[HH1.0] 30k Space Wolves tactics

[Jarkaira]

 

^ Somehow the price doesn't go up a ton with size in China.

I would love to see FW relocating their factories to China. Would substantially lower the cost and thus negate the sales of pirated miniatures...

I have always wondered how they shove so much marines into a tin can and still count it as assault vehicle. 25 marines in a Spartan is pretty much impossible unless they are on top of each other and bare naked and not each of the legion is Emperor's Children :)

The savings recasters can make are mainly because they invest no money in design, testing, painters and marketing.

I think many people were shocked when they found out how many hours the sculpter worked on 40k Magnus (500 hours), I could easily believe that most FW resin models take a similar length of time.

Start adding on every other other cost and you realise why the prices are so high.

I understand the prices for chinacast can be tempting but if I can't have the real thing I either save or accept I can't afford it.

Yeah.

 

500 hours transfers easily into 25-50k (+side costs such as taxes, unemployment benefit pays etc. could be easily 50-100k range) of salary which you need to amortise before you can get any profit. Assuming 40% margin you would need to sell 125k worth for 50k of design costs. That would mean that to break even you have to sell 932 models. Changing profit margin into 60% by relocating fabrication to China it would be still 642 models.

 

As the sales amounts for HH range of miniatures are quite different than what it is for 40K range I doubt they could sell enough models to justify at any way the purchases of pirated models and relocation to China would mean just something like 10-20% lower prices which for some would justify purchasing of pirated models from China more as both the real and forged stuff would come from the same place.

 

Too bad that it is still hard for plenty of people to understand what intellectual rights mean.

[Memento Of Prospero]

Considering Magnus can D hit Russ off the table before he even gets to melee, subpar is a little unjustified.

[Purge the Daemon]

Copy and paste from the rules section what do we think of this.

 

So the hit and run USR is conferred bg a single model in a unit having the rule.

 

The space wolves right of War the Pale Hunters grants hit amd run to all infantry units except terminator equipped.

 

But you can join non TDA equipped infantry characters to a unit in TDA.

 

So the question is would a space wolves character in power/artificer/aether rune armour would grant a unit in TDA hit and run.

 

Currently RAW this seems perfectly legal, RAI I don't know. Though I really hope so, would give some reason to take the right of War

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The intent is clear don't be that guy .

[sturguard]

What squads would actually be able to use the hit and run? Terminators could for sure, but they are exempt from the rule. A dreadnought could use it, but again, they arent granted that rule. I guess Russ might be able to make use of it to keep him from getting in protracted combats. In general I just dont see Pale Hunter giving any real benefits besides the +1 to reserves which you could get through a Damocles and use it as your second mandatory HQ. 

 

I havent seen any competitive lists posted- is anyone having any success they could share?

[Hfran Morkai]

Grey Slayers unit geared up for combat?

 

Or a Veteran squad also kitted out for close combat.

[Purge the Daemon]

What squads would actually be able to use the hit and run? Terminators could for sure, but they are exempt from the rule. A dreadnought could use it, but again, they arent granted that rule. I guess Russ might be able to make use of it to keep him from getting in protracted combats. In general I just dont see Pale Hunter giving any real benefits besides the +1 to reserves which you could get through a Damocles and use it as your second mandatory HQ.

 

I havent seen any competitive lists posted- is anyone having any success they could share?

I feel if you actually can't give hit and run to terminators Pale hunter is just awful. Like a Damocles is actually a good HQ choice when you are forced to take 3 or more. The +1 Attack for multiple units is beyond useless when are you charging two units in together when your units are all supposed to be combat units already. And yeah +1 reserves is nice but as covered Damocles does this and more and you need to take hqs and the command Rhino is cheap as hell.

 

Grey Slayers unit geared up for combat?

 

Or a Veteran squad also kitted out for close combat.

Except you almost certainly should go Bloodied Claw for the furious assault on Grey Slayers if you want them that way.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Purge the Daemon

[Runefyre]

Considering Magnus can D hit Russ off the table before he even gets to melee, subpar is a little unjustified.

He was mathammering duals in close combat in a void. What you're stating is the obvious, but not pertinent to my comment.

 

Besides the fact that Russ should be immune to witchfires, or at least have increased resistance.

 

I think Hit and Run will be immensely useful in Zone Mortalis, to keep my GS's and Breachers from getting tied up by a dreadnought.

