What's the point of giving your troops bolters?

[Wolf89]

ok but GH cost more even if you dont twink them too much they still cost a lot of pts , but die like normal sm . now BC on the other hand have more bodies[that also die like normal sm , but you have to kill more to get rid of them] , they are superior in hth [more attacks on counter charge] . dont suffer from losing "specials" like GH units do etc . Its like pre tests for the sw codex in the 3ed . there is again no reason[aside for fluff] to use grey hunters .

 

Granted there were times I'd use lots of blood claws, but that's when I was short in the tooth myself and throwing lots of PA crazy marines at my enemy was the best I could do, and it worked at times, but I've started to use more tactics and control of what I do, how, and why.

 

Those that spam BC's don't play with any tactic in mind besides move to the enemy, kill them, and take my win. :wacko:

[WolfLordLars]

I agree with Jeske, that Necron list is horrible.

[Thylacine]

So your advocating a list of Blood Claws only, no Grey Hunters? Grey hunters are the Space Wolves core troops, Blood Claws are a cheap fill in, not an alternative, try taking a BC army to a tournament and not only will your comp scores be low but your sports will take a hit too.

 

As for fluff, Blood Claws are defined as. "Young Space Wolves fight in ferocious Blood Claw packs. They are fierce, often foolhardy warriors, eager to prove themselve and earn the respect of their elders, they will take almost any risk to win the fleeting glory that only youth and courage can bring."

Normally you see a WGL attached to the BC pack or a WGBL, WP or IP. Blood Claws need a steady hand to control them and point them in the right direction, stop them from charging in when the moment is wrong.

 

It is a bit like the guys that think a full army of scouts is cool and cheap, they loose on comp, they loose on sports and they loose the games because what looked like a good idea on paper did not turn out to be that good on the table. Cheap models are not always the best way to go.

 

 

ok but GH cost more even if you dont twink them too much they still cost a lot of pts , but die like normal sm . now BC on the other hand have more bodies[that also die like normal sm , but you have to kill more to get rid of them] , they are superior in hth [more attacks on counter charge] . dont suffer from losing "specials" like GH units do etc . Its like pre tests for the sw codex in the 3ed . there is again no reason[aside for fluff] to use grey hunters .

[Wolf89]

It is a bit like the guys that think a full army of scouts is cool and cheap, they loose on comp, they loose on sports and they loose the games because what looked like a good idea on paper did not turn out to be that good on the table. Cheap models are not always the best way to go.

 

 

ok but GH cost more even if you dont twink them too much they still cost a lot of pts , but die like normal sm . now BC on the other hand have more bodies[that also die like normal sm , but you have to kill more to get rid of them] , they are superior in hth [more attacks on counter charge] . dont suffer from losing "specials" like GH units do etc . Its like pre tests for the sw codex in the 3ed . there is again no reason[aside for fluff] to use grey hunters .

 

Sad thing is the lists actually win, it's like orks, they provide cover saves for each other, and especially in situations where comp, sports, etc. aren't looked at, you'll see these lists... nothing like 75 blood claws running around on the board, and for only around 1250 points after well equipped (minus the WGPL's)

[WolfLordLars]

A BC rush has its place. Honestly though, I dont think I would enter a tournament where "sportsmanship" or "composition" have a part of the score. You go to tournaments to compete and win. If you want to play a nice game with balanced armies, play your buddy some other day.

 

Also why I avoid tournaments now. I hate winning fair and square just to have a bitter opponent hit my other scores for no good reason.

[Wolf89]

A BC rush has its place. Honestly though, I dont think I would enter a tournament where "sportsmanship" or "composition" have a part of the score. You go to tournaments to compete and win. If you want to play a nice game with balanced armies, play your buddy some other day.

 

Also why I avoid tournaments now. I hate winning fair and square just to have a bitter opponent hit my other scores for no good reason.

 

It also works if people just give me they're entry fee money and I kick them in the nuts and they walk home... at least I'll save them 7-8 hours...

[Grey Mage]

Sorry if I was playing my eldar, and saw 75 bloodclaws on the board Id just laugh. The only way such a list could have any edge at all would be if they were beardy enough to use the overlapping "everyone and I mean everyone gets a cover save". Even then, there are plenty of ways to kill them with Space Elves.

 

As a Nid player, Ive seen swarms of Genestealers and shooty MC's that would make the list scream.

