Comments on the list is most welcome.

Links to the actual lists in the TP:
http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/pdfs/netea-space-marine-space-wolves.pdf
http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/army-lists/space-marine-space-wolves.html

And a link to the excellent armybuilder:
http://traitor-legion.appspot.com/chooser.html?list=SM_spacewolves_NETEA





Further development of this list is suggested in this playtest version, please note that this is not the approved list.

Suggested changes from the Approved version is found in the end of the document.
Feel free to make suggestions and comment on any of these


Thanks to Dobbsy for the original list and to Dave, Mordoten, Jimmyzimms, PFE100 and everyone else for testing and support

Thanks!

_________________
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.

A big thumbs up Uven (and predecessors on the job)!!!

Praise be to the All Father!

_________________
Ben Sibbald

Personal & Wargaming Blog: http://www.theancienttrack.blogspot.co.uk

EPIC WIP: Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Eldar

Congrats! Good job getting this across the finish line, and thank you very much!

So, Wolf-lord, do you have any plans to finish Dobbsy's Iron Wolf list as well?

viewtopic.php?f=73&t=26319&hilit=Ironwolf

-S'Cipio

Thanks, I have some plans on getting the Iron Wolfs a little update but right now a smaller update to core list has higher priority.
(I will try and update the Iron Wolves with the changes made in the core list as soon as possible)

Added a playtest version of this list with some new goodies. The plan is to discuss this a while and then see if we can get anything implemented in the approved version
The suggestions isn't supposed to change the overall list just make it a little nicer.
Added Thunderwolfs basically because I own some really nice models and I kind of like the idea around them. It also makes the Wolfs something more then cheap activations and objective grabbers.
The Long Fangs got a little nerf but against mixed units they are basically the same. The change is made because the generic weapon loadout they have in the approved version. I do not like that...
Adding a pair of warhounds just to be able to field some low cost Titans. Did not add singletons just because they might impact on the balance. (And they hunt in pairs )
Structual changes was a suggestion from Dave that feels right. Sure now you could spam Fenris Wolves but you already can do the same in the Codex list with scouts so...

Updated the playtest version after a recent tournament that I attended.
Didn't have a very good list (I brought what I had painted) but still managed to end up in the middle No big flaws or stuff that was overpowered. (I played the approved version)

Things for the playtest version:
Basically I have been underestimating the effect of unbloodied when I have been playtesting in friendly games. In competitive games I found that rallying on 3+ or 5+ is a bigger drawback for a assault oriented formation then I have foreseen.
I also forgot to implement the changes of FF for Bloodclaws and similar units. No real reason for them to be different then what the codex variant is. To me it is enough that they have unbloodied.
Please help me check so the points decrease on some of the units feels right. Right now some units got a little better in FF and 25 p cheaper...

Also a reflection on Unbloodied:
Due to the rule that you have to countercharge the nearest unit I found myself several times in a strange situation where the claws charged another unit when they were attacked because they were closer but they failed to reach base to base. So basically they were very easy to clip in engagements, that does not feel like the intent of their rule. Not sure how to "fix" this or if it is needed though...

Working as intended then. Lower pricing is the trade off for lesser stats and control. Use them as they should be i.e engaging and this becomes less of an issue.


Being inexperienced and therefore different in style and control are the reasons. Elsewise Space Wolves just become more Codex every change that's made and takes more of the character out of the list. e.g changing the the character upgrades to Chaplain, Captain and Supreme Commander...


Up gunned Claws should go up in price. At minimum 225 to 250 I would guess.


"Must attempt to countercharge the nearest assaulting unit" could clarify this.

Perhaps you misread my post? This is about rallying not activating. How would engaging make this less of an issue. Usually I engage, get a couple of blastmarkers, then rally.