 

Though I'm beginning to wonder if Armoured Breakthrough won't be the way I'll go, I can bring tanks that effective and some great reactionary cc threat with Grey Slayers and Deathsworn. Which Deathsworn are really looking quite attractive to me atm. They're the same price as legion termiantors, but are arguably more effective at taking on higher level targets (plus I'll always give them a SotD or an apothecary).

[Baluc]

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Baluc

[Purge the Daemon]

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage.

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields.

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

I would probbably concur Deathsworn are cook but then I look at Suzerain which cost less for 10 and will wipe your ass out and yet are supposed to fill the same role...

[Runefyre]

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

[Lord Blackwood]

Lets be realistic , they are terminators without an invul save , a single vindicator blast marker ruins their day.  

They are not a great unit outside of Zone Mortalis and even there they are somewhat iffy.  

If the unit was to be competitive they shouldn't have been unwieldy

The lack of an invul really really hurts them.

The play testing my brother and I  did   against his Deathshroud  was a bit telling.
I  have no illusions they would fare better against  Firedrakes  /  IF TH/SS Terminators /  Suzerians / Cataphractii / Butchers

You can use em to bully tac squads I guess ?  But is that honestly how you wanna burn those points? 

 
 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bladewolf

[Baluc]

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

[Coptimas]

 

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

 

 

This isnt apples for apples though Baluc. The Vindicator hit mentioned earlier does the same amount of damage to a smaller squad, that statistically only saves one member with their 5++ if the whole squad is hit. However once both of these squads hit in H2H combat the deathsworn would make much the same impact statistically on the MEQ/TEQ as the terminators, except the deathsworn would have more attacks and statistically more kills and are also fearless in that very same combat. 

 

It appears that with a huge amount of gaming experience comes a very jaded view and quite a lot of confusion on table top roles. How does that same unit of terminators do against a twenty man assault squad? Or SA unit? or any other blob? Without the weight its stuck for several turns or worse gets wiped with some unlucky rolls. However the point should be left as both units have and are intended to have different battlefield roles.

 

Throughout the thread there seems to be a constant issue with the wolves unique units and RoW. It just seems to me that despite being given something all we do is lament it's unsuitability to the role assigned to it in favor of somethings else. However the roles for these units are specific, its near enough explained in the backgrounds. We seem to be trying to fit these specialist units into roles that already have units perfectly capable of doing that job, as opposed to finding them roles they are suited for and would excel in, which would be a much more positive way of utilizing this thread.

 

As such perhaps a better way of looking at the deathsworn would be to look at their target units in an opposition force? Whats the best layout of the unit to maximize their potential output?

 

I for one would love to see the years of experience, anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis brought to bare in a less negative and ultimately destructive "but it's actually the incorrect one" style statements and used in a more constructive and positive manner. Surely the goal of a tactical thread is to analyze the strategies and tactics that the units and armies can be used in as opposed to ripping everything to pieces to continually say, it's all   why do we bother?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Coptimas

[Runefyre]

 

 

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

 

 

This isnt apples for apples though Baluc. The Vindicator hit mentioned earlier does the same amount of damage to a smaller squad, that statistically only saves one member with their 5++ if the whole squad is hit. However once both of these squads hit in H2H combat the deathsworn would make much the same impact statistically on the MEQ/TEQ as the terminators, except the deathsworn would have more attacks and statistically more kills and are also fearless in that very same combat. 

 

It appears that with a huge amount of gaming experience comes a very jaded view and quite a lot of confusion on table top roles. How does that same unit of terminators do against a twenty man assault squad? Or SA unit? or any other blob? Without the weight its stuck for several turns or worse gets wiped with some unlucky rolls. However the point should be left as both units have and are intended to have different battlefield roles.

 

Throughout the thread there seems to be a constant issue with the wolves unique units and RoW. It just seems to me that despite being given something all we do is lament it's unsuitability to the role assigned to it in favor of somethings else. However the roles for these units is specific, its near enough explained in the backgrounds. We seem to be trying to fit these specialist units into roles that already have units perfectly capable of doing that job, as opposed to finding them roles they are suited for and would excel in, which would be a much more positive way of utilizing this thread.

 

As such perhaps a better way of looking at the deathsworn would be to look at their target units in an opposition force? Whats the best layout of the unit to maximize their potential output?