 

As a Marine player three vindicators would find them dead rather shortly.... nothing to it. How can you miss 75 marines?

 

Daemons.... with no shooting at all some soulgrinders and some Bloodletters would make mincemeat of them.

 

Etc. T4 and 3+ armor save is nice... its part of what marine armies are built around, but spamming bloodclaws is a one trick pony and like all one trick ponys only has to be thought about to be defeated. The only reason they have any success in the tournie circuit is that people simply have decided its enough of a threat to gaurd against it.

[LPetersson]

Personally I don't understand this hating of BCs.

I see them as the core of my army and so far they have always delivered (Admittedly, not in the many games, but still).

 

And to stay on topic B)

I see GHs as grown up BCs that help them out in CC. Hence why I don't give them bolters...

[Grey Mage]

Just to clarify I dont hate bloodclaws, I love Grey Hunters. I feel that BCs have their place on the field, but I dont/cant seem them as a core unit for my army.

 

What I Do hate is the overlapping cover save idea. That is the most anal-retentive and abusive tactic Ive seen in two editions. The only one that comes close was a mounted tau player who tried to let all of his fire warriors shoot under his transports and then declared that they couldnt be shot at in turn as the transports were now lower than they were before. That was just cheating.

[the jeske]

but man with a SW codex your going to get kicked what ever you do . As soon as someone finds out that you use the cost of all the good stuff from codex sm [tanks , rhinos etc ] , but when it comes to fists , special weapons etc you use your own . thats like a death sentence unless you bring an army that doesnt work [and even then you may get low score , just because the guy your playing with wants his friends to have more small pts then you].

 

Granted there were times I'd use lots of blood claws, but that's when I was short in the tooth myself and throwing lots of PA crazy marines at my enemy was the best I could do, and it worked at times, but I've started to use more tactics and control of what I do, how, and why.

all this is in character right ? also how is the GH build army more tactic based then the BC one ? you either drop in drop pods and it means double tap and take charge or go in rhinos , jump out and double tap . doesnt seem more tactical to me . But it is less effective , its harder to actually destroy units [one on one] with shoting . all that cover , saves on +3 etc an 8 man Gh unit has problems with destroying an sm tacticals , unless its really tooled up for it [pistols , plasmas etc ] , but then it cost tons of pts . hth is different you have tons of powerfists attacks just kill and kill and kill. fast and cheap.

That is the most anal-retentive and abusive tactic Ive seen in two editions

how about rhino sniping [two rhinos side to side las sees only sgt/special/hvy/IC blast off] or the pie plates of 3ed singling out fist/special guys etc . every ed has stuff like that[ask non sm players or ultramarines how they liked rhino rush :D ] and you either use it and win or dont and lose.

[Battle-Brother Wags]

ok but GH cost more even if you dont twink them too much they still cost a lot of pts , but die like normal sm . now BC on the other hand have more bodies[that also die like normal sm , but you have to kill more to get rid of them] , they are superior in hth [more attacks on counter charge] . dont suffer from losing "specials" like GH units do etc . Its like pre tests for the sw codex in the 3ed . there is again no reason[aside for fluff] to use grey hunters .

 

Actually, in CC, BCs die even more easily than normal SM because they are hit more easily. Again, due to their lower WS, only weight of attacks makes them a better choice in HTH, so if the enemy survives round one or just long enough to throw in more of their own troops, the BCs are in serious trouble, whereas the GHs have much more staying power. Yes, I know, that is why BCs are called shock troops, but lets keep that in mind on both sides of the argument - Shock ability does not make a unit handsdown better. You're right, they don't lose "specials" when taking casualties, but remember that GHs get those specials and put them to good effect.

 

I think your reasoning here is a little too simplistic. There are very good reasons to use grey hunters.

 

@anyone - I usually run a squad of BCs, but primarily GHs. One of the main reasons for this is that the only way I seem to make BCs work is putting them in a LR of some sort. Why? Because I get a "guarenteed" charge and choice of target. Whenever I pop them out of a DP or Rhino, the enemy just makes a withdrawal and the BCs die to ranged firepower before they can close. No one I play is stupid enough to charge them on their own. And I'm tired of dedicating that many points to have a LR plus the BC pack in each list I want to use them in. Any suggestions?

