Thanks mate


My question is why wouldn't they be? They're older, wiser , stronger, more savage. Almost the entire army is directed towards close combat. Its not like the SWs are any less savage (Long Fangs excluded coz they're super old) as they mature - a lot of GHs are just promoted Bloodclaws....

The Space Wolves list is designed for CC while losing out in other areas. The SW are essentially the Imperium's attack dogs. The whole list should be ferocious. There are reasons to take Bloodclaws - fluff, cheap attack units (but the trade is not as easily commanded) and additional numbers. The list theme is a "small horde" list. It's designed to have numbers above all other Marine lists given the larger size of SW companies.

Actually that is a big loss. It makes GH far less versatile and unable to impact opposition formations unless engaging and unable to stop mechanized formations from assaulting them. Once on the ground they move slowly and don't often get to assault. I found (for years BTW) 25 points across the entire formation is a fair reduction of cost for the loss of versatility. Couple this with expensive shooting units and the list balances out. Weakening the GH just weakens the balance of the list.


Again, it's a small horde list. Don't tamper with the design. It's the only real strength the list has.


Sad to say then you're not understanding the list. The list has both strengths and weaknesses; pluses and minuses. If you tamper with one you effect the other. For almost every addition I designed the list to have a subtraction to balance in some way.


Uh-huh but what do you want; a list that's fluffy and characterful or do you want to go with GW marketing design and fanboy rubbish?


But they are better, and to reflect fluff in such an abstract game you need to adjust in some way especially since the list does things in different ways.


Yes, as they should, but the Ultras can effect the tabletop in an entirely different way being able to put down fire and thus BMs at will. The Wolves are a blunt assault army in general unless you pay for expensive shooting units.


I'm not sure the special rules changes are necessary. The Terminator rule is described in the stats and I was always lead to believe that less special rules was the design for E:A. The wording of Unblooded was done specifically to stop gaminess (have a check back through discussion about the wording) and keep the Bloodclaws doing what they should when close to the enemy. Now they just do as you want when you want them to. They should get a points increase if you do this. The character of the unit and the rule is also another balance for the list.

Fundamental changes to key unit types isn't a good start considering the list was one game short of being put forward for approval. It had years of testing with various tournament testing under different players which found no OTT inclusions. IMO, in comparison to some lists at similar stages, the SWs are hardly a game breaker. I see no need to change it. But that's just my point of view and you now run the list.

Good luck.

I would say that the Grey Hunters should be the equivalent of Blood Claws in CC, or maybe even better.

Most chapters use marines with special training and equipment in the assault role. For the wolves this is the opposite: the Blood Claws are the ones with the least training. The Hunters have more training and more discipline, but they have just as much fondness for grappling hand to hand.

I thought the old stats showed this well: the CC scores showed they had the same ferocity and a tendency to choose the same weapons, but the disadvantages in the Blood Claws special rule showed their lack of discipline.

I always took Blood Claws when using the old stats because they gave me more "standard" troops without my having to pay the premium of a second great company. I think this is the role Blood Claws should play in a Wolf army: they are cheaper, unexperienced troops that you can throw into the teeth of the enemy and see what happens. (Those that live might get to become a Grey Hunter).

As for the loss of gun stats, I've mentioned this before and I think we may have to agree to disagree. Perhaps our different viewpoints on this limitation comes from different play styles. I certainly feel the loss of not having guns on my standard troops when I go up against the enemy.

-S'Cipio

Hope you take this the right way, I want to debate these things and almost nothing is holy. So if you do not agree please tell me so
That said I agree that the army should be assault oriented.
Some of my background. I have not played 40k for a long time but when I did I actually owned a SW army. A lot have changed and before I took this job I read the new codex and that is what I use to see if someone is better or worse then the other. This might not be "right" but that's "why".

True in some ways but do they not change equipment (bolter instead of bolt pistols, some might also carry knifes instead of chainswords) and do they not loose some of their uncontrolled bloodlust? My understanding is that all Gray Hunters have been BloodClaws but the tactical marines that start out as scouts still loose their "scout" when promated to heavier armour and other equipment...?

I agree on the cheap stuff but greater number? You can field more units in the great company then in the blood claw formation... Going by fluff perhaps we should make the Bloodclaws 8 to start with instead but then we loose the "cheap" activation...?

