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.

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)

Because, they have a newer and more powerful codex.

Yes, they are like Blood Angels.
No, they are not like Dark Angels or Orks.

Why? Because DA and Orks have older codices than Space Wolves.

BA, SW, GK and IG are at the top of the current metagame.

I mean I don't even play Space puppies, my bro does, and he plays them quite well, and not cause "THERE SO GOOD ANYONE CAN USE THEM"..I think that's horse crap....and it all comes down to is how someone plays there army really?

Rogueyopants wrote:I mean I don't even play Space puppies, my bro does, and he plays them quite well, and not cause "THERE SO GOOD ANYONE CAN USE THEM"..I think that's horse crap....and it all comes down to how someone plays there army really?

Obviously. But you can generally create much more powerful army lists with the aforementioned codices than older with older books.

And what happens when you combine a good player with one of the strongest lists available? The opponent is in trouble, unless they're an equally good player with an equally good list (or the dice rolls are greatly in their favor).

well for example, if you don't know how to play Space wolves, YOU DON'T know how to play them lol, you can't just be good at them, and you have to study the rules and what they have to play with

Rogueyopants wrote:well for example, if you don't know how to play Space wolves, YOU DON'T know how to play them lol, you can't just be good at them, and you have to study the rules and what they have to play with

We've already agreed on this point, and as I've said, when you get good with the codex, it'll be harder for someone of equal skill who played, say, Witch Hunters, for example. This is because the WH codex must be almost a decade older than the Wolves codex, which was written specifically for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000.

It's just an indesputable fact that SW's are far easier to play and can make much stronger lists than most other codices out there.

They're not overpowered, but they do have several advantages that allow them to perform well on a competitive level, with the Grey Hunters and Long Fangs relative points costs the heart of this.

I believe Space Wolves are simply more of a 'pick up and play' Codex than many others, as are Blood Angels and - to a lesser extent - Imperial Guard.

Fare enough, but generally, an army...is still an army, and people can beat an army, with the points value or equivalent, it all comes down to how you play the game.

For example: (Objective game)Just cause someone plays SW, doesn't mean they will win, they can be a complete dough, not grab any objectives and just pew pew everything that breathes, what it all comes down to, is how you use your army, and how you counter it against other armies

P.S. I generally thought that older armies had the upper hand, because some of the rules in there codex's have bin changed to a point where the previous rules...are....OP

Rogueyopants wrote:Fare enough, but generally, an army...is still an army, and people can beat an army, with the points value or equivalent, it all comes down to how you play the game.

For example: (Objective game)Just cause someone plays SW, doesn't mean they will win, they can be a complete dough, not grab any objectives and just pew pew everything that breathes, what it all comes down to, is how you use your army, and how you counter it against other armies

P.S. I generally thought that older armies had the upper hand, because some of the rules in there codex's have bin changed to a point where the previous rules...are....OP

You're missing the point. Nobody is disputing the fact that any army can be beaten, it's just that the codex can have much stronger builds/units than other codices.

The hypothetical objective mission you suggested; if your opponent was ignoring all objectives then they're more likely than not, not an experienced player.

Rogueyopants wrote:Fare enough, but generally, an army...is still an army, and people can beat an army, with the points value or equivalent, it all comes down to how you play the game.

For example: (Objective game)Just cause someone plays SW, doesn't mean they will win, they can be a complete dough, not grab any objectives and just pew pew everything that breathes, what it all comes down to, is how you use your army, and how you counter it against other armies

P.S. I generally thought that older armies had the upper hand, because some of the rules in there codex's have bin changed to a point where the previous rules...are....OP

Well thats the rule for everything (which does then beg the question of why this thread was created), in that it's not the Codex that defines how good an army is (although this does have an influence, Necrons ), but the general, play-style and a multitude of factors, not least luck.

However, the Space Wolves are just easier to use than many, meaning they could appear in tournaments more often and be seen as 'overpowered', particularly by those who are inexperienced and would struggle with something such as Dark Eldar. IMHO at least.

Darkvoidof40k wrote:Because, they [Space Wolves] have a newer and more powerful codex.....BA, SW, GK and IG are at the top of the current metagame.

I have to agree and disagree.

A new codex gives an army new tricks, and because people haven't played against it yet the fear factor can make that new codex seem all the worse...

But I've seen plenty of tournaments won by old codex's dug up and surprises found in them. Like sisters of battle and before the new codex, people were bringing old codex dark eldar to the ETC and were winning games with the tricks they could pull off.

It's ridiculous to say that you won or lost a game where you roll dice for every decision based on a unit being 5-10 points (in your opinion) too cheap.

But all that said....I do field a space wolves army......and I do win quite a lot with it.

Yea sorry about that Darkvoidof40k, I wasn't really paying attention :(, but yea, I do see your point though, I was just annoyed at some off the people on other threads B****ing about how SW are OP, and people who play them, are Too Cool and don't know how to play a real army....I was like...OMG...STFU

But yea they have an easier job generally when playing 1500, 2000 pt games

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.