First of all, to me getting closer to the codex is not bad. Secondly I think the FF value is an abstraction of several things not just skill and compared to other marines they might be 5+ or 6+. I also think that making them the same as the codex variants is a good thing, it becomes less complicated. People recognise that they are "assault marines on foot" + unblooded. (I wanted to make this change before approval but it was not admitted.)
The Commander etc change came about when Dave made the TP as they are identical statwise. Again I think it is a good change. When I play and say "this is a wolf priest" people ask what it do and then I reply that it is the same as a Librarian or whatever. Now I do not have to explain stuff. Everybody knows what a Chaplain is.

You might be right here. I do not think that they are worth 250. Tactical marines cost 275 and can shoot, have better FF and initiative 1. My reasoning is that compared to codex tacticals the shoting is worth 25-50 points, CC3+ and FF5+ is worse then CC4+ and FF4+ perhaps 0-25 points, initiative 2+ another ~25 points. Unblooded is both good and bad but probably more good say 0-25 points. So 200 (or 225) seems about right?

This is a good thought, would fit the theme and discourage "gamey" behaviour
I am currently looking at the bloodangels and black Templars to see how they solved a similar ability but I will definitely consider this.


And thanks for the input!
Have you played in any tournaments with the list and gotten the some response? I searched but failed to find any reports but that doesn't mean so much

No no, I understood what you meant, I just meant less of an issue overall, but these guys are supposed to be harder to control. They're a 50/50 good/bad concept. They provide you (and this is the most important point of this discussion that I can make) with hard hitting, cheap troops but the trade off is lack of total control - just like the fluff describes. Even Ragnar can't control them 100%. It's how they work that provides the character for the unit and the list overall.


Here's where we disagree then. The idea of this list was to get away from the Codex list not get closer to it. Otherwise why wouldn't we just make them Codex with a grey paint job?


That's just it though, they're not just Assault marines on foot - they don't even attack like Assault Marines when you use Unblooded and you have to remember they work differently but come in slightly larger numbers. 6+ vs 5+ isn't complicated, it's not all that different from remembering that one unit type has different stats to another in any given list. 6+ is a poo stat, I get it, but that's by design and for a reason.

Given the unit is actually a different unit to a Codex one, with Unblooded added in you automatically know it's a different unit type. Do we really need to remove flavour from them just because it's "complicated?"


No worries, you're welcome.

I haven't played this version of the list or tournies since January 2015 for various reasons.

Ok, another point we disagree on To me not getting rid of blastmarkers is a BIG issue with assault orientated formations. I get it that they are cheap but I do not think hard hitting is the right word, sure they have good CC but in my scene almost all engagements is FF (or a mix with favour to FF) so coming in with FF 6+ almost makes them one of the worst hitting units in the game Their real strength is armour and TSKNF. Also their lack of control is built in the Unblooded rule with the forced move in engagements. They want to hit the enemy in the face not just be hard to give orders. Like it works now they are picking their noses and moving slowly forward or fleeing away from the enemy instead of charging when they fail to rally (and/or activate.) Is that the intent? I do not think so.

And to me it is too bad. So I guess the reason is both the thing that I want them to be more like the Codex brothers and I would like to see people field them in battle.


So what is your opinion on the list before? Basically most of the stuff is the same. Did you meet lots of enemies that just stayed 31 cm away and then engaged in FF 10 cm away?

Yep. Seems there'll be a lot as you have your view and I've made my points so I'll move on and save us the usual time-intensive circular arguments here on Taccomms.

Cheers

So tou don't think it's productive to answer UvenLords question about thoose situation with FF-assaults that he mentioned?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Just a crazy idea for blood claws. How about letting them activate even if broken. But only if they could engage an enemy and only to engage that enemy in CC with atleast one stand.
Most likely breakes too many rules to ever get approved. But I figure it would illustrate the way bloodclaws react to an overwhelming enemy (ie charge in, casulties be damned).
They would most likely loose the combat, but atleast you had an extra activation and you perhaps placed a blastmarker.

_________________
/Shoel
My Painting Corner