Treatise on War

[DV8]

INTRODUCTION

 

There are good players and there are bad players. Let’s not sugar-coat that fact, ladies and gentlemen, because you see it all around you. You see it when people are repeatedly asking about what units or armies to field against whatever army they are currently having a problem against (and unfortunately you see the same people cropping up again), and you see it when others try to give advice, but give it poorly. And it is perpetuated, unfortunately, by people who read elsewhere of what units to use, and spread that knowledge without really understand why.

 

 

A WORD OF WARNING

 

I have no interest in helping you win games. Winning in and of itself is of supreme unimportance. What I am interested in is arming you with the tools and the knowledge that when you play games, you can win on your own. And this will be as a result of a broader understanding of a lot of principles of war that can be applied not only in war gaming, but in life as well. And so armed you will take to the field of battle with far greater confidence than you would have had without it, playing the game at a level beyond most others.

 

To that end, this is not a “tactica” on what units to field, what units to not field, or in whatever combination. While I may use various combinations or examples of units to outline general or specific principles, it is solely for that purpose, and not to say “these combinations and these select units will lead you to victory.” This is also not a math-hammer guide. I am no good at math, neither do I care for the statistical analysis of the probability and outcome of the performance of units against other units. While math-hammer as a general basis allows for a broad estimation of the expected performance of a unit, alas it functions in a vacuum and can’t be used as a reasonable estimation of a unit’s expected performance. That relies entirely on your experience and skill, the ability to take advantage of a unit’s strengths while minimizing its weaknesses.

 

 

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

- Sun Tzu

 

There is the old saying that knowing is half the battle. But what does it truly mean to know? To me there is always a distinct difference between knowledge and wisdom, the idea of simply “knowing” something because one has seen/heard/read/been told about it, and the idea that one can then understand that knowledge, and apply it to the appropriate situations. This is the difference between simple factual knowing, that rote memorization of some fact or truth, and the application of that fact/truth.

 

And this is no different in Warhammer, where you must know not only what your own army is capable of, but what the enemy is capable of as well. A large part of it is simply doing the necessary research to understand the aspects and capabilities of each army, to break each army and unit down into strengths and weaknesses to give you a broader understanding of your own tools, and what tools the enemy has at their disposal.

 

How does one do this? One step at a time, and of course it will be difficult at first. I’ve found the easiest way is to simply pick up the Codex and learn it cover to cover. I look at the available units and attempt to build army lists based on what I think would be effective and synergetic, and in so doing I learn what the army can really do. It doesn’t mean I’ll build the army, but it is the quickest way to learn about an army, and this is made easier if you have a local gaming store or Games Workshop that has store copies of each Codex, allowing you to peruse them while at the store.

 

Alternatively or additionally, simply browsing various forums (particularly ones that support their respective armies) and reading about how people build their various armies, the kind of lists they take, the tactics they use and the tactics others use to counter them, will give you a broad foundation before you ever have to pick up a Codex.

 

Finally, do battle against them. There is no greater teacher than personal experience, and the more you play against an army, the more familiar you become with its playstyle.

 

No matter how you do it, never forget that learning is a lifetime process, and that this kind of analysis and research should be continuous and unending. So long as you feel driven to improve your ability as a gamer, to maintain that competitive edge, you will never stop learning about the enemy (even armies you thought you knew).

 

 

CULTIVATE A STRONG MENTAL ATTITUDE

 

First and foremost, never accept defeat as a possibility. The moment you allow your mind to accept defeat, you’ve already lost. We have all heard it said that “It ain’t over till it’s over”. The problem isn’t that defeat is a bad thing (everyone will lose at many points in their lives), but the attitude that follows from accepting pre-mature defeat. A defeatist attitude is lax, weak, lazy, and indifferent. The mind stops caring because it’s decided that there is no point, if defeat is inevitable then no amount of effort will change the outcome.

 

And that is exactly what will kill you, destroy you, lead you to ruin. Instead of focusing on what you have lost and how you will have to go without it, focus on how to make do and continue with what you have left. Maintain that positive attitude and keep your mind always churning, always thinking. This is what separates the bad people from the good, and the good from the great. Attitude.

 

Never stop thinking, and never approach the same situation from the same direction. Think laterally, outside the box, from the other perspective. A good practice I have taken up over the years is to play my opponent’s turn in my head. That is to say, when they take their turn, I put myself in their shoes and think what I would do, where I would move, what I would shoot, and what I would charge. I evaluate the probable outcomes and how that would affect my overall strategy, and how I would react accordingly. I compare this to what my opponent actually does and determine how I will respond. This is a great benefit because it allows me to not only identify the flaws in my battle plan, in the current positioning and placement of my units, but how my opponent can counter it, and how I can begin to counter his potential counters.

 

 

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

 

"Without constant practice, the officers will be nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant practice, the general will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand."

- Sun Tzu

 

Above all other concepts and theories, there is no greater teacher than experience. And the only way to gain more experience is to get out there and do it, whatever it may be. So don’t bother “perfecting” your army, your strategy, your mind, your knowledge base, etc. before you start playing. Just take what you have and get out there. After all, what’s the worst that can happen, you lose a game or two? Just pick yourself back up and jump back into the fray.

 

While I have learned a lot from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, among other prominent articles, writings, tactical journals, etc., the greatest teacher I have had is experience. In my 13 years of gaming I have averaged two to three games a week, continuously. And there is no substitute for this kind of practical, applied learning. And by constantly challenging those of equal or greater skill than myself, I accelerated my learning process, constantly forcing myself to learn quickly, and to quickly apply what I learned.

 

 

WHY HERE, WHY NOW?

 

Over the years, I have seen far too many players approach this game in so many ways that inevitably lead to failure. They’re looking for the win, but won’t work for it, seeking instead the quick fix bandaid solutions. They shirk the advice of veterans, they approach the game single-mindedly, and are so distracted by the “shiny” that they completely overlook the principles that would make them better players in the long run. I feel given my experience, that putting together such a compilation can help others think of new ways to approach the way they play the game, and give newer players a far broader knowledge base than what I started with, giving them a head-start on their years of gaming ahead of them.

 

I also know a topic like this would be of (typically) greater benefit in a more general section (one would assume so at any rate), but there are a few reasons I post it here in the Space Wolves section.

