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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Like policemen you mean? No, they look young.

I just mean the pictures make them look taller.

I know what you mean here.

I know what you mean, but I don't know of any reason behind it, it may just be different artists or context I don't know...

I maintain it's just your age getting to you. Both of you...

Dude if it's my age getting to me then i'm gonna be senile and dead in about 5 years...

Are all the people who say "any army CAN be made to beat Space Wolves" aware that most people try to make a take all comers list? I don't switch my stuff just because I'm going against a specific list; that's just low and frankly un-fun. How hard is it to counter pick?

I think what people and the OP are saying is that it is hard to make effective take all comers lists with certain armies and still go toe to toe with Space Wolves.

Tyranids are a great example. Most Tyranid take all comers lists will include a Tervigon and Hive Guard. Why? Because these units are either very good (in the case of the Tervigon) and essential to remain competitive (in the case of the Hive Guard). A Space Wolves player can drop all of these units in a hole with a LD 10 psychic test and a characteristic test that fails 66% of the time. Poof- that 6 wound T6 model is gone. Poof, those T6 2 wound models that don't need LOS are gone. It's an uphill climb for certain armies for sure. And that's just picking out a specific hard counter that most SW lists have.

So basically the problem with SW is that it is hard to counter with all-comers lists because:
They can have very good very ceap support units and lots of them (Rune priests)
They have cheap and effective infantry that can take 2 special weapons.
They can have deathstars that due to wound allocation sneaky ness can be very effective.
All of these factors makes them hard to beat not impossibe but hard especially for an all comers list.

First off, I'm as competitive as the next guy. I don't have an anti-competitive attitude, I just think that to be successful, 40k events have to appeal to the average gamers, not just the highly competitive.

That said, the discussion of how soft scores factor into tournaments has been hashed out many times. I think it's semantics to bemoan that the guy who had the best combination of appearance and game scores gets the 'overall' award, when there's a 'Best General' award available for just winning games as well. Anyone who is bitter over losing a combined score (called overall or renaissance man or whatever) to an army that looks better than theirs simply doesn't understand the concept of a combined score. If you intend to award a combined award to the person who won the most games, why even call it a combined score?

That is fair, and in the spirit of the purpose of this thread, I won't pursue that anymore. There are plenty of other of those discussions.

It's a lot harder. I have no doubt that any codex can yield a list that a good player can use to beat an average player with a generic space wolf list. But, that leads to the next questions: A) Is that list that beats the Space Wolves balanced enough to also beat other armies, B) is the cost-of-entry to that army lower than switching to Space Wolves, and C) is that list easy enough to play and understand that it will persuade the average gamers who have hopped onto the wolf bandwagon to hop off it? (In which case, do we simply go through this again with that new list?)

All I can relate is the experience in my area. We had enough good players, playing varied and different lists that beat Space Wolves enough, to discourage those players who would just play Space Wolves because they are easy. That wasn't by design, mind you, but just the natural progression here, and I think that is ultimately the best action. If you dislike Space Wolves, but have an army you love, play that army to it's advantages, take units and abilities that upset the Space Wolves game,whist still being overall competitive, and beat them, or at the very least make it a close game. My biggest problem with this argument is that their is a perception that Space Wolves are an easy win. Now, their tactics, strategies, and list choices are probably the easiest in the game, I am not arguing that, but being on both sides of the equation, playing Space Wolves, and playing against them, I know they have their own set of weaknesses and ways to take care of that with my own army.

Sure, they're hopping on the bandwagon. It's a good bandwagon. Who cares if they're trying to build their skill - they're probably not, they're trying to win games instead. If using a better army and the same skill gets them the same result as putting in the effort to learn their game with the same army, which is faster? And, if they switch armies AND put in the time to learning their game, isn't that even better?

The fundamental disagreement we have is that Space Wolves is a better army.

And, it has a low barrier to entry. I mean, let's say I'm playing Marines and I keep losing to Space Wolves. Do I pick up a handful of new models and call my guys Space Wolves, or do I drop the grand that it would take to make a Dark Eldar army, and hope that I picked the right stuff that will actually be effective? There's a very low barrier-to-entry for hopping on the Space Wolf bandwagon for anyone who already has MEQ models.

If you like Space Marines and are loosing to Space Wolves, the cheapest thing to do is to find a good Space Marine player and ask them how they deal with Space Wolves. Most likely, the players that are struggling with SM will struggle when they switch to SW because the fundamentals on how they approach the game just are not there yet. As veteran players, we should be able to advise new players with whatever army they start on what their best options are, or how they approach the game.

On top of that, whatever the Dark Eldar do against space wolves, they're also going to do against all other Marines, probably easier.

Not really. Dark Eldar's primary advantages against Marines, namely their supreme anti-infantry capabilities, loose their effectiveness against FNP Blood Angels, and fully Mech Space Marines. The fact that Long Fangs are not tanks is what makes DE a good match up. A Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons which should kill 1 to 2 Long Fangs a turn of shooting, does nothing against an Auto-Laz Predator.