You might be right but as I see it they do not need it. (With the CC4+) You still got bigger formation size, a chaplain and a discount of 25 points for the price of loosing their missile launchers. Seems fair to me? You can still field them in rhinos so they are one of the fastest units around. I am not a big fan of drop pods, perhaps that makes me think differently. But if we were to take away the rhinos I would certainly look at a price dump or something. Sure the Long fangs is more expensive then their counterparts (and much better) But they are the only ones that cost more so that is nothing that I feel needs to be compensated.

I do not really understand. What is the design? Most horde lists have bad statlines, do they not?

Then please explain them to me.
The way I see it the weakness is higher costs on most formations, 2+ initiative on Bloodclaws and the loss of teleport and missile launchers. The strength is bigger numbers in formations and better stats.


This was meant as a joke but with a little serious touch. As I said before I base this list upon the new codex. Right or wrong I do not know but it's a choice. If we base things on old stuff instead we need to make other adjustments.

Well here we might just disagree. I have no real problem wit either 3+ or 4+, but I vote 4+ on the premises given before...
My reasoning: Buy a razorback for 25p and basically do the same for the same cost? But the Space wolves should not go around the battlefield and laying down fire, they are an assault force and have their strengths there. So they are better at engagements but worse at shooting.
Is the expensive shooting units the Long Fangs? Predators still cost the same?...

I didn't want to add another special rule either for the drop pod rule but found it better this way. Like it was written I'm not entirely sure they could buy drop pods. Only formations with the transport rule may have them... Dreadnoughts may pod but its not in their statline... I might be wrong on this one, please correct me.
Unblooded was changed to make things easier and to make the game go faster. With their stats everyone wants to go into CC anyway. There are a lot of gamy things that you can do no reason to force a player to measure and move every unit even when it doesn't matter. (I think at least ) If you find the reason to make them follow up on everything please enlighten me, also what point increase are you suggesting? Like it is now with 2+ initiative I never use them unless as upgrades to the great company. If I want activations I take Fenris wolfs instead so I may lack experience..


I personally do not think that I made any fundamental changes. Basically its the CC4+ change and some cosmetics. I did not want to change your list just make it approved as it was so close but then I also wanted to be able to stand for the list in the future. My experience is that this is Codex marines but a little bit better (not much but still.) The Long fangs is really one of the best shooting units in the whole list and the ability to field 8-10 units (+transports) strong formations with TSKNF is very good. Not OTT but almost
I also asked Steve and Jimmy if it was ok to do these and still use your reports and they said ok
The list is sent for approval but I'm still waiting for a response, it feels a little bit sad to hear that you do not like the changes and that you are back in the game after a short period of absence.
Do you want the list back or do you have other plans?
Depending on what the ERC say about things I might do other changes as well or just add the Thunderwolfs...

/Uven

Good to hear what more people think.
I do not have all things with me right now but does not the BloodClaws have a better CC statline and rules in WH40k. The Bolter slowing them down and all?

Personally I do not like the 2+ initiative thing as a way to show how undisciplined they are. A Hold action is not what I think they would do, a rush forward is more likely but that change would have been to big so...

What do you mean with "I always took Blood Claws when using the old stats" The Blood Claws have not changed (except in the special rule)

Right now the loss of fire power is balanced by giving them more options and a 25p reduction. Is that not good enough? What would you suggest (if we Kept the CC4+) I mostly play with rhinos and hunters so my formations can put a BM on enemies so input is most welcome

Edit: found some stats online. The Blood Claws have worse stats then the Gray Hunters (WS 3 compared to 4) but get an extra attack when charging. They also have better CC weaponry(chainsword instead of a boltgun). Sure the Gray hunters have access to some CC weapons as upgrades but still they are not better on the whole if you ask me. Perhaps the difference between the two units isn't that big but I'll rather change the Blood Claws stats to 4+ (or worse) then to put 3+ on the gray hunters. That said the special rule "counter attack" is kind of hard to convert into epic so....

Is it not then possible to work this out by simply seeing that a BC with lesser stats but armed with two weapons is the equivalent of a better statted GH with one weapon and vice versa…?
“Scout” is just a game mechanic to describe how a formation deploys etc. There are examples of Power Armoured scouts in other lists, so this doesn’t really impact this discussion.