 

1. It has, as far as I can tell, one of the highest traffic areas of this forum, and thus should receive relatively high traffic

2. The browsers and posters here, from my personal experience, have been the most open-minded and receptive people I’ve seen, and I feel would generate the most fruitful discussion

3. For selfish reasons, I want to see if nothing else, all Space Wolf players excel on the field of battle (and thus this treatise is skewed towards Space Wolf players). Representing the greatest Chapter in the Imperium, we need to stick together to see each other succeed in honor and glory on the field of battle

 

I also want this to become a living document. I know there are others on here who have this kind of experience, and I want to encourage an open Q&A where, rather than the plethora of “how do I use X unit” or “how do I beat Y unit” threads, players can postulate and discuss tactical theories and stratagems; where players don’t just get advice on their existing armies, but on how to build better armies to begin with.

 

As I mentioned already, one thing I want to avoid is a narrow-minded focus on using specific units to counter specific enemy units, but more a principle approach on why these units work so well, and how that kind of knowledge can be applied in a big picture schema.

 

THE APPROACH

 

“Know your army, inside and out. Let nothing of your own force be unknown to you.”

 

This game all begins with the armies and its constituent units. And every unit brings something different and unique to the table, a resume of assets that you can use, and weaknesses that you must account for. And you can break them down into a few broad categories that define their roles, and how they perform those roles within your army. Being able to identify how these units will function within your army is a huge advantage that allows you to more clearly establish a strategy and plan of attack for each game quickly and efficiently, in large part because a lot of that planning has been done when you build your army!

 

The first two categories you can divide units into are the hammer and anvil units. Anvil units are those that don’t necessarily have huge damage output, but are the units you use to soak up hits to allow your hammer units, who have the high damage output but can’t really take that many hits, to deal the death blow to the enemy. A balanced and effective army will have a relatively even distribution of hammer and anvil units, whereby the anvil can last long enough for the hammer to deal the damage necessary to win the game.

 

This is crucial because it determines how aggressive or defensive you need to be with your units, and is also an indicator of how you should be using units. Using the proper tools for the job is essential for your army to perform at optimum efficiency.

 

Units can be divided into three broad roles:

 

Anti-infantry – dealing with enemy infantry of any variety

Anti-armor – dealing with enemy vehicles of any variety

Anti-monster – dealing with enemy monstrous creatures of any variety

 

It is more than likely that units will be able to perform a number of these roles on the battlefield, but on paper (that is, when you write and build your army list) you want a (comparatively) even distribution of units capable of handling these roles.

 

You also need to evaluate the maneuverability of the units in your army, and how mobile or static they can or must remain in order to perform their roles. A Grey Hunter pack is moderately mobile, made more so by an appropriate transport, while a Long Fangs pack is static, as an example. This evaluation becomes crucial when you determine how your units perform, because it affects your overall strategy and how the army plays on the table. A relatively mobile army is a thing of fluid beauty, weaving around on the battlefield and making surgical strikes at key positions, while a static army is a devastating hammer that smashes the enemy into submission. An army with a balance of mobile and static units can drive the enemy into position before landing the hammer-blow with its static support units.

 

This leads me to the final categorical distribution, that is, aggressive forward elements, and support elements. Your army needs to work in concert, and this is only achieved of your units can stick together (much like a wolf pack) to achieve their goals. What this means for you is that the various aspects and elements of your army need to keep pace with each other. If you have several packs of Grey Hunters and Blood Claws advancing on the field, they all need to be moving at the same speed, either on foot or in transports. If you have highly mobile forward elements advancing, the support elements need the ability to reposition just as quickly without seriously compromising their ability to perform their primary function as support. Mobile, transport mounted packs, as an example, are best supported with mobile elements like Land Speeders, Dreadnoughts and Predators.

 

Realize that, while on paper units will be divided into various categories and placed in various functions, on the battlefield, as you remove enemy units and lose units of your own, that said unit categories and functions may change dependent on what you have left, what you have to kill, etc.

 

 

THE WOLVES OF FENRIS

 

I have written on this before, but for the sake of completeness I shall re-iterate it here once again.

 

Codex: Space Wolves was designed for efficiency. No matter how you try to argue it, that is their key tenet. You can try to argue that Space Wolf units are versatile or flexible (ie Grey Hunters being good at shooting and assault, etc.), and you would be wrong. On an individual level Space Wolf units are incredibly inflexible, because their units are stream-lined and geared for one particular purpose, a purpose they will excel at. But that is their greatest strength, because each unit serves a purpose. It fulfills one function, it excels at it, it exists for that purpose alone, and it is in this narrow path that the Space Wolf army as a whole becomes versatile, flexible. Each unit is efficient because you pay marginally fewer points on units to fulfill whatever function they exist for, and you aren't wasting points on anything else. You don't struggle with wasting points on un-used gear, you don't struggle with thinking...do I want this unit to stand still and fire its heavy weapon, or move up and use its special weapon or engage in combat? You don't have to worry if you want your character around to buff your army, or get him up into combat where he truly excels. Space Wolf units are efficient to the extreme, and when you incorporate a harmonious balance of units in your army, when you capitalize on the synergy to be found combining ranged units with close range units, you have an army that is capable of doing whatever you ask of it.

 

What this all means is that a Space Wolf player must take the time to think about and understand the role each of their units plays, more so than any other Space Marine player. Space Wolf units have great strengths and weaknesses, some are evident, some are not. But this understanding is crucial because it allows the Space Wolf player to more readily approach a situation, quickly identifying what objectives need to be accomplished, and already knowing which units they will use to accomplish those objectives.

 

 

IT’S ALL GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN

 

“In warfare, first lay plans which will ensure victory, and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone, victory will no longer be assured.”

- Ho Shih

 

The ability to think ahead - to predict, foresee, and plan for future events - is one of the greatest assets a successful person will have. And not only to plan, but to adapt that plan as events unfold. And it all begins the moment you begin writing your army list. Using the categories above, you begin accounting for the various roles you need performed, and incorporate units into your army based on how they perform that role, and how they mesh with the rest of your army.

 

Do not be mistaken, however, to think that I mean you build in specific counters to specific enemy units (although that can be a catalyst). At this point your plan needs to be on a broad scope, and you cannot be so narrow minded as to say unit X will be my counter to enemy unit Y. There is no doubt that certain units will be more effective against others, but what use is there of even accounting for that specific eventuality when you don’t even know if you’re facing that particular enemy yet! Doing so backs you into a corner where you compromise overall effectiveness for effectiveness against a specific target (or targets).

 

Rather instead, as you build and expand your army, determine what you need your army to accomplish. Do you need fast counter-attack units that can respond quickly to enemy movements? Do you need aggressive forward elements to take the fight to the enemy early in and keep the pressure on them? What about resilient objective holders? Do you struggle against a particular unit type (for example, heavy “cavalry” like Nob Bikers, Bloodcrushers or Thunderwolves, or “monstrous creatures” like Daemon Princes, C’tan, or Hive Tyrants)? Isolate what your army needs, where it struggles, where it excels, and then identify what units you can remove, and what units you need to fill in, to balance out those deficiencies.

