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.

Which is why I've always felt the problem with the hunters isn't the hunters but their upgrades. They are extremely potent for their price. They are not never fail (I've had my banner sniped out more than once and bad luck on the Mark of the Wulfen rolls) but they are very strong.

2++ rerollable isn't "never fail" either, but I'd still argue that it's bad for the game as a whole.

Again, nerf Wolf Banners (a certainty for the new book), nerf Mark of the Wulfen (a certainty for the new book), and maybe make us pay a point for the extra CCW and the extra special weapon. Bam, Grey Hunters are still good, but not ridiculously so.

 Mywik wrote:
People just know that the grass is ALWAYS greener on your neighbours yard.

Thats pretty much it.

Except some of these people have actually played SW armies and think they are over the top.

I've traded armies with a SW player and several times over and have done far better then a Chaos list or SM list.

Not that hard to see the grass is greener when one can also play and actually see the math for it..

I can be super lazy and/or super aggressive with GH in terms of deployment against hordes and other assault threats.

What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks. I don't even take it be cates it really isn't worth it. Also, I think the bigger argument should be how a riptide can kill an entire squad of marines in a single turn

We have already established that SW advantages basically don't matter against pure shooty lists. They only matter against those who deign to try to fight them in HTH. They just make assault that much more miserable in 6th.

Martel732 wrote:
We have already established that SW advantages basically don't matter against pure shooty lists. They only matter against those who deign to try to fight them in HTH. They just make assault that much more miserable in 6th.

It also makes the game more unbalanced.

Njtrent59 wrote:
What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks.

50% chance of getting more attacks, of which 100% are rending.

Njtrent59 wrote:
What makes the mark of the wulfen need to be nerfed? I pay 15 points for a 50% chance of getting more attacks. I don't even take it be cates it really isn't worth it.

How is it a 50% chance? If you roll a 1, you get 2 attacks. That's the same as regular GH who gets 1 attack + 1 for the CCW. Roll a 2 to 6 and you get 1 to 5 more attacks. So it's an 83% chance of getting more attacks, on average you get 2.5 more attacks.

But you still need a 6 in order for it to cause a rending wound


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe it is overpowered. I really haven't used it enough to say it is or isn't, but from my experiences, it hasn't been worth the points

Probably because your dude got shot.

Last time I saw it run mathematically, Mark of the Wulfen does better than the Power Weapon option at the same price. This was against all comers, be they horde or marine. This was also back in 5th edition when the Power Weapon ignored armour and struck at initiative. I can't help but think its an even better option now.

I think a modern version should be 20 - 25 points as is or dumbed down to Rage and Rampage for like 10 points.

Njtrent59 wrote:
But you still need a 6 in order for it to cause a rending wound

And? You have 100% more attacks that are rending than you did before, for a ludicrously cheap price on a model that cannot be challenged or singled out normally.

When you pop the banner you reroll that "1" for attacks as well, so it is more than 50% of the time you will get more than your base number of attacks for a GH

The banner only works once though, and for only 1 round.

I've found the banner underwhelming myself as is. I usually see it sniped away or forget to trigger it.

It is strange to see this much hate for an army that isn't really showing up anywhere in the meta. Or causing any rage quitting, or shutting down entire phases like other armies are.

I chalk it up to codex balance. SM has some fliers, the thunderfire cannon, and some other sweet tricks up their sleeve. As well as chapter tactics, which basically give you ALL chapters outside of BA, SW, and DA. So not that it is an insane table top advantage, but the base SM book is pretty nice with that.

DA have awesome bikers to make up for less than awesome troops.

The only "OP" think SW have is the +4 nulify powers (which will be gone soon enough) JotWW (also, probably gone soon enough) and Grey Hunters. The fun tricks we have are TWC and Lone Wolves. Our bikes suck, our jump infantry sucks, and our TDA are very expensive if you want to run anything fancy.

A 10 man GH unit with a banner, 2 Special weapons and MotW is probably still one of the best troops in the game though. It is more akin to what people want from movie marines.

But this is the edition of shooting, or so everyone always says. Tau, eldar, flying circus and screamerstar are the only armies these days according to the same people who say GH are too powerful.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
It is strange to see this much hate for an army that isn't really showing up anywhere in the meta. Or causing any rage quitting, or shutting down entire phases like other armies are.

I chalk it up to codex balance. SM has some fliers, the thunderfire cannon, and some other sweet tricks up their sleeve. As well as chapter tactics, which basically give you ALL chapters outside of BA, SW, and DA. So not that it is an insane table top advantage, but the base SM book is pretty nice with that.

DA have awesome bikers to make up for less than awesome troops.