Think of it this way. A player plays in 100 competitive games. Do you believe that, with all other factors remaining constant, they'll win more or less games if they play Space Wolves instead of Chaos Marines or Vanilla Marines? Right, it's not that Space Wolves go undefeated, but that the cost-to-benefits ratio is just higher with the Space Wolf codex, and that will account for extra wins.

I think if you have 2 players of equal skill, play a 100 games, with nothing but average dice rolls, of Space Marines versus Space Wolves, with the ability to change your list with the requirement that is still has to be a balanced tournament list, that the Space wolves might win one or 2 games more then their Space Marine opponent. I know that is about my win record, and I was playing Salamanders with a Thunderfire Cannon of all things.

Maybe my perception is skewed, based on my own record, and the players in my area. I can assure you, I play no scrubs. My roommate has won 4 consequtive RTTs with Space Wolves. That is 4 in a row, and I can successfully challenge him with other armies, fairly well.

Almost a year now and we still have people complaining about the SW codex.

A little personal history:

I have played since early 3rd Edition. My first army was the Salamnaders box army that I played as Salamanders, then switched over to Dark Angels because I like plasma more then meltas. I then switched over to Space Wolves before finally settling on 13th Co when Codex Eye of Terror hit the shelves. Got tired of the game and shelved them until I heard about the new codex coming out and prayed that it would include rules for running a 13th Co. Alas, I got screwed and almost did not pick up the game again, but I did to see how the new dex would play.

For about 6 months after the codex hit the shelves I was hammered, EVERY single game. It was a complete learning experience all over to find the synergy and learn what the army had to offer. The strengths and weaknesses are evident in the army when making a poor list or not understanding the capabilities of the individual units.

Now how does this even relate to the topic at hand?

As has been pointed out, it is the gamer, NOT the codex that has led to this so called "Space Wolf Effect". People are not learning their army, not delving into the effectiveness of the core troops or how they work hand in hand with their elite brethren. They are riding the backs of people that have done the Mathhammer of min/max and then went to the LGS with a shopping list in hand. Even then, the results were mixed. They still didn't know how to play the army, they would just try to copy what they had read. I am even guilty of this after the Adepticon win by Goatboy. I saw what he did with his multiple thunderlord list and went to town. Turns out, I hated it. I kept reading into my army and came up with my own core set of rules when building my army.

Now the truth of the matter is that this is NOT a new concept! Where did Vulkan TH/SS spam lists come from? What about Nidzilla lists? What about the origin of MSU razorback spam? And now we are looking at MSU RAS lists with BA and who knows what will be be the min/max for DE. Furthermore, the competitive list is not a guaranteed win. A bad player can make the perfect list horrible and that is the case pretty much case all the time. It doesn't matter if he started with a Vulkan list, moved to a Razorspam list, to a SW TWC list, and now to a DE Venom/Ravager spam list. He will still lose.

Now as to the basis that you are seeing Ultrawolves, Dark Wolves, Blood Wolves, Saiim-Hann Wolves, etc, etc partly is the bandwagoneers and partly because people just get tired of their armies and want to try out something different. Others like the Space Wolves and hate the fluff of Norse mythology meets Grimdark technology so they DIY and play using the rules they like, just not the fluff they dislike. The thing is, the bandwagoneers will be playing Ultra Angels, Templar Wolves, and whatever else comes out when those new codices come out. You will have the same complaint but it will be The <insert new codex> Effect.

So as to my core SW rule set of list building:

1. The strength of any army should be their core troops. Grey Hunters are at the core of my army. Everything else is to support them and be supported by them. My 1750pt list comprises of 3 max Grey Hunter squads in Rhinos. My first jump to 2k points is another Grey Hunter pack. 2250? Another Grey Hunter pack.

2. The strength of one "hardened" infantry unit is both mentally and physically effective to any enemy. My "hardened" unit is either 1 WGTDA unit in a drop pod/Land Raider, a couple of TWC, or a couple of Dreadnoughts. That is all dependent only on points level being played. This unit never takes up more then one FOC slot for my lists. It isn't meant to carry the army (see Grey Hunters), it is meant to support the army (see Grey Hunters).

3. Fire Support is not everything. Long Fang spam does not make an army. Their main trick is ineffective after one casualty. To add an ablative wound, be prepared to pay for two other Wolf Guard (or see what I do below). I only use one pack of missile launchers, effective against light to medium armor via krak and mob or densely packed via frag. Again, not as gamer winners (see Grey Hunters) but to support the game winners (see Grey Hunters). I sometimes add a second pack at 2500pts and it is geared out for anti-infantry with plasma cannons and heavy bolters due to the higher troop numbers that are seen at that point level.