 

 

DISCUSSION AND Q&A

 

I could go on and on, but like I mentioned, I want this to be a living document, something that grows and expands as more and more people contribute and generate discussion. And a large part of my goal here (to make you better players) requires the building of a strong foundation.

 

So taking what I have expounded on above, I think a good starting point is to simply look at the units available not only to Space Wolves, but to any army in the game. To identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to analyze and understand the role they play in the army they belong to. And from there hopefully we can build a communal mentorship group, where players can collectively come here, post their questions, and receive the guidance and knowledge of more experienced players, moving beyond simply saying which units to use, but to explain why.

 

 

DV8

[DV8]

ARMY ANALYSIS

 

A great exercise too that can be greatly beneficial is the analysis of another person's army. Understanding why they field the units they do, and how they use them, will allow you to take their experience (reflected in their army) without you having to do a great deal of the legwork to reach that point. To wit, here is my current 1500 point Space Wolf army. While I am in no way forcing you to, I would encourage you to analyze and think about why I field the units I do, how I may be using them, and what purposes/roles they play in my army.

 

HQ // Rune Priest: 105 pts

- Jaws of the World Wolf, Murderous Hurricane

- Bolter, Meltabombs

 

HQ // Rune Priest: 105 pts

- Jaws of the World Wolf, Stormcaller

- Bolt Pistol, Meltabombs

 

Elites // 4 Wolf Guard: 177 pts

- 3 Power Fists, 3 Combi-Flamers

- Power Fist, Combi-Melta, Meltabombs

 

Elites // 5 Wolf Scouts: 100 pts

- Power Weapon, Meltagun

 

Troops // 8 Grey Hunters: 160 pts

- Meltagun, Rhino

 

Troops // 8 Grey Hunters: 160 pts

- Meltagun, Rhino

 

Troops // 9 Grey Hunters: 175 pts

- Meltagun, Rhino

 

Troops // 10 Grey Hunters: 190 pts

- 2 Meltaguns, Drop Pod

 

Fast Attack // Land Speeder Tornado: 70 pts

- Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer

 

Fast Attack // Land Speeder Tornado: 70 pts

- Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer

 

Fast Attack // 2 Land Speeder Typhoons: 180 pts

 

 

DV8

[slmellon]

As an inexperienced player, I appreciate it when veterans take their time to sit down and help. I am in the process of revamping my army to be a more rounded player, and have sought and received much guidance from my fellow Wolves.

 

As for the list, It seems very well rounded for either anit armor or anti troop depending on what your opponent is fielding. I am no veteran, so may be completely off, but I would think the Land Speeders are flanking units used to support the movement of your rhinos, or to shoot out and surgically strike that one juicy target. I have a single droppod unit in my list and am not sure how to employ it. I guess it will depend on my opponents deployment. Your lists makes me want to go out and buy some more Land Speeders (I only have one) but the load outs you have make me think they can be very useful, if positioned correctly.

[Brother Caleb]

Great post. While you said you prefer a broader analytical method, I would like to see you bring your framework to bear on some of our units. Whether you do so or not, me and the rest of the bloodclaws will benefit from further instruction.

[the jeske]

odd enviroment with few eldar or IG that must be. high on meq armies and by gods nids 0_o or pms/nurgle demon builds. most of the tables must have either w40k terrain build or city fight terrain because with woods WFB buildings the land speeders would be too few to give enough covering fire.

 

lack of chooser means either that no infiltration builds were present or they did exist got gimped by dual chooser and people stoped playing them . the use of melta/combi flamer that I realy dont like means some huge hate on nid or nid class armies[and probably lack of other ultra grit builds or at least them not dominating normal meq builds . same with the lack of power weapons in GH squads looks like having a fist and RP is enough to break other squads].

[Hazelnut]

Very interesting read. I concur with Brother Caleb, and would love to read an experienced players analysis of each Wolf unit's purpose.

 

"On an individual level Space Wolf units are incredibly inflexible, because their units are stream-lined and geared for one particular purpose, a purpose they will excel at. But that is their greatest strength, because each unit serves a purpose. It fulfills one function, it excels at it, it exists for that purpose alone, and it is in this narrow path that the Space Wolf army as a whole becomes versatile, flexible."

 

As a non-player with no experience, but a facination with the game and Space Wolves in general (due to my son starting to play them recently), I find that I can't divine each unit's purpose at all. Well, except for maybe drop pods - get a unit to where it needs to be and then sit there. ;)

 

An experienced players' perspective on this would be fascinating to read, although I can see that you're trying to get players to think this through themselves.

[Wysten]

Very riverting tale, while it may be board information, it is always useful to reflect on what makes a good player exceptional. An ability to plan ahead, experience and the ability to understand how everything interacts, in reaction to what stage the game is in, makes a bad player good, and eventrally a good player great.

 

 

As for the list, it looks like the designer had opted for a fairly upfront and aggressive list. the Scouts and Land Speeder Tornados to eliminate/weaken major threats to reduce the overall threat, or at least make it manageable for the bulk of the army to cross, in the scouts case, their role is to try and keep the foe away from the board edge which can make them closer to the bulk of the force in general. With the Typhoons using it's greater mobility when compared to the Long Fang to get side shots at armour.

 

Rune Priests main role is to line up and eliminate strings of foes with jaws, with one having murderious hurrincane to potencial slow down a foe that they don't want to be charged by, while the other has stormcaller to give the Rhinos and possible the tornados/Dismounted Grey Hunters a cover save so they can get up there. Their setup is designed to bring them within 24 inches or less, in keeping with the Grey Hunters overall range. They also sever as a leadership buffer and a passable combat unit in close combat, by that point they will have influenced the battle.

 

The Grey Hunters are designed to get close and use torrenting gun fire on units to bring them down quickly, the main difference being the drop pod being useable as cover, or to drop the hunters close so they can distract the foes forces from the bulk of the army to deal with this threat and quite possibly destory a tank. Generally though, the Grey Hunters serve as the line infantry men, speeding up in their transports before dropping off before the foe and torreting them. In the case this was unpreferable, they could use the Rhino's as a barricade of sorts to delay the advance of the foe once they had spead to favourable postions, though it is fairly clear that the bulk of the army wants to get close and overpower the foe with plenty of wounds on hard to budge +3 saves, be it through bolter or melee combat and have a fist in each squad to threaten unique charcters and steadily chew through squads.