 

I for one would love to see the years of experience, anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis brought to bare in a less negative and ultimately destructive "but it's actually the incorrect one" style statements and used in a more constructive and positive manner. Surely the goal of a tactical thread is to analyze the strategies and tactics that the units and armies can be used in as opposed to ripping everything to pieces to continually say, it's all   why do we bother?

 

I don't think he's saying why bother, just that he thinks they're not worth their points. It's a fair point but one I'll only be willing to corroborate when I get a chance to field Deathsworn for myself.

 

I really like their grenades, an ap2 fleshbane small blast is a nasty surprise for monstrous creatures or heavy infantry.

[Coptimas]

 

 

 

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

 

 

This isnt apples for apples though Baluc. The Vindicator hit mentioned earlier does the same amount of damage to a smaller squad, that statistically only saves one member with their 5++ if the whole squad is hit. However once both of these squads hit in H2H combat the deathsworn would make much the same impact statistically on the MEQ/TEQ as the terminators, except the deathsworn would have more attacks and statistically more kills and are also fearless in that very same combat. 

 

It appears that with a huge amount of gaming experience comes a very jaded view and quite a lot of confusion on table top roles. How does that same unit of terminators do against a twenty man assault squad? Or SA unit? or any other blob? Without the weight its stuck for several turns or worse gets wiped with some unlucky rolls. However the point should be left as both units have and are intended to have different battlefield roles.

 

Throughout the thread there seems to be a constant issue with the wolves unique units and RoW. It just seems to me that despite being given something all we do is lament it's unsuitability to the role assigned to it in favor of somethings else. However the roles for these units is specific, its near enough explained in the backgrounds. We seem to be trying to fit these specialist units into roles that already have units perfectly capable of doing that job, as opposed to finding them roles they are suited for and would excel in, which would be a much more positive way of utilizing this thread.

 

As such perhaps a better way of looking at the deathsworn would be to look at their target units in an opposition force? Whats the best layout of the unit to maximize their potential output?

 

I for one would love to see the years of experience, anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis brought to bare in a less negative and ultimately destructive "but it's actually the incorrect one" style statements and used in a more constructive and positive manner. Surely the goal of a tactical thread is to analyze the strategies and tactics that the units and armies can be used in as opposed to ripping everything to pieces to continually say, it's all   why do we bother?

 

I don't think he's saying why bother, just that he thinks they're not worth their points. It's a fair point but one I'll only be willing to corroborate when I get a chance to field Deathsworn for myself.

 

I really like their grenades, an ap2 fleshbane small blast is a nasty surprise for monstrous creatures or heavy infantry.

 

 

i'm just a little peeved that someone with 20 years gaming experience, a clear love for competitive gaming and a good understanding of the rules cant be more positive when commenting. Why not leave it at terminators are better for x whilst deathsworn are good at y?

 

If you read back through the thread there is a pretty regular feeling of that individuals opinion and I'm at a loss as to why someone with obvious love for this isn't able to post more positively and constructively.

 

As for their grenades, the deathsworn are gonna be an absolute pain in the rear for your opponent when utilized correctly, an those grenades mean that once the action starts with target saturation and multiple high threat units they will earn there points back real quick, imo, correct or not.

[Runefyre]

 

 

 

 

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

 

 

This isnt apples for apples though Baluc. The Vindicator hit mentioned earlier does the same amount of damage to a smaller squad, that statistically only saves one member with their 5++ if the whole squad is hit. However once both of these squads hit in H2H combat the deathsworn would make much the same impact statistically on the MEQ/TEQ as the terminators, except the deathsworn would have more attacks and statistically more kills and are also fearless in that very same combat. 

 

It appears that with a huge amount of gaming experience comes a very jaded view and quite a lot of confusion on table top roles. How does that same unit of terminators do against a twenty man assault squad? Or SA unit? or any other blob? Without the weight its stuck for several turns or worse gets wiped with some unlucky rolls. However the point should be left as both units have and are intended to have different battlefield roles.

 

Throughout the thread there seems to be a constant issue with the wolves unique units and RoW. It just seems to me that despite being given something all we do is lament it's unsuitability to the role assigned to it in favor of somethings else. However the roles for these units is specific, its near enough explained in the backgrounds. We seem to be trying to fit these specialist units into roles that already have units perfectly capable of doing that job, as opposed to finding them roles they are suited for and would excel in, which would be a much more positive way of utilizing this thread.

 

As such perhaps a better way of looking at the deathsworn would be to look at their target units in an opposition force? Whats the best layout of the unit to maximize their potential output?