 

*edit* I didn't read the second page of posts before I made this reply. Everything I said still stands, but I would like to make it clear that I don't hate Blood Claws, either. I rather like them, though they irritate me sometimes for various reasons, lol. Like others have mentioned, I just don't think they are solid enough to base an entire army off from. I find their lack of range to be their downfall if they are not supported appropriately. If you have one minimized GH squad to meet the requirement and 2 to 3 larger packs of BCs as your troops, people will (and have, to me, when I was "short in the too" as well) back up and keep shooting. Pretty soon nothing is left of the BCs.

[Grey Mage]

how about rhino sniping [two rhinos side to side las sees only sgt/special/hvy/IC blast off] or the pie plates of 3ed singling out fist/special guys etc . every ed has stuff like that[ask non sm players or ultramarines how they liked rhino rush :rolleyes: ] and you either use it and win or dont and lose.

 

I received rhino rush in 3rd edition, I took it, and I didnt see the cheese. The singling out of special guys in 3rd ed actually made some sense to me... Ive heard the frustration over it but I could deal with it personally. And I never enountered people using rhinos to snipe.... they blew up to easily for it to be more than one shot per game.

 

But I call complete bollocks on the idea that I have to use such concentrated abuse to win a game. Im a better commander than that and my tournament scores around here can patently prove it. I wont stoop to it, and if the game ever did break to that level I wouldnt see the point in playing.

[the jeske]

Again, due to their lower WS, only weight of attacks makes them a better choice in HTH, so if the enemy survives round one or just long enough to throw in more of their own troops, the BCs are in serious trouble, whereas the GHs have much more staying power. Yes, I know, that is why BCs are called shock troops, but lets keep that in mind on both sides of the argument - Shock ability does not make a unit handsdown better.

what is all well and true , when you play with 1 BC unit . you spam them you play like orks [with +3 saves] you have a wall of 30+ BC giving cover to each other . even if an opponent survivs the tons of powerfists attacks [and normals] from one unit of BC , how many are there going to be left? 2 maybe 3 guys[if he had a 10 man squad] from the main one and 6/8 from the counter one [and counter units arent scoring most of the time ] while here its your turn again and your chargin in with your 20+ BC [thats not counting the obligatory GH you have to take or any WG termis or obel etc ] . BC are one of the few units that are troops and dont get tar pited by PMs [while having a lower cost too] .

 

You're right, they don't lose "specials" when taking casualties, but remember that GHs get those specials and put them to good effect.

yes for 1 turn . after that the unit starts being less effective . BC can stay useful a lot longer then that for the same pts or less .

 

I find their lack of range to be their downfall if they are not supported appropriately.

hmm I dont understand . they have the same range as double taping GH . same move speed and can take the same transports . how is their range different from GH . or are we speaking here about not moving GH shoting bolters at 24" because to actually destroy something with fire power like that one needs 4 or 5 GH squads . also smaller range is generally the problem of sw armies . thats why they run stuff like obel and drop pod dreads [and termis in the 4th]. that hasnt changed . without playable hvy support it cant be different.

ve heard the frustration over it but I could deal with it personall

with the frustration or the rule. I personally had problems with undieing wright lords [x3] and an avatar[x1] that were killing my fist guys [and without fist there was no way of killing eldar dreadnoughts] while dark reapers wipe any visible hvy support or tank end turn 2 . stuff made me switch to nids .

 

 

I received rhino rush in 3rd edition, I took it, and I didnt see the cheese.

ah yes of course . am not saying cheez , because there isnt a lot of stuff in w40k that could be called that , I mean stupid mechanic that warps the play field . But you did play SW an army that was tooled for hth and that run 4/5 rhinos full of assault troops that was on top of any army turn 2 . Before armored company was given to the IG they werent very happy gamers .

I wont stoop to it, and if the game ever did break to that level I wouldnt see the point in playing.

cash , prizes , FW stuff , being able to pay for gas that brought me to a tournament . I see many reasones to do everything on a tournament to not walk out with less money , then I went in.

[Battle-Brother Wags]

yes for 1 turn . after that the unit starts being less effective . BC can stay useful a lot longer then that for the same pts or less.

 

No unit, GH, BC, or whatever, can be expected to be 100% effective every turn. BCs lose a tremendous amount of effectiveness after they charge. The people I play with always have their sacrificial absorbing-the-charge units well protected, so BCs are likely to only get one turn of their +2 attacks. Also, when charged, the basic BC leadership is not exactly reliable. Yes, its greater than 50/50, but not by too awful much. And if you put a pack leader in there, then you've lost the cheapness that you want in a BC pack.