 

They only take one of each main special weapon, 1 melta, one combi flamer with the exception of the Drop pod squad. This means that they can all have the ability to thin out hordes with a template and have the capability to damage armour with the meltagun but this also means that multiple grey hunter squads have to effectively conbinue meltaguns in order to reliably down a tank. This is migrated by Land Speeders, the pod and scouts being able to hit out with melta where needed and both weapons allow each Grey Hunter squad to have the tools to deal with both infantry and tank.

 

Overall, I percieve this list as fairly aggrassive as most of the army either deepstrikes to disrupt, or advances forwards to bring their firepower to bare due to the 24 general range of most units. Though once the grey hunters are in that range, they will shoot what fights, and fight what shoots. Every unit also has the ability to engage armour and infantry with a degree of effectiveness, Land Speeders can generally fire at both, Grey Hunters, while they prefer to shoot at infantry can engage armour for duelity and overall, the list wants to get across the board on those objectives, blast the foes using the specialised tool for each job and have the bravdo to challange them to a spot of fistycuffs due to their toughness..

 

 

Is my assessment accurate at all? XD

[JMac]

Thank you DV8, I appreciate your knowledge and will to forward it to others who need it, like myself.

 

Your army, as you mentioned before, is incredibly efficient. All units in your army are specifically geared for one role. Your landspeeders and GH in DP are your aggresive forward elements, while your GH in Rhinos are your support elements. With that said, you have made your units flexible so they can handle infantry or armor. This is to bring an efficient army to the table, one that could handle a heavy mechanized list, such as IG or Tau, and one that could handle a large infantry army, such as Orks or Tyranids.

 

The important thing about this list, in my eyes, is it's amount of mobility. There are no static units, everything will be on the move advancing on objectives or the enemy itself.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

THE WOLVES OF FENRIS

 

I have written on this before, but for the sake of completeness I shall re-iterate it here once again.

 

Codex: Space Wolves was designed for efficiency. No matter how you try to argue it, that is their key tenet. You can try to argue that Space Wolf units are versatile or flexible (ie Grey Hunters being good at shooting and assault, etc.), and you would be wrong. On an individual level Space Wolf units are incredibly inflexible, because their units are stream-lined and geared for one particular purpose, a purpose they will excel at. But that is their greatest strength, because each unit serves a purpose. It fulfills one function, it excels at it, it exists for that purpose alone, and it is in this narrow path that the Space Wolf army as a whole becomes versatile, flexible. Each unit is efficient because you pay marginally fewer points on units to fulfill whatever function they exist for, and you aren't wasting points on anything else. You don't struggle with wasting points on un-used gear, you don't struggle with thinking...do I want this unit to stand still and fire its heavy weapon, or move up and use its special weapon or engage in combat? You don't have to worry if you want your character around to buff your army, or get him up into combat where he truly excels. Space Wolf units are efficient to the extreme, and when you incorporate a harmonious balance of units in your army, when you capitalize on the synergy to be found combining ranged units with close range units, you have an army that is capable of doing whatever you ask of it.

 

DISCUSSION AND Q&A

I could go on and on, but like I mentioned, I want this to be a living document, something that grows and expands as more and more people contribute and generate discussion. And a large part of my goal here (to make you better players) requires the building of a strong foundation.

 

:)²

 

Wolf units are inflexible? :huh: If they are not, I'd like to see what you think is.

Greys can do everything besides being FAST. I think you are being over-zealous in trying to play up what you see as a Wolf strength. Wolves are incredibly flexible. The unit will be flexible irregardless of the points value that is ascribed to it. GW made a howler on the pointing of Fangs, Claws and Greys. It doesn't mean that the unit in anyway resembles those paragons of specialisation and therefore efficiency, Aspect warriors.

 

"I get 50 Greys for 50 points. They are really good at killing men. Therefore they are really efficient only at killing men."

No way.

They can still do it all, and just because they are a bargain and good at one role does not mean they cannot perform other roles almost, or as, well.

Melta guns, krak grenades and powerfists allow them to fight AV and even heavy-infantry well.

 

Fangs, when decked out with Missile launchers, can hammer anything barring AV14, and can frag hordes. How is that not flexibility? Because they cannot move and shoot? Wowee! Tough judge! Only a Rifleman Dread can do what they can AND be mobile yet the Fangs have a toughness due to being able to take cover and not get stunned/shaken into submission. So the Fangs trade modest movement for hardiness, but being tough is a fair swap for movement, which means Fangs are flexible.

 

TWC, can hammer poorly armoured infantry and AV via s10 thunder hammers and a melta bomb or two. They are fast and rugged when uniquely armed. How are they not flexible?

 

Rune Priests, offer psychic protection, have the always useful Living lightning [good against infantry and AV 10-12], have a secondary spell that can be unleashed at an optimum time, shoot from a Rhino, and boost the Greys leadership to 10 ~ making the squad dogged and almost always getting the counter-attack bonus. How is that not flexible?

 

Wolf Guard Terminators can be decked out for anti-infantry and anti tank, both in mêlée, short AND long ranged shooting, and are able to be uniquely armed. Whilst some people dislike shellingout for a Raider, you have that choice, whereas TWC can be killed at any stage of the game by small arms fire & heavy weapons.

 

+++

 

If you are looking to tell people the way it is, cool. But telling people that an integral characteristic of the best units, that is something that nearly all the gaming community can see is true, is not actually true and that "you would be wrong" is counter productive, especially in light of "more people contribute and generate discussion."

 

If you are telling people something is wrong, it had better be or you are souring those [veteran players] whom you seek to get into this mentorship cadre.

"Well I'd like to get alongside DV8 but not only is he saying something that is very opinionated AND not true, but he is pooh-poohing those who can actually see the truth and he is calling THEM WRONG?!"

 

Stelek dismisses things this but is 90% accurate [not saying 'best'] and yet people still get offended. You've said this and it is not accurate. Are you looking for discussion or you want to tell people how it is? Stelek is a champion gamer [not the best, mind you] and 'gets' 40K, yet people still can't handle his brand of medicine because it can come with a spoonful of lemon juice.

 

+++

 

I'd drop what you'd said. It is not true. Plus dismissing what others [nearly all the gaming community!] have said is a no-win for your mission of educating people.

 

I believe you'd rather me talk strongly to you and ruffle your feathers than nod my head and say "Yes DV8." I don't want to talk in circles with you so that no one 'gets offended' and we can 'both be right.'

 

Whether you follow my advice or not, I wish you good luck in your endeavour and am sure many will be blessed by it. :tu:

I watch with interest :)

[Blitzkrieg861]

Well I'm personally all for a long discussion on everything from vague philosophies to specific strategies regarding Space Wolves. I'm very new to Space Wolves and new to 40K in general. I played Codex: Space Marines initially for about 6 months at most I'd say but I had played Warhammer: Fantasy and I think that helped me out a fair amount. Anywho, my point is, all discussion is great so long as everyone keeps in mind that opinion is opinion. I look forward to being able to ask questions as I have plenty.

