason Tyranids have 2 of the best anti-tank units available in 40k (ML LF's are still the best).

@Mannahein: Get into what with me? If you are snidely commenting on what goes on over in the OT forum I kindly suggest as a MOD you act like a MOD and not bait me or troll me. I stopped letting baiting comments from certain OT posters lure me into a ban. Don't become my Shuma #2.

Janthkin wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

I would not call the list intelligently built. Blackmoors Eldar are intelligently built. 40Kenthusiasts lists are intelligently built. Spamming one of the best shooting units in the game (fangs) and one of the best HtH units in the game (TWC Lords) is not an intelligent build. It's what I would expect from an IBM computer.

With no offense to Blackmoor the Wolfstar performed much better than his Dark Eldar did at this tournament. Blackmoor is a very skilled player and even he struggled with his Dark Eldar list. Perhaps he'll cite inexperience playing his list, or perhaps his list needs to be improved. I'll let him speak to that. But I'm not going to annoint a list that struggled with a quality general as "intelligently built".

Lists that perform well in a competitive environment are intelligently built. I don't care who built them. Most of the players who played wolfstar in this tournament have strong records on our circuit and are competent, if not good 40k players. They are not people with "minimal skill".

Not to derail things, but I strongly suspect that Darth refers NOT to Blackmoor's DE list, but rather to his Footdar, which are pretty nasty.

Good catch. I mis-read. If we are using the phrase "intelligently built" as synonymous with "original" then I'm not sure how that applies to his footdar unless he somehow invented it. I don't know the history of footdar well enough to comment on that either way. The greater point still stands though that I don't think taking a quality list that performs well is somehow a bad thing, unless we expect people to take bad lists and somehow win with them. While I suppose that's possible we're still ignoring that list construction and selection is also part of this game and taking a good list to a tournament is probably a good idea if you actually expect to win said tournament.

FW, I disagree with your estimations of various Troops units, and I think your hypothetical statements "IG Vets not good comparied to Dire Avengers? Again, bs." indicate that you don't even have an accurate sense of what units competitive players like or dislike.

I wasn't being snide. I have freely expressed my opinion to and of you in the past, but in this case was just giving Kevin friendly advice, without giving any specific opinion about you.

Fateweaver wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:That is what I love about the DEldar codex and to some extent the Daemons codex.

The troops are the bees knees. My Wyches will take on anything and either hold it up for several turns or outright destroy it. Plaguebearers when taken at 10+ pack size can reliably kill anything that isn't a dreadnaught and even then they will hold that dread up for probably the rest of the game.

There is also nothing wrong with Tactical squads or even Hormogaunts or IG Vets. All are Troop choices. All are decent in comparison to the rest of the army. That is why I don't copy/paste Inet lists.

There appears to be a logic hole here. How did we go from liking some troop choices to "This is why I don't netlist". Can you better qualify this statement?

Someone mentioned that Troops in most armies aren't good choices compared to Troops in other armies. I don't feel that is a correct assertion. Tactical Squads not as good as Hormogaunts or Ork Boyz? bs I say. IG Vets not good compared to Dire Avengers? Again, bs.

I didn't read that anywhere in this thread but maybe I missed that. I would think that some troops are probably better than others. That's why they have different point costs.

The people not liking the Troops from their codex and only taking a min. of 2 are players who are either WAAC players or can't play to their Troops strengths.

Why is creating a list to win a bad thing in a tournament setting? I am of the opinion that troops are probably not going to have the same firepower or killy ability as elite or heavy support. Conversely troops can score objectives. It's give and take.

Ork Boyz butchering your tac squads? Don't let them get assaulted by the orks. Hormogaunts getting shot to pieces before they reach assault? Either stop putting them out in front of the army in the open or start playing the rest of the nids to deal with squads hiding in vehicles (there is a reason Tyranids have 2 of the best anti-tank units available in 40k (ML LF's are still the best).

I'm not sure what this has to do with the greater point of the thread.

I screwed up and meant Blackmoors footdar list, not his DE list. I do think the SW can be very point and click, maybe to much. Is it smart to spam the 2 best units in the codex - yes especially if they are tough to equal in any other dex. Will they auromatically win every time? No, but the margin for error is much greater for SW spam. I'm sure the same tactic was used in almost every game. Deploy Fangs in terrain, move TWC Lords up to assault. Shoot until your dice burn with fire or the game ends.

I have played against more SW players who only know the rules for their list - not the rules for the game and never the rules for anyone elses codex. These people strike me as a little simple when it comes to the game. They've learned the best units of the best codex and just put those models down.

Maybe SW are the Iron Warriors of this edition. They seem to garner the same love/hate IW did before. I wonder how hard the nerf stick will strike in the next edition. I haven't seen an IW army in years. I figure it wouldn't take a new codex, just a 6th edition terrain rule that two edges of area terrain blocks LOS and the Long Fangs would be de-fanged.

I am not sure lists like this are a result of WAAC so much as a different tournament problem - massacre at all costs. At many, many tournaments, winning is semi-meaningless in the final standings. What really matters is winning 20-0. If you can't do that, over and over, you will not place, even if you went 5-0 with nothing but "minor" victories. You don't need troops if your plan from the start is to table your opponent (unless your troops are good for that too, then more power to ya!).

I completely agree with the SW being the Iron Warriors of this edition. I'm already questioning my decision making, as much as I wanted to play with a named-character dreadnought.

DarthDiggler wrote:I screwed up and meant Blackmoors footdar list, not his DE list.

It wasn't really you. I made a bad assumption. You said "eldar" and I thought you meant the dark eldar list in the thread because I didn't have any other context.

I do think the SW can be very point and click, maybe to much. Is it smart to spam the 2 best units in the codex - yes especially if they are tough to equal in any other dex. Will they auromatically win every time? No, but the margin for error is much greater for SW spam. I'm sure the same tactic was used in almost every game. Deploy Fangs in terrain, move TWC Lords up to assault. Shoot until your dice burn with fire or the game ends.

I suppose that's true but I could make the same argument with Hive Guard / Trygon or Loota / Deffrolla Battlewagon or Dev Squad / Land Raider with THSS.

I have played against more SW players who only know the rules for their list - not the rules for the game and never the rules for anyone elses codex. These people strike me as a little simple when it comes to the game. They've learned the best units of the best codex and just put those models down.

Maybe SW are the Iron Warriors of this edition. They seem to garner the same love/hate IW did before. I wonder how hard the nerf stick will strike in the next edition. I haven't seen an IW army in years. I figure it wouldn't take a new codex, just a 6th edition terrain rule that two edges of area terrain blocks LOS and the Long Fangs would be de-fanged.

Space wolves are very good. No argument from me there. But I think there are a lot of other quality armies that hold up pretty well against them.

lambadomy wrote:I am not sure lists like this are a result of WAAC so much as a different tournament problem - massacre at all costs. At many, many tournaments, winning is semi-meaningless in the final standings. What really matters is winning 20-0. If you can't do that, over and over, you will not place, even if you went 5-0 with nothing but "minor" victories. You don't need troops if your plan from the start is to table your opponent (unless your troops are good for that too, then more power to ya!).

You have a good point. I would hope the new system with 3 objectives and just winning more of the objectives then your opponent to gain the win would help that a little. Still you are bound to win the game if you table your opponent.