I was talking generally regarding the ability to add them to a Great Company and/or add additional BCs to a base formation (which I often do myself). If you make them 8 as a base, you won’t be able to add a Dreadnought to them in a Thunderhawk – remember BCs don’t have jump packs so a Dread (particularly a venerable, such as Bjorn) attached to BCs is very characterful and they don’t get hampered speed-wise, because they move the same as Dread.

EDIT - I now see you've removed the ability to have the venerable dread as a Supreme Commander too.


With or without rhinos is not the argument. Versatility, game-wide, is.

A simple hypothetical example: CC4+ GH mounted in rhinos versus CC4+ Codex Tacticals in Rhinos.
Tacs have been prepped with a BM (from wherever). Before GHs can make an engage action Tacs shoot at GHs removing a couple of rhinos with Missile launchers. GH now run around on foot making it more difficult to engage in CC for the rest of the game and also now carry BMs allowing any other formation to engage them more successfully if planned.

Now reverse the situation….

GH have been prepped with BM. Tacs can either engage or sustain fire with Missile launchers.
Do you see the difference?

IMO pricing is all about what effects that formation has on a table top in various situations. The Long Fang addition brings shooting but at the cost of half an activation thus reducing the size of your army. This is the balance for a CC oriented army.

Sure, CC3+ gives the GHs an edge in combat but getting them there is a big problem unless you’re spending points on Thunderhawks which, you’ll also note, cost more in a SW list.


It’s a theme. Small horde is not Ork Horde. SWs operate in slightly larger numbers than Codex. The list is designed so you soak fire slightly better but that comes at a cost of no intrinsic shooting – which can often leave GHs floundering and unable to do anything that turn.


So a balance…? Bigger means less activations?


Yep, control is also lost with the original wording of the Special rule.

Also, no Warhounds; more expensive Air assault ability;


Ok, ask yourself this: Has the list been practically play-tested numerous times (pushing approval) without any broken issues? If so then there really isn’t a need for change.


Except you don’t do the same. 6 missile launcher shots is way different than a single razorback shot. Especially on sustain….


By which a downgrade in CC means you are weakening them.


Sure, and you are paying a premium to do this. Unless you’ve changed it, don’t the LFs cost 50 points more than a Predator upgrade @ 125 points…? So then, essentially, half the cost of another reasonably priced formation, thus reducing activation numbers. Again, a balance.


“May use Drop Pods” and the loss of the word “Teleport” in their stats is actually sufficient otherwise I would have changed it long ago. I’m pretty sure there’s discussion about this too.


Yes, it makes things easier for the Space Wolves player. You’re removing another penalty from the list here. The reason it’s there is to make it more difficult for SWs.


The only reason: BCs are hard to control. You shouldn’t be able to withdraw them at will when they’re close to the enemy if it looks like they may get killed. They want to fight. What’s worse is they’re inexperienced and seeking glory! Even Ragnar had trouble controlling his troops when their blood was up.


The solo formation should probably go up 25 points if you’re removing this hurdle/character from the list.
Fenrisian Wolves are an option but you give up both numbers and armour and FF when you take them.


Understood. I just don’t think it necessary given its proximity to Approved status at this late stage of the list. Once approved it should stand for the future already.


You know you can field those numbers with Tacticals too right…? Just not infantry units. If you want numbers it can be done.


Like I said, it’s now your list.
I’m just trying to make you see that this does effect the list (particularly on the core formation of the list), and change for sake of change (how I personally view it) isn’t necessary. But again, this is just my view – others will not see it that way. Changing the list negatively (as I see it) will be hard for me to take after all the work I put in getting it to where it is.


Not at this stage. I’ve been trying to get my head back in the game in a positive way but it’s been hard.


Oh dear Lord, no!!

I meant that I took Blood Claws even when the Grey Hunters had their original stats. You seemed to say you wanted Blood Claws to be better at CC than the Grey Hunters to encourage diversity--which I took to mean that you did not believe people would take Blood Claws if the Hunters were just as good at CC. I don't believe this to be the case; certainly not for me because I used them. The fluff supports both types of troops using close combat weapons (even if the new 40K books make the GH's pay more for them, because the old 40K GH's were too buff) and the Blood Claws were still very worthwhile troops for their role when the GH had the 3+..



I agree that the 2+ initiative doesn't make them feel like Blood Claws; but that's because you took out the part that forces them to counter-charge and forces them to always get into base-to-base when possible. If you had to take away either half of the original special rule, then I'd drop the part you kept and keep the part you dropped. The second half was the more thematic part for Blood Claws.