 

hmm I dont understand . they have the same range as double taping GH . same move speed and can take the same transports . how is their range different from GH . or are we speaking here about not moving GH shoting bolters at 24" because to actually destroy something with fire power like that one needs 4 or 5 GH squads . also smaller range is generally the problem of sw armies . thats why they run stuff like obel and drop pod dreads [and termis in the 4th]. that hasnt changed . without playable hvy support it cant be different.

 

This is where GHs become a more solid choice in my mind. Again, I'm not saying BCs don't have their uses. They are a very powerful unit, but I'm talking about GHs being an overall better troop choice. The reason being is that you rush your rhinos forward or drop your pods down in the vicinity of the enemy, but also hopefully relatively close to an objective (if there is one in the game) and you double tap the enemy, which is going to hurt with all the plasma flying (at least in my builds) and then they have the range to cover a wide field of fire and hold the objective. And of course you've got Ironclads, Venies, and other units that are supporting them. BCs can't generally hold objectives and have any offensive purpose unless the enemy foolishly decides to engage you in HTH. GHs, more often than not, can. That's all I'm trying to say. Again, to the argument that there is no reason to field GHs because BCs can do it all. I'm simply saying that no, BCs cannot do it all and there IS a good reason to take GHs.

 

And, of course, to make sure this is on topic, the above argument in favor of GHs as the base of the army is the exact reason why they should have bolters.

[Grey Mage]

Again, due to their lower WS, only weight of attacks makes them a better choice in HTH, so if the enemy survives round one or just long enough to throw in more of their own troops, the BCs are in serious trouble, whereas the GHs have much more staying power. Yes, I know, that is why BCs are called shock troops, but lets keep that in mind on both sides of the argument - Shock ability does not make a unit handsdown better.

what is all well and true , when you play with 1 BC unit . you spam them you play like orks [with +3 saves] you have a wall of 30+ BC giving cover to each other . even if an opponent survivs the tons of powerfists attacks [and normals] from one unit of BC , how many are there going to be left? 2 maybe 3 guys[if he had a 10 man squad] from the main one and 6/8 from the counter one [and counter units arent scoring most of the time ] while here its your turn again and your chargin in with your 20+ BC [thats not counting the obligatory GH you have to take or any WG termis or obel etc ] . BC are one of the few units that are troops and dont get tar pited by PMs [while having a lower cost too] .

 

A full squad of 10 Grey Hunters runs me around 220-230pts, a full squad of bloodclaws runs me 240-250, making them more expensive in my book. As for their higher number of bodies... I dont have any problems with my opponents wiping out my squads wholesale. That includes against eldar, tau, and Obliterator cults. Why? Because with Grey Hunters I can use ranged weaponry and cover to minimize my losses while still getting to use the points I paid every single turn. I cant do that with bloodclaws.

[

You're right, they don't lose "specials" when taking casualties, but remember that GHs get those specials and put them to good effect.

yes for 1 turn . after that the unit starts being less effective . BC can stay useful a lot longer then that for the same pts or less .

 

The loss of a single grey hunter is a far cry from making a unit inneffective and against anything that could kill a unit of Grey Hunters en masse would kill a unit of bloodclaws just as efficiently. When that kind of firepower is brought to bear 15/10 doesnt make much of a difference, and even if they kill only 10 of them *as per what it would take to kill a grey hunter squad* that leaves only five. Even if by a miracle no powerfists die the squad has indeed become significantly less effective and easier to kill off... such is the nature of being shot at.

 

Of course on the other coin for both units even a single marine can and will do quite a bit on the battlefield. A lone Grey Hunter with a powerfist once netted me with five vehicle KP's by smashing ork trucks and warbuggies. A single marine is far from ineffective, especially when its a space wolf.

 

 

I find their lack of range to be their downfall if they are not supported appropriately.

hmm I dont understand . they have the same range as double taping GH . same move speed and can take the same transports . how is their range different from GH . or are we speaking here about not moving GH shoting bolters at 24" because to actually destroy something with fire power like that one needs 4 or 5 GH squads . also smaller range is generally the problem of sw armies . thats why they run stuff like obel and drop pod dreads [and termis in the 4th]. that hasnt changed . without playable hvy support it cant be different.

