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.

So, for 45pts you're getting free 3+ invulnerable (TWC you need to spend another 30pts for that...). You're getting to attack first with 3 attacks (as opposed to 4) at Strength 6 (as opposed to STR 5) if we forget charge bonuses etc. They get LD 10 as opposed to 8...the only advantage the TWC get is 1 more point of toughness. Wraiths are jump infantry so basically move at the same speed as TWC...but get to ignore all difficult terrain and don't take dangerous terrain tests...

I just don't understand how you can get a model that is better than a TWC with Storm Shield - for 35 pts less??

Do GW even consider the cost of similiar units in older codexes when they point things up? Or is it that they take future codexes for older armies into account (e.g. TWC will be a hell of a lot cheaper in a few years time...)?

I'm not bitching here, I don't take TWC in 6th anyways, they're worthless as far as I'm concerned (if they were points cheaper maybe I'd consider, but 400+ points for a decent unit (have to take a WL on TW because otherwise LD 8 with such a small squad = running home). I just don't understand how you can get six wraiths all with 3+ invul attacking at str 6 with rending and whipcoils for 260pts...when a unit of 4 TWC that isn't as good with a Wolf Lord you're looking at more like 500pts?

Is it just a ploy to sell more models in the future? Are we looking at 35 point TWC in the next edition (that is what I would consider reasonable considering the special rules of the Wraiths)?

Welcome to GW game development, where there's no basis for anything and point values are assigned randomly.


On the other hand, the difference between T4 and T5 on multi-wound models may be one of the most valuable stat increases in the game, as it protects you from most instant-death weapons.

Really? Really? Really?

Okay, well, let's compare:
BS - the same, except TWC have grenades they could actually use with their BS
WS - the same
S - 1 lower
T - 1 higher
W - the same
I - 2 higher
A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)
LD - redundant for both
Unit type - Cav is better than jump but Wraiths ignore terrain - I'd call it a wash
One gets grenades so can charge through cover and still hit at I4, the other has whip coils so both hits at I1 if cover intervenes - Wraith win
Both rend
Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

I mean, you are trading 1 Str and an inv to instead have more attacks, more options and higher initiative. Wraiths, for example, don't have the choice to get an S10 powerfist. I'm not going to say TWC aren't slightly overpriced but your comparison is a little silly. It's like me comparing Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamer to TWC base and then moaning that the TWC have so many advantages.

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes. The points cost for a unit is more closely linked to how the unit is designed to sit within its own codex rather than GW having a master points cost for each individual characteristic shared over all codexes. Also the SW codex is "Old" and the Necron codex is "New" and designed for 6th edition, so differences should be expected.

Maybe you are right and it is extremely under costed, I haven't really looked into it much.

However, it is important to remember that when writing a codex they don't take wraiths and compare them to similar units in other codices..... rather they look at the codex as a whole and try to do some internal balancing.

Sure X is super inexpensive compared to Y, but in another codex Y might be much cheaper compared to X.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

 Wilytank wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

I wasn't comparing them with Storm Shield because it's extremely overcosted at 60% of another TWC.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

With the exception of plasma/metla/lascannon equivalents, which are all awful for Necrons. Actually, as a general rule most of Necrons AP2 is almost worthless in 6e. They do make up for it with everything else normally but these new MCs (Wriathknight, Riptide) are a nightmare.

Flinty wrote:It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes....

gossipmeng wrote:However, it is important to remember that when writing a codex they don't take wraiths and compare them to similar units in other codices.....

While this is true, it's also a sign of poor design and implementation, and a constant reminder that GW may be the worst game company when it comes to actually developing games.

If you're relying on points to ensure a fair game between two disparate forces, how can you possibly justify not comparing point costs between them.

Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

Again, this is poor design. A critical analysis of what you've written (and, if true, how GW views their development process) yields the obvious flaw that if the rules allow me to build a unit a certain way, it should be valued at what it actually does, not what it might do if built differently.

For example.

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

Eyjio wrote:
Really? Really? Really?

Okay, well, let's compare:
BS - the same, except TWC have grenades they could actually use with their BS
WS - the same
S - 1 lower
T - 1 higher
W - the same
I - 2 higher
A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)
LD - redundant for both
Unit type - Cav is better than jump but Wraiths ignore terrain - I'd call it a wash
One gets grenades so can charge through cover and still hit at I4, the other has whip coils so both hits at I1 if cover intervenes - Wraith win
Both rend
Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

I mean, you are trading 1 Str and an inv to instead have more attacks, more options and higher initiative. Wraiths, for example, don't have the choice to get an S10 powerfist. I'm not going to say TWC aren't slightly overpriced but your comparison is a little silly. It's like me comparing Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamer to TWC base and then moaning that the TWC have so many advantages.

BS/WS as you say are the same.

You could call the STR/T thing equal as they''ve both 10 of each between them (if that makes sense).

Wounds are the same.

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Att - 1 higher if I want a 30pt 3+ invul that the wraith gets for free.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Rend is meaningless, as you say they both have it so may as well remove from the analysis.

I agree ATSKNF is better - issue being Cavalry tend to run a fair distance before turning around!

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes. The points cost for a unit is more closely linked to how the unit is designed to sit within its own codex rather than GW having a master points cost for each individual characteristic shared over all codexes. Also the SW codex is "Old" and the Necron codex is "New" and designed for 6th edition, so differences should be expected.

See, that's what worries me. Internally balancing a codex is all well and good - but it needs external balance within the over-arching game structure and rules also.

I know the gap of what (3 years?) is going to make a difference - I still consider the SW codex to be a damn good one. Was unbelievably over-powered when it first came out IMO.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

This honestly is hogwash, all you need to compare is GH vs all other tactical forces and you generally get the idea that the only different way they are supposed to work is if they have different codex authors with different thoughts in mind.

It isn't "We're gonna make this elite slot weaker because they should have more heavy, it's how they're run" it's "We fudged these numbers hard and didn't think about it much so this slot is horrible to take units in"

Eyjio wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

I wasn't comparing them with Storm Shield because it's extremely overcosted at 60% of another TWC.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

With the exception of plasma/metla/lascannon equivalents, which are all awful for Necrons. Actually, as a general rule most of Necrons AP2 is almost worthless in 6e. They do make up for it with everything else normally but these new MCs (Wriathknight, Riptide) are a nightmare.

This is a good point - I wasn't really considering the stormshield as over-costed as an item, rather just considering the unit costs. Considering you can get 5 stormshields for free in the current SM codex...it all justs get a bit silly (200pts for 5 assault termies...in my codex that would be 150pts just on the shields - admittedly the rest of their codex is pony compared to the SW's).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

Again, this is poor design. A critical analysis of what you've written (and, if true, how GW views their development process) yields the obvious flaw that if the rules allow me to build a unit a certain way, it should be valued at what it actually does, not what it might do if built differently.

For example.

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

This sums it up for me (and far better than I could have done!).

The game just feels so out of whack at the moment it isn't even funny. I can take 2500pts of SW, and play my cousin and his 2500pts of Sisters - I'll smash him. Absolutely smash him, and I'd consider him to be a better player tactically speaking than myself. It isn't even a luck based thing - I've got just got so much more for my points than he has.

It make a mockery of the entire points based system.

I guess the danger is ending up with units across codexes that are basically the same with a different model, which would remove all flavour so I can see that complete balance is never achievable if you want to maintain interest - but it needs to be better than it is IMO.

I'm just going to quote the bitrs I disagree with as otherwise this post will be a bunch of "yes, I agree". As before, the proviso here is that I still consider TWC to be overcosted but am mostly playing devils advocate.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Only if your opponent is cheating or has amazing charge rolls. They only reduce enemies in base contact before the I10 step to I1. That means any pile ins, any unreachable model or any model that is for any reason not in base contact will not be affected. In general, most units will strike first against Wraiths with a substantial amount of blows.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

They auto regroup and can, if needed, get out of combat. Whilst they will run a fair distance, they also get to recharge so I don't see it as too much of an issue.

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

Cav move 12", ignore difficult terrain, can reroll any dice when charging due to fleet and always get hammer of wrath. Wraiths, as Jump infantry that ignore terrain, can either move 12" or reroll charge (both dice)+hammer of wrath. I consider the 1/18 chance of taking a wound from dangerous terrain more than compensation to get both the long move, fleet and HOW.