The only "OP" think SW have is the +4 nulify powers (which will be gone soon enough) JotWW (also, probably gone soon enough) and Grey Hunters. The fun tricks we have are TWC and Lone Wolves. Our bikes suck, our jump infantry sucks, and our TDA are very expensive if you want to run anything fancy.

A 10 man GH unit with a banner, 2 Special weapons and MotW is probably still one of the best troops in the game though. It is more akin to what people want from movie marines.

But this is the edition of shooting, or so everyone always says. Tau, eldar, flying circus and screamerstar are the only armies these days according to the same people who say GH are too powerful.

It's been stated multiple times (maybe in the other thread about this) that GH have practically no boost against Tau/Eldar and units with 2++ rerollable and this huge, enormous boost against more balanced lists. Just because those kinds of lists are not in vogue does not mean that SW unfairly hammer those lists.

As a marine player, both BA and counts-as C:SM, I can't field the shooting like Tau and Eldar can, so I can't ignore SW HTH capabilities. Make sense?

Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption appears to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

Edit:
Ergo, the reason people are so frustrated with this topic is this appearance. (submitted post without adding this)

 Toburk wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption seems to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

Jefffar wrote:
Last time I saw it run mathematically, Mark of the Wulfen does better than the Power Weapon option at the same price. This was against all comers, be they horde or marine. This was also back in 5th edition when the Power Weapon ignored armour and struck at initiative. I can't help but think its an even better option now.

I think a modern version should be 20 - 25 points as is or dumbed down to Rage and Rampage for like 10 points.

On average, in the first round of combat against a Ws4, T4 opponent with a

4+ save - MOTW: 0.917 unsaved wounds, PW on GH: 0.75 unsaved wounds

3+ save - MOTW: 0.764 unsaved wounds, PW on GH: 0.75 unsaved wounds

2+ save - MOTW: 0.611 unsaved wounds, PF on GH: 0.83 unsaved wounds, PAxe: 1 unsaved wound

I think 20pts is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

I've personally never tried to say that GH are so good they can just drop pod next to a unit of Orks or Tyranids. But they are many many times easier to play against those armies because instead of needing to almost wipe out the unit before it charges you, you only need to inflict comparatively small amount casualties before you're on equal footing with them, making GH much much harder to deal with for assault armies.

People might argue that GH fulfill a different roll to Tac marines... personally I would disagree, I think they fill the same role, it's just GH fill it much much better, especially when that opponent is an assault army (though, frankly, even against a shooty army where your goal is to suppress the shooting by assaulting).

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

-Because the drop pod is a dedicated transport of it's own right that grants the GH a special ability, if you don't think it's worth the points don't take it.
-With their upgrades the Grey Hunters would walk through the sisters and gants too.

The assumption seems to be that the GH should be able to perform a guaranteed alpha strike with no chance for a deepstrike mishap against any unit on the table, including min-maxed horde squads (huge amounts of footslogging boyz, sisters, and termigants) and succeed, while simultaneously costing the same\less than the unit being attacked. That is blatant imbalance. Just don't drop your units into a situation were you know they won't win (and yes there has to be situations were they don't win), you control were they drop.

MY POINT was that Grey Hunters WON'T win in these situations. People were complaining that they could 'Drop in with impunity' or 'Completely nullify assault units'. I was pointing out that this simply wasn't correct.
If Grey Hunters get all their gear, though, then Orks get a Power Klaw, Sisters of Battle get a Priest, and Tyranids get more Tyranids. Results are the same. (Or worse.)

They can completely nullify assault, but they don't do it by dropping right next to other efficient units. Yeah, they can get away with that against losers like tactical marines, BA, or DE, but against these large mobs, the mobs are going to be shot to pieces by SW firepower before they dream of assaulting. Then the counter attack crushes their hopes and dreams.

I never said SW can nullify assault when played by a jello-head. I just said they can do it, which they shouldn't be able to do for their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Toburk wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the yardstick that was chosen to measure how balanced Grey Hunters are was having them deepstrike into the center of a green tide; basically the absolute worst case scenario for the GH? And having them still kill nearly their points worth of a charging assault unit? A maxed out squad of boys costs 180 vs The GH's 150 and the boys also happen to be the premier horde assault unit in the game.


Once you kit the GH out with their usual bling to get their cost up they are going to walk out the other side of that fight guaranteed.

Did anyone else notice that I also compared them to Sisters of Battle and Termagants? And did you forget to include the cost of the Drop Pod? It has next-to-no damage output but still costs points.

Boo-hoo, so does the drop pod for the lesser chapters.

You mistake correction for complaint, repeatedly. People said that Orks were helpless against Grey Hunters. I pointed out that this was incorrect.
Then, when I mentioned that the Drop Pod had points cost, I once again wasn't complaining. Rather, you had removed the 35 points when calculating the cost of the Grey Hunter squad. I was pointing out that your calculations were wrong, and that a maxed out squad of Grey Hunters do indeed cost as much as 30 boys. (If the Grey Hunters had not bought the Pod, they would have taken several more turns of shooting, and they are outgunned at 13-18" range, especially if they take flamers.)