 

With that said, in the time I played C:SM I am inclined to say that Grey Hunters seem pretty versatile. You get Bolters, 2 Attacks minimum in Assaults and some good weapon upgrades. They have nothing long range really but all in all good choices I think for the points you spend. The 2 attacks alone literally doubles their chances in Assaults compared to Tactical Marines. I dunno, I think that's pretty strong considering they have enough ranged attacks to make infantry think twice about just walking at them.

[DV8]

Wolf units are inflexible? :D If they are not, I'd like to see what you think is.

Greys can do everything besides being FAST. I think you are being over-zealous in trying to play up what you see as a Wolf strength. Wolves are incredibly flexible. The unit will be flexible irregardless of the points value that is ascribed to it. GW made a howler on the pointing of Fangs, Claws and Greys. It doesn't mean that the unit in anyway resembles those paragons of specialisation and therefore efficiency, Aspect warriors.

 

Written in a context of comparing Marine armies to Marine armies, I stand by what I say. I don't disagree that to some extent, Space Wolf units (to a broad extent, most of them) CAN have a degree of flexibility and versatility (it's something I try and expound on in my list, and you have touched on a few key points that I will address further in), but it is not what I believe is the primary focus of the Space Wolf army and the units contained therein.

 

And I think a large part of this conflicting approaches and interpretations is simply a misunderstanding on how we each define what "being flexible/versatile" is. So I shall at least explain my reasonings and try and shed some light on why I stand by my exposition above.

 

I see a distinct difference between a unit's "function", and it's "flexibility/versatility", and though the two are not mutually exclusive (in fact, the two go hand in hand), the vast majority of Space Wolf units are limited in their flexibility, although their function (that is, the role they play in the army) is not limited in any way despite this, dependent on how said unit is actually equipped.

 

The options available to a vast majority of Space Wolf units is limited because they cant match up to their contemporaries in Codex: Space Marines. Take, for example, a Tactical Squad versus a Grey Hunter squad, to wit I will be using to outline "function" versus "flexibility/versatility".

 

Both units are capable of taking on the three primary targets available: infantry, armor, and monster. Both have a ready amount of means to do it with, via ranged and combat, but the difference therein is that the Tactical Squad packs a Heavy Weapon (without sacrificing the ability to ride in Rhinos or Razorbacks, and thereby not limiting their mobility). With special weapons and special close combat weapons, a Tactical Squad has a broader range of options to tackle their targets, be it long range, mid range, or up close and personal. Should the need be, a Tactical Squad can mount up in a transport and redeploy, or go grab an objective. That to me is the ability to fulfill a broad number of functions or roles, with extreme flexibility.

 

Contrast with a Grey Hunter pack, however. Without taking a Rune Priest or a Wolf Guard Pack Leader (for Living Lightning or in TDA with Cyclone/Assault Cannon), a Grey Hunter pack has no long ranged firepower to speak of. While with Frag, Krak and double the amount of special weapons, and the ability to pack lots of extra special close combat weapons in no way limits their ability to fulfill the same functions as a Tactical Squad (that is, combating infantry, monster or armor), their flexibility and/or versatility is limited because they must close to mid range or up close to get the job done. It doesn't matter what the enemy target is, the Grey Hunter pack must get up to one of two sweet spots: 12", for Rapid Firing and to soak a charge with Counter Attack, or 6" for pistol shot, followed by a charge.

 

The fact that you have to bring additional units to bolster a Grey Hunter squad to the point whereby they can get that same kind of flexibility that a Tactical Squad already has by default (and where taking a Rune Priest, if you want to remain mounted and thus mobile, costs more points and sacrifices a second special weapon, or if TDA Wolf Guard, again costs more points, and will need to be on foot, or in a Land Raider or Drop Pod if you want to remain mobile), reinforces two points that I still firmly believe is indicative of the Space Wolves army:

 

1. Their units can fulfill any number of functions and roles, but their flexibility (that is, their ability to achieve those functions/roles) is limited because the units are, by default, restricted

2. That synergistically, multiple Space Wolf units working in tandem can not only achieve the same flexibility that can be achieved with equivalent Space Marine units, but can exceed it because of the unique abilities each unit brings.

 

To expound on point two, pairing a Rune Priest to a Grey Hunter squad can not only potentially add long ranged firepower via Living Lightning, but Storm Caller creates instant cover saves, Murderous Hurricane makes them an incredible defensive unit, allowing them to slow down incoming enemy units and create buffer zones. Their Null Rods (or whatever they're called) create psychic buffer zones, allowing them to mitigate incoming enemy psykers, and their Force Weapons can bolster the unit and create a ready threat for medium-level characters and monsters.

 

On the note of Rune Priests, you will note that their function, with their powers, is to bolster the army. With such a broad range of powers that each serve a specific purpose, you can tailor their abilities to balance out deficiencies in your army, or to further reinforce what you want or need your units to do. It does not mean that their function is limited, but the loss of flexibility is that in some ways, using the Rune Priests abilities to buff up your army (to some degree to match the inherent flexibility in other units in Codex: Space Marines) means you give up an HQ slot (or more) as well as the points spent. However you gain much more than just matching their Space Marine counterparts.

 

This train of thought, when you carry it over to other units such as the ones you mentioned: Long Fangs, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Wolf Guard Terminators, remains true.

 

Long Fangs in many ways are actually superior to Devastators. Cheaper heavy weapons, and the ability to split fire, makes Long Fangs arguably the best infantry heavy weapons platform that Space Marines of any flavor have available, but the smaller squad cap and the fact that you can't take extra marines to soak up hits (every Long Fang has to have a heavy weapon, so a minimum of 5 points spent) means that Long Fangs are more fragile than their Devastator counter-parts. You can off-set this with an attached Wolf Guard pack leader and/or characters, but that's more points down the train to introduce an element that would have already been built into their Space Marine counterparts of the Devastating variety.

 

Thunderwolf Cavalry, again not confusing function with flexibility, can perform any number of functions to take out infantry, monsters, or armor, but the flexibility (or lack there-of) is that they have but one way to do it. Get up close and use Plasma Pistols and combat.

 

Wolf Guard Terminators are the duct tape of the Space Wolf army. Their sheer versatility in equipment and where you can put them and what they can do means you re-introduce a measure of flexibility to wherever you need it, but doing so (dependent on equipment) limits to ability of some units (WG in TDA limits the transport and thus mobility options of various units, as an example). And then you need to consider points cost, where you begin to pay a premium to reintroduce that kind of flexibility that other units already have built in, means that by default, Space Wolf units begin inflexible, but efficient. How you equip them beyond that point will dictate how flexible and how efficient they will continue to be.

