You've misunderstood; this is not the case. The Hero upgrade for wolves is still 50points, but the EA Wolf upgrade for heroes is now 15 points instead of 10 points.

It's confusing, because you can add a hero to wolves or add wolves to a hero.

why garrison that fm, when for the same points you can have Long Fangs + 2 Dreads, kicking out double the fire power? Plus, with the all formation Leader, it will stay effective for longer, despite being smaller.

50% more units, better assault/support fire, 4+RA on the Venerable

But it's just an idea I'd like to see tried, not something I think is a problem.

doh, sorry, I was being dense. I did understand, then I forgot that I understood and didn't understand anymore

fair enough, I just wouldn't take a formation like that to garrison. The better no.s and assault/ support fire are true, but the situations in which they could be used are slim, at least in the types of games I play. A garrisoning formation bristling with guns (eg Broadsides) are much more useful in my mind.

I'd take a GH with ven Dread as a backfield plodder/ blitz guard. I'll try some other fms after my next game. Just seeing if it's possible to break the list at the mo'

Yep agree with Morgan too. Just wondering what points to set them at. I'm considering 175 - the same as normal assault marines.


Could they be 175 also? Or is 200 a better starting point? There are 6 of them which makes them more survivable.


So what's the consensus? I'm happy to give them back the 3 or 4 ML if that's what people want. Should we start 3 per?
There has only been one person calling for 3 so far.


Yep you get 2 LR to transport 4 Long fangs. Is that an issue? Not sure how this effects things Neal. i think I'm missing something here.

===

Me too.

A possible solution to the "too many Long Fangs" problem could be to move the Claws of Russ packs (Blood, Sky and Swift Claws) into their own section, thereby you'll only get LF, Terminators and Wolf Scouts for every Grey Hunters pack.

The only issue then is the problem of GHs being under par/used.

It's not a mechanical problem. It's just different than most of the SM lists and the expectation versus the wording might be confusing to some.


I think this is leaning towards trying to fix balance issues in the units with army composition restrictions. That generally does not work well. Also, you have 2 tiers of formation selection already, which is more than most armies.

Pricing: I'd probably start with 200 for the Swiftclaws and Bloodclaws. Better to start high.

=======

Long Fangs: Right now, it seems they are sort of a no-brainer target for the enemy. That makes the Long Fangs a disposable distraction while the rest of the army advances. That may be a perfectly balanced situation mechanically but personally, it seems off to me from a flavor perspective. So, I think it's best to step back and answer is how they are supposed to fit into the list before getting too wrapped up in a mechanical solution.

According to the background fiction, do the Long Fangs deploy with the intent of operating entirely separately or do they deploy in close support to the Grey Hunters? How do they view them compared to the other fire support options like armor? How do you expect Long Fangs to reflect that doctrine in the feel of the Epic army?

The list overall is very assault/CC heavy. It's also cheaper than typical SMs so it's going to be more horde-like, similar to the Black Templars and their Neophytes. It's going to have to play aggressively and get units in the enemy's face ASAP. How elite should the Long Fangs feel in that horde environment and how will high/elite point costs interact with that horde? Should the Long Fangs be integral in the feral charge to the enemy with a "lead from the front" mentality? Or should they be a "stand and deliver" formation, laying down fire and taking massed return fire while the rest of the army charges?

Separate deployment and primary fire support favors a distinct Devastator-like formation, while close support might allow for a single formation with the Fangs integrated. Elite and "stand and deliver" favors more firepower while "part of the horde" would favor stats to encourage move/shoot and assault alongside the rest of the army.

If there were a name for a doctrine of "Long Fangs in close support" that would be ideal for a single-formation solution - name a unit for the doctrine and abstract out a combined Grey Hunter/Long Fang stat line that looks more like a traditional SM Tactical unit, with a ranged shot. In the reality of the 40K universe, it might be 2 squads of Grey Hunters and a squad of Long Fangs, but in Epic it would be 6 stands with 6 shots. Even though I don't care for it, attaching Long Fangs to Grey Hunters like Havocs/CSMs in the Black Legion list is an option to represent the close support doctrine (add-on units like most upgrades seems to work better than replacement units).