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Me neither, but they are useful.

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.

I actually agree with this, but I think the powerfist is still worth noting. It's one of increasingly few things in the game that gets S10 now (barring MCs smashing).

Hmm... given the unexpected reaction to my earlier post I guess I should note that I have no particular preference one way or the other, merely reporting what I understand of GW's game desgn practices and acting as a bit of a devil's advocate

 Redbeard wrote:

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

To be functionally equivalent, you need to use them i exactly the same way, but as you've said the Troops choice will be used in a different way to the HS choice because there are different rules assigned to the two slots. HS choices are designed to sit back and blast away with heavy weapons, hence they are more likely to be using those weapons more consistently. As they can't score thre is no point in trying to move them. Also the unit has access to more heavy weapons than a tactical squad and hence is more likely to be sitting with lots of heavy weapons making the whole thing more effective. The Tactical squad is used to take objectives aqnd generally react to the enemy's moves, so its more likely that they will be moving making the heavy weapon inherently less useful.

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

Remember that the different codexes try to keep some of the background flavour of the forces as well, rather than creating perfectly matched forces in isolation. This is another factor that will affect inter-codex balance.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

That as may be, the other thing to remember is that 40k has never been designed as a tournament game. This is a function that has been thrust upon it that GW has decided not to push itself particularly. 40k has evolved over a long time and has its own baggage.

Warfare is inherently unfair, so why strain yourself and the system too much to try and make everything perfectly "fair" when that is as untenable as any other position and probably much harder to maintain over the long term? GW has created a framework of rules to allow a wide range of different factions to be matched up. Given the number of combinations available there would always some pretty bad match-ups between different army types and this will be exacerbated by player skill and terrain being fought over, all of which change on a game by game basis.

Winning is not everything, indeed rule number 1 is to use the rules framework to have fun. If you keep smashing your opponent game after game, then the fun quotient will likely go down on both sides, so its probably time to change the rules a little bit. There are a huge range of simple mods you can make to the game including changing points values or mission objectives or for one player to start taking increasingly less optimal lists to see what happens.

the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

Eyjio wrote:
I'm just going to quote the bitrs I disagree with as otherwise this post will be a bunch of "yes, I agree". As before, the proviso here is that I still consider TWC to be overcosted but am mostly playing devils advocate.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Only if your opponent is cheating or has amazing charge rolls. They only reduce enemies in base contact before the I10 step to I1. That means any pile ins, any unreachable model or any model that is for any reason not in base contact will not be affected. In general, most units will strike first against Wraiths with a substantial amount of blows.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

They auto regroup and can, if needed, get out of combat. Whilst they will run a fair distance, they also get to recharge so I don't see it as too much of an issue.

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

Cav move 12", ignore difficult terrain, can reroll any dice when charging due to fleet and always get hammer of wrath. Wraiths, as Jump infantry that ignore terrain, can either move 12" or reroll charge (both dice)+hammer of wrath. I consider the 1/18 chance of taking a wound from dangerous terrain more than compensation to get both the long move, fleet and HOW.

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Me neither, but they are useful.

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.

I actually agree with this, but I think the powerfist is still worth noting. It's one of increasingly few things in the game that gets S10 now (barring MCs smashing).

Devil's Advocate is cool, a debate needs one!

The base contact thing - sure, you'll hit them first (with some of your models). That 3+ invul makes up for that though I think (TWC with Powerfist...they'll get an invuln against that!). I think a canny Necron general will also target units that number less than your wraith unit (that's what I do at any rate - admittedly these units are often tougher nuts).

They'll auto-regroup sure - and be in the middle of a killing field, most enemies won't allow you to charge them again. My experience with TWC is if they fail a leadership test, they're pretty much finished. A good opponent will take that opportunity to end the threat.

I forgot about fleet. Still, this has been completely nerfed in 6th, that re-roll isn't really that great. You can re-roll a 1 and still get a 1, it's a random luck based thing. Hardly the same as running and then charging (a set distance meaning you could actually judge your charges effectively from the movement phase onwards...but that's another discussion!).

Powerfists are great I agree - but now we're talking 50 for the TWC, 30 for the SS, and 20 for the PF - that's minor character level points for a dude with WS 4 and LD 8...far better off taking TWO PF's with Wolf guard, in Rhino's meaning they don't get shot to death in the 1st/2nd turn (God my codex is dull...:p).

I think we're in general agreement, in that they are over-costed - but I have over-egged the issue somewhat!

I think really, the idea behind things getting cheaper points wise is, 'They'll need to buy more models to have X level of points'. With prices increasing that's some canny business.

 Redbeard wrote:
Welcome to GW game development, where there's no basis for anything and point values are assigned randomly.

I assume you have never played D&D minis or anyother game like that, huh? Wizards acrually came outband said there was no actual grid for points values.

That being said... Theybare different because they are. Necrons are a shooting army. Find a spot available for some assault units, and they end up being cheaper. Space Wolves, however, do assaults quite well, as they all still carry close combat weapons. So an assault unit with multiple desirable features will be priced accordingly.

Stop trying to make every codex equal to each other. The units are not designed to be interchangeable or equitible between books. it's how that books are different.

Not every slot in every codex is balanced. Necron's get wraiths where space wolves don't. But space wolves get longfang's where necron's do not. Not every unit will be balanced, army balance comes from the whole book, not from some unit's, because some armies do different roles, better.

Space wolves in general, do everything well. Necron's generally, do everything well except close combat, which, is where the wraith comes in. The tradeoff for not having troops that are good in combat like the counter attacking, always 2 weaponing, initiative 4ing grey hunters, is having an assault unit, that is a little better than the space wolf equivalent. Trading jack of all trades, for more focused units.

 Grey Templar wrote:
the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

This, it really sums it all up. Thunder wolf cavalry hits much, much harder than a Wraith ever will do. And a Wraith will get ravaged by a thunderwolf or any similar unit.

T4 vs. T5 is really huge on multi-wound models though. Having better initiative also matters, even if the Wraiths have Whip Coils.

The reason the Thunderwolves wargear is more expensive is the same reason Wolf Guard Terminators pay more for TH/SS than other loyalists: Opportunity cost. The TH/SS Terminators, just like the Wraiths, are forced to buy all of their stuff; the Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves can choose what stuff to buy, tailoring themselves for a certain task. It's the same reason Strike Squad Marines are only 4 PPM more expensive than a Vanilla Tactical Squad; you HAVE to take all that stuff, which makes them sup-par for everything other than their specialized task.

Wraiths are too cheap

SS are very very good, but often too expensive on non characters.

Cavalry is much better than jump infantry. Always get HoW and Fleet.


TWC arent the best thing in the SW book. Swift/Sky/bloodclaws arent either. But balance that against WG, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs and you add in the crazy good HQ choices and you end up with a unbalance, but powerful book.

 Trondheim wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

This, it really sums it all up. Thunder wolf cavalry hits much, much harder than a Wraith ever will do. And a Wraith will get ravaged by a thunderwolf or any similar unit.

3 plain TWC versus 3 Wraiths.

All TWC are striking at INIT 1. They will hardly 'ravage' a unit that is potentially twice as large who all have invulnerable saves against your costly special weapons. You get a lot more attacks granted, but they're weaker so less likely to wound (ST6 VS 4 makes a big difference...). From memory you can have 6 wraiths max in a unit, versus 6 (5 max and a potential wolf lord/battleleader). You'd have to be a pretty good general to still have some models not in base to base contact after pile-ins. Only if the TWC squad is larger would I give them a definite win (and even then a costly one).

TWC don't actually 'ravage' anything in 6th edition. No more cool fleet that allowed you to mind-measure (or indeed actually, if you want to give the game away) those set inches of movement/assault in your mind. I think they're a grand assault unit don't get me wrong - but they're no powerhouse like people think.

You do make a good point about them being the only real melee unit they have. I'd say the C'tan is also pretty badass (though costly and you need to pick small squads to attack with him to be effective...and that's if he doesn't get pounded to hell first!).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry - just as likely to wound as its ST6 vs T 5, STR 5 vs T 4. My bad.

Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Exergy wrote:
Wraiths are too cheap

SS are very very good, but often too expensive on non characters.

Cavalry is much better than jump infantry. Always get HoW and Fleet.


TWC arent the best thing in the SW book. Swift/Sky/bloodclaws arent either. But balance that against WG, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs and you add in the crazy good HQ choices and you end up with a unbalance, but powerful book.

The entire Necron Codex is mis costed and truthfully is a mess. Yes it's competitive, but the imbalances are dreadful and has led to the few competitive builds available to the Codex.

 Tehjonny wrote:
3 plain TWC versus 3 Wraiths.

All TWC are striking at INIT 1.

This is not always true. It depends on how far the TWC have charged. you can set them up in a line and you have a good chance of one or two not making base contact with the wraiths so they will strike at normal initiative, which is higher than the wraiths Initiative.

You'd have to be a pretty good general to still have some models not in base to base contact after pile-ins.

This does not matter for the first round of combat as whip coils are counted before pile in moves are made.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.

Really??? Hmmm....gonna have to pay careful attention next time I face them because I seem to recall my buddy laying them on their side in the last game he used them against me. Probably an honest mistake.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.

Really??? Hmmm....gonna have to pay careful attention next time I face them because I seem to recall my buddy laying them on their side in the last game he used them against me. Probably an honest mistake.

Most likely. Wraiths could come back to life last edition, but not the current one.

Flinty wrote:
That as may be, the other thing to remember is that 40k has never been designed as a tournament game. This is a function that has been thrust upon it that GW has decided not to push itself particularly. 40k has evolved over a long time and has its own baggage.

No one said anything about tournaments. In fact, tournament gamers are least impacted by the imbalances in the system. Tournament players are willing to play with 1/10th of the units in a given codex because those are the good ones, and play against others doing the same thing with their codexes. It's the casual player who suffers the most from poor design, because they're the ones who buy models based on looks and design armies based on fluff. They then get their teeth kicked in because their army can't play, and they get disillusioned with the game.

Warfare is inherently unfair, so why strain yourself and the system too much to try and make everything perfectly "fair" when that is as untenable as any other position and probably much harder to maintain over the long term?

I'm sorry, when I decide to dedicate a few hours of my precious free time to playing a game with a friend, I don't do it assuming I'm going to war with him. We're playing a game, not participating in a war. If uneven battles are your thing, it's entirely possible to stage games with unequal points per side.

GW has created a framework of rules to allow a wide range of different factions to be matched up.

Yes, poorly.

Given the number of combinations available there would always some pretty bad match-ups between different army types and this will be exacerbated by player skill and terrain being fought over, all of which change on a game by game basis.

We're not talking about bad matchups, which will certainly happen. We're talking about a system in which two players can field the exact same models, but because of what book they're using, one player gets an extra unit or two. That's not an issue with a bad matchup, it's an issue with a poorly designed game.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The reason the Thunderwolves wargear is more expensive is the same reason Wolf Guard Terminators pay more for TH/SS than other loyalists: Opportunity cost. The TH/SS Terminators, just like the Wraiths, are forced to buy all of their stuff; the Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves can choose what stuff to buy, tailoring themselves for a certain task. It's the same reason Strike Squad Marines are only 4 PPM more expensive than a Vanilla Tactical Squad; you HAVE to take all that stuff, which makes them sup-par for everything other than their specialized task.

This is exactly the poor thinking that GW operates under. You're confusing availability with use. Wolf Guard Terminators have more options available than SM terminators, sure, but in any given game they cannot use all those options. There's no reason they should be required to overpay for their storm shields and thunderhammers because of the storm bolters they're not taking. That doesn't make sense, and yields the scenario above, where two players field the exact same models, yet (in this case) the SM player can field an extra squad of terminators because the SW player also wanted TH/SS guys.

This isn't a bad matchup, it's really bad game design. You should not be forced to pay points because of the options you didn't take. If SW Wolf Guard have more options than Codex marines, that's simply one of the ways that the two books are distinct from one another.

Why do they need to be equal?
They are different armies and the units have different purposes.

It's not about TWC vs Wraiths.
It's about Space Wolves vs Necrons!