 

Without playable heavy support my rear end. Predators, whirlwinds, vindicators, long fangs... we have everything the marines have with the exception of sterngaurd. If your talking about the lack of a heavy weapon in the squad? Id never use it, my squads tend to remain mobile unless holding a building/objective. Besides the other options available to use *at a discount Ill note* more than make up for it. Problem is that Bloodclaws not only dont have as much access to these upgrades they also cant make good use of them compared to a Grey Hunter pack. BS 3 means that the ranged weapons are *and I hate statistics* 16.5% less likely to hit each and every time. WS 3 means they are more likely to die before getting power fist attacks off. Theres a reason they are three points cheaper.

 

ve heard the frustration over it but I could deal with it personall

with the frustration or the rule. I personally had problems with undieing wright lords [x3] and an avatar[x1] that were killing my fist guys [and without fist there was no way of killing eldar dreadnoughts] while dark reapers wipe any visible hvy support or tank end turn 2 . stuff made me switch to nids .

 

With the Frustration. For every tactic that let you kill someone off there was a tactic to save your rear. I took the time to find those tactics and made the best of it. My play record in 3rd ed was good, even against the vets in my area... and I see nothing changes that hear. Nor did I have a problem with nids.... so I dont get the switch but if you were happy with it, more power to you.

 

I received rhino rush in 3rd edition, I took it, and I didnt see the cheese.

ah yes of course . am not saying cheez , because there isnt a lot of stuff in w40k that could be called that , I mean stupid mechanic that warps the play field . But you did play SW an army that was tooled for hth and that run 4/5 rhinos full of assault troops that was on top of any army turn 2 . Before armored company was given to the IG they werent very happy gamers .

I didnt play space wolves in 3rd until the last few months. Then when fourth ed came out I Switched back to my eldar again. 3rd ed armies for me were Eldar and briefly tyranid gaunt swarms. I took rhino rushes to the face, with 12" guns, and didnt see the problem.

 

I wont stoop to it, and if the game ever did break to that level I wouldnt see the point in playing.

cash , prizes , FW stuff , being able to pay for gas that brought me to a tournament . I see many reasones to do everything on a tournament to not walk out with less money , then I went in.

 

And I say that if people are poor enough generals that they have to rely on abusing rules that were made for ease and fun of play that they deserve to go home with less money than they came in. I take pride in being able to send them packing from the table tops and come out ahead of them with balanced lists that use such cheese tactics. I dont call cheese often, but overlapping cover is certainly it.

 

 

But, back to the point. Bloodclaws are simply one dimensional. I take troops choices for their tactical flexability. After all I never know what Ill be facing. I can make a set of Grey Hunter squads to cover everything I might end up facing and I simply dont have that ability with Bloodclaws. Bloodclaws dont have the staying power of Grey Hunters no matter what mathhammer might say. Emperical evidence gives me little reason to take them in 2/3 fights. Much like in the fluff in a SW army bloodclaws are there for one reason only- To die.

[Bradskey]

wow, funny this has turned into a "Do Blood Claws Suck?" post :rolleyes:

[Grey Mage]

Beg yer pardon? No, the current debat is wether or not bloodclaw "spamming" is a viable option and/or more effective for its points costs. Ive never said bloodclaws sucked... just that they were fairly one dimensional. They are very good at what they do, when they do it- they are shock troops. For everything else there is Grey Hunters.

[Bradskey]

Beg yer pardon? No, the current debat is wether or not bloodclaw "spamming" is a viable option and/or more effective for its points costs. Ive never said bloodclaws sucked... just that they were fairly one dimensional. They are very good at what they do, when they do it- they are shock troops. For everything else there is Grey Hunters.

 

In all politeness, the current topic should not be on Blood Claws. It should be about whether you should give your troops bolters. Could we close this off-topic conversation please?

[Battle-Brother Wags]

In all politeness, the current topic should not be on Blood Claws. It should be about whether you should give your troops bolters. Could we close this off-topic conversation please?

 

Is there an aspect of the to-bolter or not-to-bolter discussion that has not been probed through the discussion involving Blood Claws? The reason that the discussion went to Blood Claws is that if you take a Grey Hunter's bolter away (using the presupposition that many of us have that a Grey Hunter should always be toting one in the first place), then you might as well use Blood Claws. If all you're looking for is a close combat (single focus) juggernaut unit, Blood Claws trump Grey Hunters. So I'm sure you can see how it devolves into Grey Hunters w/ Bolter vs. Blood Claws in their short-toothy 'zerker goodness.