An option if you have to strike a balance with "separate deployment" versus "part of the horde" might be to reduce their firepower. You could have them be more like normal Devs and include a design note that Long Fang units are assumed to represent fewer troopers per stand to reflect their firepower, but their discipline, toughness and individual combat skills keep their armor/cc/ff in line with other units (i.e. superior abilities without special rules).


Again, though, the important thing is to decide what you want them to do before working through how they are going to do it.

Hmm, if it's different to the codex then it's mostly serendipitus and I'm happy it works out that way as SW are the poster boys for non-codex Also I don't want the formations getting too large so adding up to 4 LR to a 4 unit formation when only 2 are needed is pushing that boundary too far - for me at least.


Again, I'm not too concerned at this point with other armies' designs as I want SW to be different. Thats said, I'm trying to not go over board too. In regards to fixing units with army comp, that wasn't my intention per se, more what actually occured. I'm happy with LFs load out as they are but others aren't it seems. The Grey Hunters are a different matter however. They are the only real unit balance problem I think I have right now. The LF are the problem I have in the composition area IMO.


Would Sky and Blood Claws be used then, though? The issue brought up was they aren't comparitive cost-wise (due to various reasons) with normal Assault marines and/or other SW formations.

=======

Well from the outset I had them as the heavy fire support, as from what I've read they tend to be the Wolves' main AT firepower as opposed to their armour. This is why I have them as a stand alone not a tag-on unit type so far. Of course that's not set in stone, just the immediate structure for testing.

In terms of SW being CC/assault oriented, the LFs are one of the main shooting formations for the list and it's another reason they're stand alone, so they're not tied to another formation. It's possible we could have both (stand alone and a tag-on)for people's needs and wants but I'm not sure people will then cry that there's far too many LFs available....

Just pondering the list again tonight as I sit here sick with a crappy cold. Of course it's plain theory-hammer - wish I could get some games in or see some batreps.

Grey Hunters
I'll definitely be adding the Razorbacks upgrade and most likely giving them melta guns (FF5+, MW EA+1) in 2.1.1. This will up the possibilty of their long range firepower and also make them more useful (and interesting) in terms of FF hitting power. According to the E:A rulebook blurb for RBs, the SWs use them extensively for veteran (read:weakened) Grey Hunter packs (as well as Long Fangs as the codex mentions).

Blood Claws
Will be adding the Dreadnoughts option to Blood Claws so they can be garrisoned together (if wanted by the player) but most importantly they can fill the final two slots in a Thunderhawk load (6 +2 for the Dread) if people want.

Long Fangs
Changed weapon stats to 3xML (common garden variety) as proposed by Zombo. This tones them down somewhat without a price change and it also can still make sense in terms of fluff as LFs are all various sized squads due to attrition, so it wouldn't be unusual to have less heavy weapons as time marches on for them. Question: Should they receive the Razorback transport option?

Heroes upgrade
I'll be adding a line in the Heroes upgrade to say: Additionally, a pack containing multiple Heroes only benefits from one Leader ability at any time.

Also calling the Fenrisian Wolves upgrade for Heroes a Fenrisian Wolves Cadre to help reduce confusion a little - I hope

The stand alone Fenrisian Wolves pack will also only be allowed one Hero to represent the "family" unit.

Any thoughts?

No Extra Attack for the Meltaguns please. Even Fire Dragons have the MW only for their basic FF attack.

Just call the Fenrisian Wolved Upgrade "Fenrisian Wolves" with no addition.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

If you follow the convention established with the Multi-Melta, a Meltagun would give MW to your a base FF attack, not an extra attack.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ahh ooops! Ok consider it changed.
Actually, do Fire Dragons carry anything other than Fusion guns though? I ask only in terms of making GHs more attractive (hence MW EA +1). I was thinking in terms of terminators getting an MW EA+1 CC attack it would be a FF EA+1 to make them more shooty.

How does:

Bolters & Melta Guns (15cm) Small Arms MW

Look? is there even a way to get a standard FF Ea +1?

Aren't Grey Hunters just the Space Wolves' Tactical Marine equivilent?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter