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.

I am curious how GW has missed to address the weapon options of Wulfen in an Errata. For anyone not aware they have two options: Wulfen Claws and thunder hammers (they lost the frost axe option from previous editions).

However their hammers have the exakt same statline as their claw option, but with fewer attacks.
I mean that just has to be a typo, not even GW is that incompetent to consciously include a weapon option that is just worse in every aspect.

While I agree that it is most likely an oversight and will be corrected at some point in the future... there are quite some units right now where the question is if you want to take upgrade A or upgrade B and B is just worse.

As a fellow enjoyer of str 6 nemezis thunder hammers, I feel your pain.

The hammer being worse than the claws is unfortunately intended by GW, as part of their new "no options are actually upgrades" approach to wargear. The less effective weapon is the trade off for getting a shield with that option not costing any extra points compared to claws + melee weapons now. Personally, I am in the camp that thinks this is a poor approach, and that some options should still be actual upgrades with extra costs, but I would not expect GW to change things any time soon.

Feel the same about my Vanguard Vets.
I often play solo in addition to vs local friends, so my vanvets will have Thammers and claws in those games as we know the stats and comparable attacks (just use terminator values).
I hope GW does something about them as heirloom weapons are just pants currently.

If that is true, then what about the moments, when you don't get anything in return for the weaker weapon. A model with a nemezis thunder hammer doesn't get a shield. Neither does one one with a halbard. Two swords and one sword are the same. Even if GW for other weapon options counts two weapons as twin linked.

Yes, Vanguard Vets are indeed one of the worse offenders if not THE worse, when it comes to this all wargear must be equal to each other approach. Especially considering Death Company Vets got to keep their better options, they just pay extra for every model in the unit for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
If that is true, then what about the moments, when you don't get anything in return for the weaker weapon. A model with a nemezis thunder hammer doesn't get a shield. Neither does one one with a halbard. Two swords and one sword are the same. Even if GW for other weapon options counts two weapons as twin linked.

Again, this is because GW wants all wargear options to be equal to each other. Nemesis hammers used to cost 10 more points, so could be more powerful than all the other 0 point options. Now every GK force weapon option that could be taken must be the same in GW's mind, because God-Emperor forbid actual upgrades exist. As much as I do not like GW's new design approach when it comes to wargear, it is pretty evident what their logic is.

 ikeulhu wrote:
The hammer being worse than the claws is unfortunately intended by GW, as part of their new "no options are actually upgrades" approach to wargear. The less effective weapon is the trade off for getting a shield with that option not costing any extra points compared to claws + melee weapons now. Personally, I am in the camp that thinks this is a poor approach, and that some options should still be actual upgrades with extra costs, but I would not expect GW to change things any time soon.

That is about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What are they thinking? Moving away from points to balance wargear options is idiotic.

But if they are hellbent on doing so, this was the best they could think of? Why not just make the thunderhammer a bit worse without making it complete trash? - 1ws and no dev wounds on wulfen hammers but still decent strength and damage 2.

Looking at the wulfen datasheet from the index you kinda want to ask yourself if this is some sort of strange out of season april fools joke (*cue red shirt guy from blizzcon*)

Tiberias wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
The hammer being worse than the claws is unfortunately intended by GW, as part of their new "no options are actually upgrades" approach to wargear. The less effective weapon is the trade off for getting a shield with that option not costing any extra points compared to claws + melee weapons now. Personally, I am in the camp that thinks this is a poor approach, and that some options should still be actual upgrades with extra costs, but I would not expect GW to change things any time soon.

That is about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What are they thinking? Moving away from points to balance wargear options is idiotic.

But if they are hellbent on doing so, this was the best they could think of? Why not just make the thunderhammer a bit worse without making it complete trash? - 1ws and no dev wounds on wulfen hammers but still decent strength and damage 2.

Looking at the wulfen datasheet from the index you kinda want to ask yourself if this is some sort of strange out of season april fools joke (*cue red shirt guy from blizzcon*)

the profile in a vacuum is a GOOD way to make unit option "sidegrades", the hammer profile trades attacks for a better defensive stat, its not a straight upgrade.

The problem is that hammer have a historically more punchy statline so its hard to not expect them to punch harder.

Of course the solution is to just give different wargear points, but if a whole new game was designed from the ground up using that kind of differences between wargear, i think PL would go over much better than with stuff like free HK/Sponson or straight up upgrades (boltgun into a lascannon)

Tiberias wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
The hammer being worse than the claws is unfortunately intended by GW, as part of their new "no options are actually upgrades" approach to wargear. The less effective weapon is the trade off for getting a shield with that option not costing any extra points compared to claws + melee weapons now. Personally, I am in the camp that thinks this is a poor approach, and that some options should still be actual upgrades with extra costs, but I would not expect GW to change things any time soon.

That is about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What are they thinking? Moving away from points to balance wargear options is idiotic.

But if they are hellbent on doing so, this was the best they could think of? Why not just make the thunderhammer a bit worse without making it complete trash? - 1ws and no dev wounds on wulfen hammers but still decent strength and damage 2.

Looking at the wulfen datasheet from the index you kinda want to ask yourself if this is some sort of strange out of season april fools joke (*cue red shirt guy from blizzcon*)

It does seem like GW often likes to give Wulfen the short stick. At least in 10th they got Feel No Pain again, but with the new wargear nonsense you are forced to choose between having an invulnerable save and hitting like an angry puppy, or forgoing the save for just a 50% increase in number of angry pup attacks. I too think it is dumb, but it is the intentional design GW is going with for 10th, sadly.

 ikeulhu wrote:
It does seem like GW often likes to give Wulfen the short stick.

Wait. Not trying to defend GW here, but haven't wulfen as a unit only really been around since like, 8th edition? How many opportunities have they had to "give them the short stick?" Also, weren't they actually really strong when they were first introduced? I thought they were borderline a problem because of their buff auras? Are we just talking about 9th edition, or do you mean like, pre-8th when "wulfen" was an upgrade you could give a guy in each squad?

Wulfen were introduced late 7th.
They have gone from bonkers good to trash periodically, without much time in-between.

Weren't there Wulfen in 4th edition or something around there? I seem to remember 13th company being introduced then. Maybe as part of the Eye of Terror campaign.

They were re-introduced, then.

Wulfen have been around as a unit since the 3rd edition 13th company army list. The mark of the Wulfen has been around as an upgrade since the 3rd edition book.

Since being re-introduced as a unit in 7th edition they have been a sledge-hammer unit. They have been at times quite over-costed, and they have been nerfed with every edition since. They have however been a shock infantry unit in every edition but 10th. Now they are crappy skirmish troops. With OC-0 and low damage output I believe they are a trash tier unit.

As a very long term SW player I hate space werewolves (especially wolf wolf mcwolf wolf ones) and much prefer Space Vikings. That said I don't see the purpose in doing this to Wulfen, Van Vets, TW (yes I know their rule partially makes up for it) and yet leaving Sanguinary Guard with bespoke 2d weapons, DC with TH and PF, DWK with 3d weapons. I am sure I could go on, but the point has been made.

Wulfen as written just don't fit in the new system. There is no character that can join them, and there is no role that they fill that isn't better filled by a different unit. This is Friday afternoon lazy intern writing at its finest.

The Wulfen models from 3rd edition were RAD.

They partially used CSM armor bits and had a bit of a ragtag look in general, which really showed how they were fighting behind enemy lines for a very long time without any place to replace broken equipment. And they were... I wanna say "believably" feral.

All of the modern Wolves are... well, they definitely are models.

I'm still trying to stay a bit optimistic and hope that they'll reintroduce the weapons in the actual Codex.