 

To wit, take one of my Rhino-mounted Grey Hunter packs:

 

Wolf Guard, with Power Fist and Combi-Flamer: 43 pts

9 Grey Hunters, with Meltagun and Rhino: 175 pts

 

in comparison to:

 

10 Tactical Marines, with Power Fist, Combi-Flamer, Meltagun, Lascannon, in Rhino: 250 pts

 

Both are mobile, capable of dealing with enemy infantry, monster, and armor alike. They can thus fulfill the same functions, but the flexibility with which they perform that function is drastically different. Where the Tactical squad can stay at 48" to deal with armor or monsters (although with the latter, in support with the rest of the army to provide weight of fire), the Grey Hunters, to deal with said armor or monsters, must close to that 12" distance to get the same job done. You can change the make up of the Grey Hunter pack all you want, swapping the Meltagun for a Plasmagun, or dropping the Wolf Guard so a 10-strong pack of Grey Hunters can have two Plasmaguns or two Meltaguns, or add a Wolf Guard in TDA with Cyclones for range, but that doesn't change the fact that in the first few options, the Grey Hunters MUST close with the enemy to do the same job, and with the attached Wolf Guard, the Grey Hunters lose the mobility of a transport, and thus again limits their flexibility (although in some ways not as much since the unit can still move and fire the Cyclones, but at a slower speed of 6", thereby reducing the usage of the other close-ranged weapons in the unit.

 

If you are looking to tell people the way it is, cool. But telling people that an integral characteristic of the best units, that is something that nearly all the gaming community can see is true, is not actually true and that "you would be wrong" is counter productive, especially in light of "more people contribute and generate discussion."

 

It's not necessarily counter-productive. It is simply that we are both approaching the same book from different angles, with different personal understandings of, for example, the concepts of function and flexibility. I have defined them a certain way, and you are welcome to debate and reason with me. If you have a different opinion on the book, by all means share, I encourage it.

 

Like I said, I don't want to be the only "mentor" here. Everybody will approach things differently, and it's only with communication and explanation will a greater understanding be achieved, and all parties will walk away wiser for it.

 

I'd drop what you'd said. It is not true. Plus dismissing what others [nearly all the gaming community!] have said is a no-win for your mission of educating people.

 

I believe you'd rather me talk strongly to you and ruffle your feathers than nod my head and say "Yes DV8." I don't want to talk in circles with you so that no one 'gets offended' and we can 'both be right.'

 

Whether you follow my advice or not, I wish you good luck in your endeavour and am sure many will be blessed by it. :)

I watch with interest ;)

 

I stand by my statements, and I hope in this post I have explained with reason and clarity why I hold these understandings to be true in my eyes.

 

Great post. While you said you prefer a broader analytical method, I would like to see you bring your framework to bear on some of our units. Whether you do so or not, me and the rest of the bloodclaws will benefit from further instruction.

 

 

odd enviroment with few eldar or IG that must be. high on meq armies and by gods nids 0_o or pms/nurgle demon builds. most of the tables must have either w40k terrain build or city fight terrain because with woods WFB buildings the land speeders would be too few to give enough covering fire.

 

lack of chooser means either that no infiltration builds were present or they did exist got gimped by dual chooser and people stoped playing them . the use of melta/combi flamer that I realy dont like means some huge hate on nid or nid class armies[and probably lack of other ultra grit builds or at least them not dominating normal meq builds . same with the lack of power weapons in GH squads looks like having a fist and RP is enough to break other squads].

 

Actually apart from Eldar, I come up fairly regularly against every other opponent type, in both casual and competitive settings. The terrain type varies from 25% to 50% depending on what's available, but the key to remember is that I built this army with the pure intent of being able to take on anything I could expect to come up against, with a decent chance of winning. And I do this primarily with objectives. And focusing on objectives rather than just "killing the enemy" (even with Kill Points I focus more on Kill Point denial than I do actually killing the enemy) greatly changes the approach with which I used to build my army.

 

 

@Brother Caleb and Hazelnut

 

I would rather you try on your own to pick apart, as it were, various Space Wolf units and to post your thoughts here. This is purely as a mental exercise to get you thinking, and to not have all the thinking done for you by someone else (and I've already tried, using the above as a foundation, to get the ball rolling).

 

Very riverting tale, while it may be board information, it is always useful to reflect on what makes a good player exceptional. An ability to plan ahead, experience and the ability to understand how everything interacts, in reaction to what stage the game is in, makes a bad player good, and eventrally a good player great.

 

 

As for the list, it looks like the designer had opted for a fairly upfront and aggressive list. the Scouts and Land Speeder Tornados to eliminate/weaken major threats to reduce the overall threat, or at least make it manageable for the bulk of the army to cross, in the scouts case, their role is to try and keep the foe away from the board edge which can make them closer to the bulk of the force in general. With the Typhoons using it's greater mobility when compared to the Long Fang to get side shots at armour.

 

Rune Priests main role is to line up and eliminate strings of foes with jaws, with one having murderious hurrincane to potencial slow down a foe that they don't want to be charged by, while the other has stormcaller to give the Rhinos and possible the tornados/Dismounted Grey Hunters a cover save so they can get up there. Their setup is designed to bring them within 24 inches or less, in keeping with the Grey Hunters overall range. They also sever as a leadership buffer and a passable combat unit in close combat, by that point they will have influenced the battle.

 

The Grey Hunters are designed to get close and use torrenting gun fire on units to bring them down quickly, the main difference being the drop pod being useable as cover, or to drop the hunters close so they can distract the foes forces from the bulk of the army to deal with this threat and quite possibly destory a tank. Generally though, the Grey Hunters serve as the line infantry men, speeding up in their transports before dropping off before the foe and torreting them. In the case this was unpreferable, they could use the Rhino's as a barricade of sorts to delay the advance of the foe once they had spead to favourable postions, though it is fairly clear that the bulk of the army wants to get close and overpower the foe with plenty of wounds on hard to budge +3 saves, be it through bolter or melee combat and have a fist in each squad to threaten unique charcters and steadily chew through squads.

 

They only take one of each main special weapon, 1 melta, one combi flamer with the exception of the Drop pod squad. This means that they can all have the ability to thin out hordes with a template and have the capability to damage armour with the meltagun but this also means that multiple grey hunter squads have to effectively conbinue meltaguns in order to reliably down a tank. This is migrated by Land Speeders, the pod and scouts being able to hit out with melta where needed and both weapons allow each Grey Hunter squad to have the tools to deal with both infantry and tank.

 

Overall, I percieve this list as fairly aggrassive as most of the army either deepstrikes to disrupt, or advances forwards to bring their firepower to bare due to the 24 general range of most units. Though once the grey hunters are in that range, they will shoot what fights, and fight what shoots. Every unit also has the ability to engage armour and infantry with a degree of effectiveness, Land Speeders can generally fire at both, Grey Hunters, while they prefer to shoot at infantry can engage armour for duelity and overall, the list wants to get across the board on those objectives, blast the foes using the specialised tool for each job and have the bravdo to challange them to a spot of fistycuffs due to their toughness..

 

 

Is my assessment accurate at all? XD

 

Actually you're very spot on with your observations. As I mentioned above, I focus more on the objectives (and Kill Points denial over racking up every available Kill Point) and this skews the way I build my armies.

 

The Grey Hunter packs are equipped to deal with anything across the board, be it infantry (with Bolters and the in-a-pinch Combi-Flamer), armor/monsters (with the Meltagun and Power Fist/Kraks). Can my one Grey Hunter squad tackle everything single-handedly? Of course not. But with the mobility that my army as a whole has, I can pick and choose my fights, and more often than not I find I am engaging a smaller portion of my enemy with almost the entirety of my army, allowing me to saturate fire, wipe a target off the board, and slowly flank an enemy. As an example, using Typhoons to pick off wounds from a Monstrous Creature before I charge in to finish the job.

 

This does mean that on occasion a tactical error will see my squads decimated simply because they can't do enough damage to kill a certain target before it kills me (re: Mephiston), but I tend to learn quickly from those mistakes. The list also sees tweaks every now and then when I find or notice deficiencies in the army. For example, instead of the power load-out I have now, I used to have:

 

Rune Priest with Living Lightning, Jaws, Chooser

Rune Priest with Living Lightning, Murderous Hurricane, Chooser

 

But I found over time that I struggled taking out Monstrous Creatures, but that I didn't need the Living Lightning as much (it's over-all effectiveness in conjunction with the way I play the army meant I was not using it as much as I would have liked), so I swapped the power load out around, allowing me to more readily handle Monstrous Creatures, as well as take pot shots at knocking out say, hidden Power Fists, minimizing the threat of larger units (like a mob of Orks).

 

The important thing about this list, in my eyes, is it's amount of mobility. There are no static units, everything will be on the move advancing on objectives or the enemy itself.

 

Bingo. It doesn't bother me at all either that the majority of my armor is AV11 or AV10, because with cover, Stormcaller, and Smoke Launchers, and the sheer aggressiveness with which I play the army, limits both my opponents options (because he has far too many threats/targets to deal with) and ensures the survival of my army. Usually...sometimes things just go very very wrong...

 

 

DV8

[Void Master]

While I don't have time to comment on everything here or, at the moment, even post my own opinion because I should in fact be studying, I'd like to make a point regarding your use of "flexibility" versus "function".

 

There is more than one kind of flexibility, and you're sort of not taking that into account when saying that a unit isn't flexible. A unit that can fulfill a number of battlefield objectives well is, by definition, flexible because it can be used for more than one thing. Grey hunters with two meltaguns can quite reliably take out enemy armour up close, they are just as mobile as a tactical squad, much better in combat than a tactical marine squad and they are quite capable of dealing with enemy infantry thanks to their bolters. Their counter charge ensures that you can position them in front of a unit that's about to charge you, and then rapid fire, without the need to get the charge. This will kill more models than pistols, possibly force a morale check, and most likely won't cost you the bonus for charging either. That IS flexible in my book.

 

The only thing they lack is the ability to sit back and shoot one high strength weapon, which wastes the whole squad's bolters. A tactical squad cannot reliably get up close and be expected to hold their own as grey hunters can. A tactical squad with a lascannon isn't even particularly reliable when it comes to taking out enemy armour from afar. Their likelihood of doing any damage against even a rhino in cover is 2/9. Grey hunters up close can use their meltaguns, and if that fails, they can charge in with krak grenades. Tacticals can also not do much against land raiders, but two meltas up close against an LR is a whole different story. Grey hunters don't have a lot of different ways of approaching the variety of roles they can fulfil (they have to get up close doing them) but effectively they can do anything a tactical squad can. Advancing on an objective is also a much better idea with grey hunters.

 

Consider, for example both a tactical squad and a squad of grey hunters going for the same objective. The tactical squad loses it's heavy weapon on the move (unless they combat squad, in which case their effectiveness in close combat is reduced by an awful lot, so lets assume they didn't), the grey hunters don't - they can fire their melta, most likely killing some marines, and their pistols, and then charge, and in all likelihood wipe out the marines, or cause at least severe damage. Tacticals have a number of other things they can do that grey hunters can't, but mostly that involves avoiding getting bogged down in combat with something that they can't beat.

 

So grey hunters are hugely flexible in terms of what they can do for you (I'm very fond of my 4 packs, there isn't a lot of stuff they can't do), they aren't as flexible in how they do it, but the way they do it is mostly more effective than the way a tactical squad does the same thing.

 

In general, as long as this thread stays as open minded as you asked for it to be, I shall be watching with interest, and once those pesky exams are over I'll write some of my own thoughts up.

[the jeske]

Contrast with a Grey Hunter pack, however. Without taking a Rune Priest or a Wolf Guard Pack Leader (for Living Lightning or in TDA with Cyclone/Assault Cannon), a Grey Hunter pack has no long ranged firepower to speak of

in the age of mecha . having a 24" range of melta and plasma guns[turn 1] and set ups for scenarios we have right now what is long range support . besides a single hvy weapon is nothing , you need 3 to with normal meq hit ratio to do something to a tank/transport and 4-5 to kill a MC . A tac will not take a unit of meq down [not even another tac because it would be a gamble who rolls save/cover better] , will not take down a tank[as in stun/shake too] and it will need a whole game to take out a MC [not in hth, because a lot of MC when in hth are plain untouchable for a tac]. Now GH on the other hand can out melee other meq units [no support needed , not that supporting or playing units in "formations" of 2-3 is a bad thing] , because of stuff like extra power weapons , totems , or MotW . Because of the same arment they deal with MC better then tacs . And when we look at tanks/transports , then yes if it is over 36" away [and has LoS ] then they are in a trouble [only SW run those 10-15 LF to counter just that] , when in treat range because of the second special or the special+combi weapon set up , the SW are more effective at doing something to a tank or transport . More even if they fail they are still SW with their counter attack extra power weapons , MoTW etc GH are on of those few units in the game that when cought by a counter unit do not just die [what would happen to tac . a counter unit would break the tac , with a good chance of destroying it and not being taken down to 2-3 man +HQ] . If anything then SW are over flexbile , because the way they work in a mecha addition [their efficiency ] does not come out in how much they cost .