 

But here is a summary of how I see the the issue for you, Bradskey. Let us return to your first post in order to do so:

 

Well, since you cannot fire and charge with bolters, is it any point to even spend the extra points on bolters. I just think that Grey hunters and Blood Claws are combat specialists and don't see the point in being able to deny them that.

 

I think the difference in my estimation of our troop choices and yours is this: You think GHs and BCs are both clost combat specialists. I see it differently. My perspective goes like this-

 

Blood Claws are close combat monsters.

Grey Hunters are general purpose monsters.

Still, they're both monsters.

 

Though Grey Hunters are viable for the purpose of getting into close combat, I believe the power of Grey Hunters is greatly reduced when limited to only that role. That is why I think you should leave the charge-em-in-straight-away tactic to the Blood Claws, who excel at close combat and nothing else. Grey Hunters have some of the best mid and short range firepower of any marine troop choice. And they have the close combat ability (thanks to True Grit w/ bolters) that the enemy has to choose whether to get into a firefight with the GHs that they will have a great chance of losing, or get into a fist fight with the GHs which, again, they have a great chance of losing. GHs with bolters means that the enemy can't just stay out of charge range and be safe. This means that GHs w/ bolters are much better at holding objectives and in any situation like objective holding where they need to form a defensive front. They can punish the enemy on the way in then finish them off in CC.

 

Its not really a complex or involved reason, but I and many others find it to be overwhelmingly compelling.

 

There you have it. Others feel free to add, but remember to keep it on topic ;-)

[Grey Mage]

Beg yer pardon? No, the current debat is wether or not bloodclaw "spamming" is a viable option and/or more effective for its points costs. Ive never said bloodclaws sucked... just that they were fairly one dimensional. They are very good at what they do, when they do it- they are shock troops. For everything else there is Grey Hunters.

 

In all politeness, the current topic should not be on Blood Claws. It should be about whether you should give your troops bolters. Could we close this off-topic conversation please?

 

As Wags noted the topic of bloodclaws and grey hunters isnt an irrelevent conversation. Bloodclaws can only have bolt pistols and are good at CC, thus they are a good example of the use of pistols. Grey Hunters can have bolters, and so the relative strengths of them do come into play.

 

My question for you is have we answered your question or do you have more? If so, what are they?

[Lord Howland Greywolf]

Blood claws in a LRC are the ultimate linebreaker units. There is nothing more satisfing than watching your enimies firebase get drownd in a wave of chainswords, bad haircuts and ale fumes. Grey hunters on the other hand are the greatist objective takers/holders in the game. The only way to get them off one is eather mass firepower, which isnt good becouse the rest of the army requirs attention. Short range firepower, which they can survive and excel at. Or close combat, which means charging them and we all know that you never charge grey hunters unless you know you can beat them or you are desperate.

[the jeske]

. Again, to the argument that there is no reason to field GHs because BCs can do it all. I'm simply saying that no, BCs cannot do it all and there IS a good reason to take GHs

.

my argument was that the BC spam list with the LoS rules we have now and the games played at 1750-1850 pts , the BC spam build is superior to the mecha build out GH . GH are like a different of sob , reallying on double taping and taking a charge , where sw counter attack rules give them the edge . now if there were the only hth army in w40k it would be ok [specially as the fear of your opponent just not charging is rather slim with the death of the gunline list ] .

 

No unit, GH, BC, or whatever, can be expected to be 100% effective every turn.

yes but BC stay effective longer .

 

Why? Because with Grey Hunters I can use ranged weaponry and cover to minimize my losses while still getting to use the points I paid every single turn. I cant do that with bloodclaws.

am having problems imagining how can a BC army totally lose all cover . unless its some special weapon rules , like hellfire shell mortars of something.

I took the time to find those tactics and made the best of it. My play record in 3rd ed was good, even against the vets in my area... and I see nothing changes that hear

yes totally 3e was the era of tactics for SW . Like 2ed . drive 5 rhinos , jump out charge . consolidate . and 90% of the play field [and all sm armies] were weaker in hth then SW .

on nids sucking or rather being hard to play in 3e , yeah they were hard to play.