But I wouldn't drop either half because I can visualize the 2+ rule as well. Tell the BC's to follow a "calm" order and they either glare at you like you are mad, or they jump up and down shouting, "Why?!! I wanna go fight! I wanna go fight". (That's a loose interpretation of "growl!! snarl!!") This behavior doesn't accomplish much, strategically, on the field, and can easily be interpreted in Epic terms as "hold". On the other hand, tell them to charge, and it's off to the races with little hesitation.

And I think your red edit on finding the 40K rules easily supports an two types of epic troops with the same CC line, given the abstraction level this game.



I begin to see some of the differences in our viewpoint. I never take Fenrisian wolves. ;-)




If they don't have guns, then they must have taken those 40K upgrade CC weapons that the fluff says they are so fond of. But if they don't have the guns or the close combat weapons, then what do they have?

Guns give your troops a lot more flexibility than just the ability to lay down a blast marker. If you keep the CC at 4+, then I think they need their guns back. Then you should possibly remove Long Fangs as an add-on to the Great Company and leave them purchasable only as a hunting pack. (But these are big changes....)

I don't think the 25 points makes up for the loss of the guns. A great company (original stats) with two Long Fangs can have just as many shots as a tactical company, but they all come from only two units rather than 6 and are thus more susceptible to suppression. Or you can go the other way and add Blood Claws or even Termies to beef up the Great Company's CC punch, but then you've got a more expensive formation and thus fewer activations.

-S'Cipio

Dobbsy: If you leave a list to a new AC then you have to be ready to deal with some changes. Thats pretty natural. It's good to give feedback on things of course, but you're just basiclly pointing out that everything that UvenLords has done is wrong (thats how I see it when i read it).
With that attitude i can understand if you have problems coming back to the game in a positive way. I think UvenLord has made good work pushing a list that was abandoned. It's even been submitted for approval but the ERC have not responded yet.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

You are right in that it's not that big difference between the two but I rather have both on 4+ in that case. Compare the GH with Codex assault marines and you get a bigger difference. The "only" difference between Tacticals and Gray Hunters is that they do not have heavy weapons and that they might buy extra close combat weapons. Anyway lets try this and see how it works? In my mind if we need to change the stats back they will cost 25 points more...

Not quite following you here. If you buy more BloodClaws there will be more of them? I do not want to make them 8 in a formation, I just thought that that was what you meant.

I have not removed the Venerable Wolf Lord I thought that I have added him? Before no formation could take the Wolf Lord upgrade as it was written but now you could take him with your great company or your Wolf Guard. Just buy a venerable dread and put the character in that unit...?

I get the point but that's not what I wanted to say... Codex marines is good at everything. GH would be really good in CC so why not a little worse in ranged combat. You can always find examples where one is better then the other. If the GH would have acted first they would have won the engagement and killed some rhinos so the same outcome but the other marines would have been broken so the would have been the winners...?

This was in response to you saying that I didn't get the design. And now I do?

I cut the last part just to make things simpler. I might have been wrong but the rule was ok among friends but a little hard to interpret. Also I found the impact to be very small. Since they have better CC stats they often want to get into BB anyway but when we played it turned out that I had to move units that didn't matter so mainly it just took more time to play... If I would have made the list from the start I would have cut this rule altogether but that was not possible.

I do not think that the original list was broken. But I think it was a little too good and said so in my 6 battlereports...I still don't see my tweaks as big changes

They should not be the same either but I was meaning the ability to lay BM

Yes! that's my whole point in doing the changes. To make them a little bit weaker and to make things simpler.

You misunderstood me. If you do not buy LF but buy predators instead they cost the same so you could still field a Space Wolf army without this "weakness"

Then I have missed that discussion, sorry. My interpretation is that the Wolf guards that you add to the Great co would have been able to drop with that wording but not the pure Wolf Guard formation. Or was that never intended?

Sorry, you read my words like the devil as we say around here Great companies can be a lot bigger then tactical formations, that's what I meant.


So hopefully we will hear from the ERC soon and we will see if there is to be any changes or not... If they want us to change things then I will take all you said in consideration and probably reverse a few things but probably not all. Hope that is ok.

Thanks for the clarifications, it all makes sense and I agree on most of them:)
A quick response as it took forever to answer the other one
I could not change the other part of the Blood Claw rule and still be able to use the Battlereports for approval so it was not within my reach to do as you suggest. If we get a rejection I will probably do that but change the wording a little bit.

In 40k Gray hunters do not have heavy weapons at all. I do not think they should in epic either. What we are discussing is bolters and bolt pistols (firefight and CC weapons) So I would like other compensations (like points or upgrades) Right now they trade missile launchers for 25 point reduction on the hero and more upgrades. Do you think that a 50 points reduction would have been more fair? Or perhaps cheaper upgrades?

Over all I do not mind if the Gray Hunters is a little bit underperforming as I think most of the other special units is a little bit better then standard...

To me a Great Co with extra BloodClaws is still a very fearsome unit and well worth its points. And that is with CC3+ or with CC4+. The number of units that gets into base to base is usually limited so I do not really think this is a big issue. The more I look at the 40k stuff (without knowing the rules ) the more the BloodClaws should have had CC4+ with an extra attack or something...
Comparind the Gray Hunters to Tacticals and Blood Claws with Assault marines might be wrong and looking at equipment and fluff (the bloodclaws uncontrolled rage, compared to the gray hunters more controlled nature) might also be wrong but it feels about right to me...

So do you feel that the nerf is so big that we should abandon the approval process and start again? My mission before I got this list was to get the Space Wolfs approved, so I tried to fix the things I thought was wrong and asked for opinions and after a week or two I submitted the "new" list.
If you look closely I actually made some changes that could be positive also.

Apologies for the delay, list is being considered by the ERC now

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Thank you for your replies, and thank you for taking the time to make them so detailed.



Yes you did. This comment, plus mordoten's reply above, makes me realize I've only pointed out the changes that I don't think work. That's not fair. There are some things I like

*First and most obviously, the new PDF if fantastic. It's very well formatted, clean, and easy to read. And I know that took a bit of effort.

*I like the new special rule for terminators. While the stat line did already allow the terminators to use drop pods, this required a newcomer to the list to think for a moment about what was going on. Your new rule is very clear and very obvious; and eliminates any moments of confusion. (And it has a cool name.)

*Good job modernizing the land speeder and sniper prices.





The Grey Hunters worry me if they underperform because they are a required unit. Unlike Codex marines, where you can skip tactical formations completely if you want, you have to take Grey Hunters. And, if you want a second unit of specialist troops, then you have to take more Grey Hunters first. (And a second "tactical hero"; which may or may not be a disadvantage depending on how you play and why you are taking that second Great Company. I'm not complaining about that: this requirement does feel in character.)

If the 25 points is a thing, then I'd keep the thematic CC flavor of the army and just get rid of the discount, Make a Great Company cost 325.

Side note: I just noticed you reduced the cost of the Thunderhawk to put it inline with the codex price. I think the higher price was intended as compensation for the more cc-themed units you could put into it with this list (like a larger sky wolf formation that can survive on its own for longer after being dropped off behind-the-lines). Those bigger units cost more, so maybe this decrease in price isn't really a big deal. But it's something to keep your eye on in the future if you really think the specialist troops over-achieve in this list.

-S'Cipio

I'd like to add my two cents for what they're worth. S'Cipio addresses my concern, which is being locked into taking a formation which may not fully perform its purpose. I do agree that ratio will serve its purpose and I don't think that should change. But the 3+ v 4+ CC does have a bit uneasy when combined with the lose of shooting attacks. I've only had a couple games with the list so take it for what you will.

However, thank you Uvenlord for the work you're putting into this. I appreciate that you're so engaged in advancing the list and that you're open to reasonable discussion!

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC: viewforum.php?

Net EA Chair

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Interesting

Oh and thanks for the nice comments. Like I said before I welcome a debate over things and after the ERC has sent their answer we might have to look in on the Gray Hunters again. I might be wrong.

I do not mind if the Gray Hunters is a little weaker then tacticals but I do not want them to be too bad. As they are a almost compulsary unit they compensate for some other units that I think is a little better then their codex brothers.

The streamlining of the Thunderhawks price has to do with the fact that I like to keep the "penalty" in the same unit that got the upgrade. (Why should a unit of bikes in a thunderhawk cost more just because the SkyClaws is made better...? ) If we want to limit their air capacity then take them away from the list like Warhounds instead or similar. (Not that I want this)

Thanks Gents. Good luck with everything.