3. Utility is paramount. My Rune Priest serves almost as my Swiss Army knife in my list. He discourages pop up/flat out units via Tempest Wrath and adds fire support via Living Lightning to my Grey Hunters by attaching him to my Long Fang pack. His psychic defense is limited due to range but paramount to holding the back line. He also serves as an ablative wound before having to take the Long Fang pack leader and losing splitfire.

4. Lastly, delivery system. The most effective and devastating way to deliver a wolf lord is via a TWM. He is costly, coming in at almost 300pts, but like my "hardened" infantry unit, he serves both a psychological threat as well as a physical threat. He hardly ever makes his points back in kills and when he does, it is usually at the loss of himself. He does serve his role in causing an opponent to change his plans due to his presence as well as his accompanied Fenrisian wolf pack.

In closing, it isn't the Space Wolves dex, BA dex, DE dex, SM dex, etc, etc, etc that makes an army effective. It is on the players shoulders to make or break their army. I have been winning consistently now with my approach to building a Space Wolves army list against various armies and drawing to those opponents that truly know their own. If you have a problem with the Space Wolves army, my advice would be to first look at your own army list and see where your shortcomings are holding you back. Pointing to a codex and crying foul just seems to scream poor sport and seems revealing of lack of knowledge of your own army.

That's the kind of attitude i have ^^^

No-one is suggesting that armies play themselves, or that SWs are invincible.

I read the OP... sounds like crying in your beer. I remember Blackmoor bitterly crying about how strong were orks. The strength of a codex is like the weather, wait long enough & it will change. A good player can beat SW or mech IG. What I found is lots of average players gravitate towards these armies so they can win some games... Kind of shameful really but that's the way it's always been.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:I read the OP... sounds like crying in your beer. I remember Blackmoor bitterly crying about how strong were orks. The strength of a codex is like the weather, wait long enough & it will change. A good player can beat SW or mech IG. What I found is lots of average players gravitate towards these armies so they can win some games... Kind of shameful really but that's the way it's always been.

And the jist of it all is those migrations are of players that do not even know the army. Like I said, they read about it on a blog and then go to the store with their shopping list without having never even played a basic game with the army

The closest thing I can relate it to is my training and competing in BrazilianJiu Jitsu. I have competed at the state level and at the Pan Am Brazilian Championships. This year I am planning on attending the Pan Ams again as well as the Worlds.

Now it is paramount that any person studying BJJ be completely knowledgable in the foundational basics such as closed guard, mount, armbar, triangle choke, back mount, side control, etc, etc. Every single advanced technique is derived from the basic position. The mantra any new comer to BJJ must learn is,

"Position then submission."

Now in the past decade or so techniques have been developed by other very advanced BJJ practioners. Rubber guard for instance was developed by the amazing Eddie Bravo. However, new students get his dvd or book and before they ever have the fundamentals down, they are trying to incorporate the Rubber guard. They might beat people of equal or lesser experience, but against anyone of even slightly more experience or a grasp of the fundamentals, they are made fools. These students n ever grasp that before Eddie Bravo ever developed the Rubber guard he was already amazing at basic BJJ.

And that is where the problem lies, the player, not the codex. Nothing in the codex promotes min?max. Nothing promotes tri-thunderlord lists. The player finds this lists because he doesn't know the army and all he wants to do is win. In reality they are short changing themselves in the long run.

By knowing my army I can play several variants of my core list by applying the basic principles I listed in my other post.

SW are the flavor of the moment of the easy codex Not necessarily cheezy codex The player is the core of the problem and the fix. My lament is not the 3xLF ML. The all answers codex is a bit of an issue. Anti-psyker, anti-MC, anti-personel., antitank that is survivable there are very few codexes that offer all of these traits in pretty equal measure. CSM comes close but has no anti-psyker and nothing anti-MC as cheap as a rune priest.

The core issue is the competitive mindset - that makes all choices into a math equations effectiveness divided by cost equals the right choice. The key that we -meaning dakkaites- often fall into is that there is an empirical one definition of effectiveness. Style and use as well as preference of the individual player really defines effectiveness. I play a lot of armies in 40k and enjoy the variation of strengths and weaknesses each brings. While I don't min/max there is always a point of choice 1 or 2 and it is pretty obvious which one is the better choice based on my definition of effectiveness versus the cost in points.
This is the current issue of SW for me. Give me 85 options but then beat me over the head with the effectiveness of 2 or 3 options that are superior to the other choices. I, along with every other player, is put in the awkward position of feigning ignorance or dogmatic following fluff to avoid taking the obvious most effective choices. Every codex of late suffers from this malady to one degree or another. Then it only takes one more slippery comparison - if I am not already vested - if I place the 10 or so codexes side by side and there are 2 or 3 that stand out as the better options. That is all we have been collectively arguing about for 4 pages now.

To quote an old cartoon, "We have met the enemy and it is us."