 

Predators, whirlwinds, vindicators, long fangs... we have everything the marines have with the exception of sterngaurd. If your talking about the lack of a heavy weapon in the squad?

nope hvy support . you ahve drop pod dreads and obel scouts [and the BC spam list will play them too] and attack bikes . long fangs are too small for any serious games and the only usable pred at the pts from the codex sm is the dakka pred [so more anti horde] . whirlwind is anti horde too and while nice and useful for a GH based list [lower numbers then even sm , realliance on double taping , flamers not being the choice for GH [and lack of any other unit that could deliver it] , but the BC build needs less anti horde as its a very efficient against horde . what doesnt mean it doesnt run any anti horde meta , the flamer on dreads are still there . BC run around with flamers too as giving them melta or plasma with bs3 isnt the best option .

 

The loss of a single grey hunter is a far cry from making a unit inneffective and against anything that could kill a unit of Grey Hunters en masse would kill a unit of bloodclaws just as efficiently.

ok . whats the size of a generally used GH units and number of choices it carries [7/8 man and fist/weapon , WG , plasma gun guy . pistols for drop poders ] the chance of one of those guys dieing and making the units less powerful is big . BC are run in 11 /12 man squads with WG and 3 weapons /fist . less chance for them to die .

 

As a Nid player, Ive seen swarms of Genestealers and shooty MC's that would make the list scream.

 

As a Marine player three vindicators would find them dead rather shortly.... nothing to it. How can you miss 75 marines?

 

Daemons.... with no shooting at all some soulgrinders and some Bloodletters would make mincemeat of them.

play a few test games and then check if something works or not . I havent seen many all comers list playing 3 vindicators .

[WG Vrox]

I have never ran a GH squad with all bolters, I always give a BP to my GH with the PW for the extra attack on Charge and CC. At least 1 GH has a PP and usually any pack that has over 6 GH has 2PP. I guess what I am getting at is a mix of weapon types is what works best for me, 4 or 5 BG couple of BP for PW and the PP guys. This combo has been very successful for me and very versital.

 

WG Vrox

[Grey Mage]

play a few test games and then check if something works or not . I havent seen many all comers list playing 3 vindicators .

 

Then you should show up on the board more often, Wolf89 is just over the moon for the things.

 

As for 3rd ed, read the post jeske.... like I said, I skipped that in SW's, played eldar, and I took the rhino rush and won. It wasnt powerful, it was simplistic and people didnt take the time to figure out how to kill it.

 

Bloodclaw "swarms" win for the same reason, people dont know how to kill it and havent taken the time. Same reason Wraithlords have been feared so long. Theres a way to kill anything and everything, the only question being are you smart enough to do it.

 

But what it really boils down to with me is this: Bloodclaws are one dimensional. I charge, either I win or lose, and then I try to do it again. They just dont have the tactical options available them that Grey Hunters do. I wont sully myself by abusing the rules set, so their survivability is only as good as any other marine out there. And I win.... so I cant be doing everything wrong.

 

I dont need any extra "edge" with grey hunters. They make their own edges. I give most of them bolters, and they get the job done for me.

 

In 3rd ed, and fourth ed for that matter the scariest armies I saw between 1500 and 2000pts had 6 full tactical squads of vanillar or chaos marines. It wasnt because of any fancy cover rules, nor was it because of four attack on the charge 11!!1, it was because they could affect anything I threw at them.

 

And thats why I use Grey Hunters.

[Battle-Brother Wags]

yes but BC stay effective longer.

 

I don't think I would agree with that statement. GHs in Rhino move forward and pop smoke. If the enemy deployed at the front of his deployment zone, or if they had first turn and moved toward you, with the disembark move, you can probably unload and rapid fire turn one. You should be disembarking and rapidfiring by turn 2 at the latest, and whether through shooting or through close combat, remain effective for the rest of the game. Blood Claw hordes that screen each other, as per the situation you were talking about, unless I'm misunderstanding you, will be footslogging . . . need i say more about the turn by turn effectiveness of that strategy? And even if they are mounted, they will become effective one turn later than GHs because their first turn shooting out of the Rhino can't really be considered "effective" and the only time they are any better than GHs in the first place is when they are actively getting a charge bonus. Any other time, they are notably worse in CC than GHs.

 

am having problems imagining how can a BC army totally lose all cover . unless its some special weapon rules , like hellfire shell mortars of something.

 

My comment concerning GHs utilizing cover was in the context of them holding an objective. They can utliize the cover that many objectives are placed in and still be effective in an aggressive offensive manner with their range. BCs generally will not be able to utilize any cover because they will have to leave it in order to go after the opponent. Either that, or they have no choice but to hunker down and how they don't die from enemy ranged fire before the end of the game.