Unfluffy gameplay:
With the current book, Space Wolves simply don't play like Space Wolves. Counter-attack in particular rewards a defensive, "let-the-opponent"-come strategy by taking away the incentive to charge. Add to that undercosted Long Fangs, and a favouring of Priests over (usually heavily priced) combat-oriented characters in many lists, and Space Wolves end up playing more like a defenive, artillery-focussed Chapters. None of the other 5th Edition Marines have this flaws. Blood Angels excel on the charge, as they should. Salamanader excel in fiery close-quarters fire-fights, as they should. Crimson Fist excel in stalward lines of elite Marines, as they should, etc.. . From the Space Wolf codex thus speaks a singular ineptitude of the responsible Codex writer to utilize the rule-set in ways that contribute to an army that fights along the criteria and expectations outline in the existing background and fluff.

Cheaply written and incongrous fluff:
Between Ferris-Buellers-Day-Off Marines that go joy-riding with napped Thunderhawks, womanizing Blood Claws laying low the beauties of Fenris, ubiquitous over-use of "wolf-" in the naming of units, equipment, spells and everything else, implausible inconsistencies in numbers (Wolves vs. Flesh Tearers) and gratious fan-boy fan-spank, the Space Wolf fluff is arguably the worst written for a 40K Codex in the last 10 to 20 years.


Whether its overpowered or not, the current book is an abomination of a Codex that all self-respecting 40K gamers should steer clear off, especially if they are Space Wolf fans.

SW just have a significantly lower learning curve than most other armies, along with the disproportionately lower points costs for equivalent units.

The fluff isn't that bad.
The names have always been there, admittedly Canis Wolfborn took it way too far but apart from Wolf Claws there hasn't actually been an increase...
And apart from Thunderwolf cavalry there hasn't been an increase in unit names with wolf in them.
If you had actually read Lukas the Trickster's entry you would see that it was before his ascension into the Space Wolves and not after.

The competetive lists you see are entirely the players choice to make them. The codex isn't to blame if people have identified the best units and made lists where they spam them. There are plenty of people that build uncompetitive and fluffy lists because they like them rather than only wanting to win.

The codex could have been done better but it's the player more than anything that are at fault for the abusive lists.

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.

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.

Unfluffy gameplay:
With the current book, Space Wolves simply don't play like Space Wolves. Counter-attack in particular rewards a defensive, "let-the-opponent"-come strategy by taking away the incentive to charge. Add to that undercosted Long Fangs, and a favouring of Priests over (usually heavily priced) combat-oriented characters in many lists, and Space Wolves end up playing more like a defenive, artillery-focussed Chapters. None of the other 5th Edition Marines have this flaws. Blood Angels excel on the charge, as they should. Salamanader excel in fiery close-quarters fire-fights, as they should. Crimson Fist excel in stalward lines of elite Marines, as they should, etc.. . From the Space Wolf codex thus speaks a singular ineptitude of the responsible Codex writer to utilize the rule-set in ways that contribute to an army that fights along the criteria and expectations outline in the existing background and fluff.

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.
Grey Hunters, the back-bone of any (FLUFFY) Space Wolf army, excel at close range and closing with the enemy; not waiting for them to come to you. They have no long-ranged weapons, meaning they need to close with the enemy. They have potential Wolf Standard/MotW and counter-attack and uber-grit, meaning that they also can work well in close combat. Like the fluff suggests they should; the Space Wolves excel at closing with the enemy, unleashing bolter-fire at close quarters then finishing off the enemy in close combat. AS THE FLUFF SUGGESTS IT SHOULD. IMHO, the Strongest Grey Hunter unit (a unit that is the symbol of SW combat doctrine) is one whereby they're a large number squad, with close quarters weapons in a rhino.
Furthermore, Wolf Guard can further emphasise this close quarters nature, rather than the idea of sitting back and waiting for the enemy to come to them. These guys can fulfill the role of the more numerous close-combat characters, whilst the (expensive) HQ units can only be taken in limited numbers.

Much of what's in the SW Codex is fluffy. Their only dedicated (good) ranged units are Long Fangs and Predators (as well as the dedicated transport, the Razorback). Any Space Wolf army that focuses on the idea of sitting back and shooting has to 'spam' Long Fangs and Razorbacks as these are the only units that can fit that niche. This idea is unfluffy and limited in variety. Any fluffy builds can form all number of varying lists.

Cheaply written and incongrous fluff:
Between Ferris-Buellers-Day-Off Marines that go joy-riding with napped Thunderhawks, womanizing Blood Claws laying low the beauties of Fenris, ubiquitous over-use of "wolf-" in the naming of units, equipment, spells and everything else, implausible inconsistencies in numbers (Wolves vs. Flesh Tearers) and gratious fan-boy fan-spank, the Space Wolf fluff is arguably the worst written for a 40K Codex in the last 10 to 20 years.


Whether its overpowered or not, the current book is an abomination of a Codex that all self-respecting 40K gamers should steer clear off, especially if they are Space Wolf fans.