 

 

Actually apart from Eldar, I come up fairly regularly against every other opponent type, in both casual and competitive settings. The terrain type varies from 25% to 50% depending on what's available, but the key to remember is that I built this army with the pure intent of being able to take on anything I could expect to come up against, with a decent chance of winning. And I do this primarily with objectives. And focusing on objectives rather than just "killing the enemy" (even with Kill Points I focus more on Kill Point denial than I do actually killing the enemy) greatly changes the approach with which I used to build my army.

odd list should have problems with mecha dar or even an IG vendetta hvy list. 2 jaws means there is an over population of armies with i3 or lower , in a normal [well tournament] enviroment the number of armies with i4 or higher is too big to warent the use of 2 [i would say 1 , but that is my inner nids thinking SW do not need jaws to kick nids in the balls]. Same with mass flamers , SW generaly dont need flamers to counter sv4 armies , counter attack being meq and ultra grit [+ extra attacks from MoTW] are most of the time enough , such a high use of flamers means that the number of non meq armies [nids and non mecha guard , maybe someone plays footdar still] would have to be bigger then normal . Against meq flamers are not needed[unless I dont know people spam shriek builds with scouts everywhere] , for a SW build it is better to open those transports sooner [and by runing more meltas that is achived] and get in to hth [where they are superior] . Am not saying the list is bad , but those are the conclusions that I draw about the meta game from how it looks.

[specialy the 50% terrain part ]

I understand the idea of an all comers list [we dont realy tailor armies from game to game here] , by the way , but am probably more used to the fact that tournament or shop games have a terrain set up that I can never control and it is more closer to 25% [or lower] then 50%.

[Bulweih]

Thanks brother DV8, those are some good thoughts really.

 

I especially like the fact, that a "wargamer" reads the old stuff on war.

I just started out 3 years ago, after dropping out of the army(where I read those famous articles) and since apply lessons of old in my gaming.

The experiences are great, though I feel I should join some tournaments in the near future, because one learns more by losing to a superior player then winning over the ever same people, I guess.

I strongly agree with your personal opinion about flexibility.

Of course you can kill someone with a spoon(and it even hurts more, because its blunt), but taking a knife/sword is just better.

I found our units in the new codex also very "streamlined"(now here's a good, fitting description at last), which I like a lot.

Like sharpened axe blades.

I think that for your list you do need that aggressiveness in playing, it seems to fit your playstyle.

For my part I still have to get used to handling speeders, they still down too much, but I'm very fond of bikers for mobility, also I find myself always fielding 10men GH packs with a LD bubble by a ven.-dread, they perform awesome.

 

So I hope you can keep this up, for all wolves!

[Wysten]

DV8: I see, the Jaws make sense then, since ultimately it's an aggressive midfield army that will be in 24 inches soon enough. Often, simply providing too much armour is a protection in itself, if they are shooting at something, then they are not shooting at something else. When it's 35 points for protection, that sounds really good.

 

That being said, I am still in the making stage, I am finding it very hard to justify going to all sorts of sources just to get meltaguns. Perhaps I do need to order from the games workshop website since I do believe they have just melta guns there, otherwise I will probably spend too much on starting an army, so right now I am opprating on theoryhammer alone to deveop my understanding of the game. Then earn the experience from there.

 

As for flexability, I don't always believe it goes hand in hand with efficentness. Tactical marines ability to carry heavy weapona (creating tanks with essencally a melta gun bunker) is useful generally, but I believe that the heavy weapon alone should never define their purpose. While giving them a lascannon may make the bolters useless, it also gives them additional flexability at long range which allows them to hang back when compared to the multi-melta. Theres nothing stopping the user driving up and using the lascannon all the way there and it allows the bolters to go live, but at the same time it's not an efficent use of points as the mult-melta is better in that range.

 

Basically, tacticals are alright in melee (They can kill a bunch of guardsmen, but even slightly more dedicated units could defeat them hand to hand), good at torrenting with bolters and can carry heavy weapons at the cost of a special weapon, which gives them flexability in how they could deal with the three tenents, infantry (they torrent it with bolter fire, flee from combat, torrent again) tanks (they hand some anti tank weaponary). None of this really changes their purpose however, which is to fight and hold objectives when compared to Sternguard, who's job is to be a very killy shooty unit that has a tool for pretty much everything. They can take lascannon and still be in range to shoot at 30 inches, and can switch to anti marine shots within 18 inches. Giving them a greater span for flexability while maintaining efficency, which is something tacticals simply don't have.

 

While I could take a lascannon for them, it just seems better practice to give them a mult-melta, as in two thirds of games they will be the boys sitting on the objective or in the middle field in a rhino. If you give them a lascannon, may as well give them a razorback for cheaper as far as efficency at range goes. This inclines me to believe that the tactical marine is not that flexable, as they are not that confortable in combat dispite their durability and their effectiveness still lies within bolter range and on an objective, though to this end they don't mind whether they shoot one or two shots since if they do get into melee combat, they have a good chance of breaking away so they can all shoot again, often including the heavy weapon since they back off in the foes turn.

 

 

Grey Hunters do away with the heavy weapon and conbinue the tactical with assualt trooper in a cheaper package that is designed to get upclose and torrent the melee and melee the shooters. Grey Hunters themselves can only opprate in those condictions as they cannot use most of their special weapons beyond 12 inches and their bolters are best within that range. While you can give them a Rune Priest to give them range, it's much more expensive and the Grey Hunters perks are still not being used if a rune priest was only used in that manner, so adding the Rune Priest does not (or should not rather) change their purpose. They should still be aggressively wriestling objectives from the foe while supporting/being supported by other elements/other grey hunter packs as unlike tacticals they are equally as confortable in close range tactics.

 

While both are efficent when in their confort zones, take them out of those zones and naither will preform optimally, though some can preform passive roles in other areas (tacticals in close range combat, Grey hunters beyond the 12 inch range.) If tacticals could take 2 heavy weapons or 2 specials (probably never needed outside CC armies, and tacticals are not CC), I would say they were more efficent so they would not have to try and use the special weapon, but as they stand, I would say tacticals are paying for their effiency a little to make way for the fluff and a bit of flexability. Grey Hunters themselves meanwhile, know exactly what they want to do, hence they are efficent.

[Grimtooth]

Why don't you just stick to painting/converting awesome models DV8!

 

 

 

 

:wacko: :lol:

 

Good read, should be standard for new Wolves players.