I'm unsure why you think that a 30-boy mob will be shot to pieces by Space Wolf firepower, unless you mean a completely different unit in the Space Wolf codex, in which it's completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I was comparing Grey Hunters to Ork Boys, and that's all.

Extreme exaggerations of Grey Hunter capabilities ITT.

I wasn't aware that counter-attack made a unit completely invincible in CC.

Oh right that's because it doesn't.

Any dedicated shooting unit will outshoot them. Any dedicated assault unit will shred them. For 14ppm, you're paying to have a unit that's decent at everything but a master of nothing. Is that not the point of Space Marines? They're called "tactical marines" for a reason.

"M-muh blood angels!" Blood Angels is one of the worst codex's in the game. Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Blood Angels being ass.

"M-muh tactical marines!" Tactical marines are one of the worst troop choices in the game. Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass.

"Stop blaming Grey Hunters for Tactical Marines being ass."

Why do GH get to not be ass for one more point? That's the whole crux of the complaints against GH. So yes, I WILL blame them.

Ooh, does that mean that I get to blame Grey Hunters for Sisters of Battle, too? Or Khorne Berzerkers? Hell. Let's blame Grey Hunters and get mad at them because every bad unit in the game isn't as good as them.

Waaaghpower wrote:
You mistake correction for complaint, repeatedly. People said that Orks were helpless against Grey Hunters. I pointed out that this was incorrect.
Then, when I mentioned that the Drop Pod had points cost, I once again wasn't complaining. Rather, you had removed the 35 points when calculating the cost of the Grey Hunter squad. I was pointing out that your calculations were wrong, and that a maxed out squad of Grey Hunters do indeed cost as much as 30 boys. (If the Grey Hunters had not bought the Pod, they would have taken several more turns of shooting, and they are outgunned at 13-18" range, especially if they take flamers.)

I'm unsure why you think that a 30-boy mob will be shot to pieces by Space Wolf firepower, unless you mean a completely different unit in the Space Wolf codex, in which it's completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. I was comparing Grey Hunters to Ork Boys, and that's all.

I can't dispute the math presented. In the games I've observed, it's the fact that the other elements of the Space Wolf army whittle the Orks down to where they can't beat the GH in combat, whereas they still could beat tactical marines. The utter helplessness of tac marines compared to the capabilities of the GH still really stand out. And taken in context of a game, I think that GH do pretty much invalidate many assault elements far beyond what their point cost warrants.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Ooh, does that mean that I get to blame Grey Hunters for Sisters of Battle, too? Or Khorne Berzerkers? Hell. Let's blame Grey Hunters and get mad at them because every bad unit in the game isn't as good as them.

It's really hard to swallow as a non-SW marine player. And swallow it for 20 years now, with a brief interruption in 3rd edition. I've seen SW pull off so many wins that any other marine list would have lost. I might also add that all the other main loyalist books have had their turn at the bottom of the heap. Never these guys.

If you get to complain about our Grey Hunters being better than Tactical Marines, we Space Wolf players get to complain about your bikers being better than ours. And your Assault Marines. And how you get most heavy weapons (Except Missile Launchers) cheaper on your devs. And how your TH/SS Terminators are way cheaper. And how you have AA. We've got one unit who, mathmatically, performs better in Close Combat, while losing a bit of ranged capability or durability (From Chapter Tactics) for 1 Point. You have a bunch of units who are better than ours. It balances out. Stop bitching.

Waaaghpower wrote:
If you get to complain about our Grey Hunters being better than Tactical Marines, we Space Wolf players get to complain about your bikers being better than ours. And your Assault Marines. And how you get most heavy weapons (Except Missile Launchers) cheaper on your devs. And how your TH/SS Terminators are way cheaper. And how you have AA. We've got one unit who, mathmatically, performs better in Close Combat, while losing a bit of ranged capability or durability (From Chapter Tactics) for 1 Point. You have a bunch of units who are better than ours. It balances out. Stop bitching.

No. It doesn't balance at all. That's what you guys can't see. Having a TROOP that is so much better in practice that anything the other loyalist books have is really hard to overcome. And it's pathetic that the C:SM had to get a codex update to even get the things you listed off. Want to bet SW are hands down better than C:SM once they get a new codex?

"while losing a bit of ranged capability "

They actually gain, because heavy weapons in tac squads are dumpster fires, whereas double special is $$.

Also, SW players are known not to take these units you speak of. They just don't use them. Just as other marine players don't use the bad units from the other codices.