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.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are op, but more that they have some power builds (like every other army) that are pretty killer and alot of people play.

My litmus test for OP is simple: 'What is the codices' weakness?'

Are Space Wolves weak in assault or shooting? No, they are strong in both.

Are they less capable in another area, such as tougness, leadership, psycic ability or special rules? No, they're just as capable or more capable.

Do they lack in a particular unit type such as tanks or HQs? No, they have the same options as marines and can get more HQ units.

Are they more expensive in points? No, they're about the same cost or cheaper in most areas. Where they are more expensive (TH/SS terminators being the only unit off the top of my head) is not a significant detriment to the army.

Whether an army can be beaten or not is not a good measure of power in a game with an element of luck. The difficulty of winning is. I can accept that this thread was created to blow off steam due to comments made on these boards. It has to be said, though, that those threads where people are airing their grevences were created for similar reasons: people blowing off steam because playing against Space Wolves is an inordinately uphill battle against the rules.

purplefood wrote:The fluff isn't that bad.
The names have always been there, admittedly Canis Wolfborn took it way too far but apart from Wolf Claws there hasn't actually been an increase....

Precisely.
Stop being so butthurt about something that has been around since second edition; if people really had a problem with SW unit naming other than hating it being the Zeitgeist, they'd have complained about it then.
Fact is, the naming thing's considerably over-hyped, and as a result gets blown out of proportion by some people.

It's not the codex that's always the op part, it's how everyone runs their lists. You can have a guard player that runs 3 deathstrikes, roughriders, sentintals and troops and still beat the pants of any other army out there, it's just harder to do.

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.

He is. The DE background is some of the best in years, esp. when compared to the claptrap Ward produces.

Though i'll advise you not to reply to Zweischneid anymore, seeing as Warseer is down he's decided to troll Dakka with the same rhetoric he did there...


EDIT: Just seen your location, are you a regular at GW Lincoln or Boston?

Neither tbh man, are you a Lincsherian yourself?

Thanks for the info on Zweischneid too mate.

Grimtuff wrote:

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.

He is. The DE background is some of the best in years, esp. when compared to the claptrap Ward produces.

Though i'll advise you not to reply to Zweischneid anymore, seeing as Warseer is down he's decided to troll Dakka with the same rhetoric he did there...

That would explain his gobbledegak. Oh well, now we know.

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)

Because they have more wargear, special rules, and abilities for the same or fewer points compared with many similar armies? Compare them to Chaos Marines for instance. Same wargear, but cheaper weapons, get ATSKNF, *Counterattack* (probably the biggest thing that makes that army easy to play, because they really don't have to make decisions or compromise between shooting or charging or avoiding charges) and have cheaper sergeant models with cheaper weapon upgrades. They also have the most cost effective heavy weapon platforms in the game that on top of that can also direct their fire more effectively than almost anything else in the game.

You fight them the same way you fight most Marine armies, SW's just are plain better man for man than most others, and often cheaper too.

That's why people see them as OP.

(they also have *awful* fluff in their book, but that's another matter)

EDIT: I also think there's a good case as has been mentioned that the codex does really promote unfluffy gameplay. Too many SW armies now center around cheap Long Fang missile spam units and min sized GH's in Razorbacks with a deathstar unit of TWC's and a couple Rune Priests spamming Living Lightning &/or Jotww.



Additionally, there's a reason that Space Wolves were by far the most popular army at the highly competitive and internationally known Adepticon event, and it wasn't just because they liked Space Wolves fluff and feel, nearly 90% of the SW armies in attendance were "counts as" Space Wolves from other armies.

Some awful fluff...
It's about 60:40 good bad split.

The majority of the 'wolf' stuff has been around since forever. The 'blood' stuff made me laugh, though - way over the top on naming.

Just Dave wrote:The same goes for Nemesis Doomfists; they're simply DCCW's (notice the Space Wolves haven't renamed them Wolf Fists or anything).

Doomfists also have the same 'Nemesis' rules, so they'd have to have a different name. Nemesis Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon seems kinda clunky...

The "wolfiness" got taken up a notch past simply being a theme though, and the sillyness of stuff like firing artillery by smell and then rushing up to see the destruction (exposing said valuable artillery platform to return fire) also sounds highly derpy.

I think the SW codex is hevey and very powerfull. Its quite difficult to beat. UNLESS you pepare, if you know what your going to face then its not nearly as difficult. but i think that SP codex is slightly OP.

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.

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.

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.

Again, read the second ed codex, and get off the bandwagon. It'll do you some good.
Furthermore, Wolf Claws are DIFFERENT from Lightning Claws. Try to understand that, and you'll see why they named them that; not being zoologists, I doubt GW know much about whether those claws on wolves are for self-defence or not.

Also, if you can't make more than 5 lists out of the SW codex that look different, you aren't trying hard enough. It's actually fairly easy, it just requires a desire to give the codex a fair shout instead of assuming your codex to be the worst. 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.