 

I for one would love to see the years of experience, anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis brought to bare in a less negative and ultimately destructive "but it's actually the incorrect one" style statements and used in a more constructive and positive manner. Surely the goal of a tactical thread is to analyze the strategies and tactics that the units and armies can be used in as opposed to ripping everything to pieces to continually say, it's all   why do we bother?

 

I don't think he's saying why bother, just that he thinks they're not worth their points. It's a fair point but one I'll only be willing to corroborate when I get a chance to field Deathsworn for myself.

 

I really like their grenades, an ap2 fleshbane small blast is a nasty surprise for monstrous creatures or heavy infantry.

 

 

i'm just a little peeved that someone with 20 years gaming experience, a clear love for competitive gaming and a good understanding of the rules cant be more positive when commenting. Why not leave it at terminators are better for x whilst deathsworn are good at y?

 

If you read back through the thread there is a pretty regular feeling of that individuals opinion and I'm at a loss as to why someone with obvious love for this isn't able to post more positively and constructively.

 

As for their grenades, the deathsworn are gonna be an absolute pain in the rear for your opponent when utilized correctly, an those grenades mean that once the action starts with target saturation and multiple high threat units they will earn there points back real quick, imo, correct or not.

 

Let's not get personal here, we're all brothers of the same legion

 

Everyone's opinions will vary, as with anything.

 

I'm definitely converting 10 Deathsworn and running them in a land raider (Armour Breathrough or Pale Hunters, which I do think has plenty of potential).

[Coptimas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should stop spending mental energy on Pale Hunter. Its hot flaming garbage. 

 

Deathsworn, are getting a cred they don't deserve, 75 points more than Vets for defensive grenades, power weapons and artificer armour. Seems like a deal, but then you realize that they can't actually kill the units that would proc their rules. Ap2 weapons strike at the same time, so they are going to fight anyway, and against AP2 at I units they lose the combat with few kills to their name anyway. Another half thought out set of rules. They would have been better if they only had 3+ and had refractor fields, or storm shields. 

 

If you want something dead just pay the points and take Varagyr, or use CMD sqd terminators. They are expensive (Though less expensive than Deathsworn for a unit that can get around) but they get the job done 99% of the time.

But have you played with them yet? How it looks on paper isn't always how it plays out IRL. I'm thinking about all the times I've had a lucky guardsman kill my terminator before he can swing with his powerfist/axe, That won't happen with DS.

 

I don't want to be that negative until I've actually played them.

 

 

That's a laudable point of view, but its actually the incorrect one. In game situations usually lead to anecdotal evidence like your above guardsman vs Terminator example. Which are for all intents and purposes pointless in evaluating a units potential. Because, even if you lost a Deathsworn to a statistically unlikely bayonet the deathsworn are going to beat and run that unit down regardless.

 

I have 20 years of war gaming experience I can pull individual examples from if I needed to. Experience with units of relative abilities, costs, and usages. However in this case I have used them and the are a poor unit. They are just another example in a long line of duplication of a roles.

 

5 Terminators, in a Dreadclaw, fill much the same role, with additional staying power and the ability to score objectives, and a deep striking assault transport. Or even 3 Custodes with teleport transponders.

 

Lots of small changes could have been made to make them unique. Frost weapons for example would have actually made them unique in ability when combined with Rad Grenades, even if it was just axe or sword. 

 

 

This isnt apples for apples though Baluc. The Vindicator hit mentioned earlier does the same amount of damage to a smaller squad, that statistically only saves one member with their 5++ if the whole squad is hit. However once both of these squads hit in H2H combat the deathsworn would make much the same impact statistically on the MEQ/TEQ as the terminators, except the deathsworn would have more attacks and statistically more kills and are also fearless in that very same combat. 

 

It appears that with a huge amount of gaming experience comes a very jaded view and quite a lot of confusion on table top roles. How does that same unit of terminators do against a twenty man assault squad? Or SA unit? or any other blob? Without the weight its stuck for several turns or worse gets wiped with some unlucky rolls. However the point should be left as both units have and are intended to have different battlefield roles.

 

Throughout the thread there seems to be a constant issue with the wolves unique units and RoW. It just seems to me that despite being given something all we do is lament it's unsuitability to the role assigned to it in favor of somethings else. However the roles for these units is specific, its near enough explained in the backgrounds. We seem to be trying to fit these specialist units into roles that already have units perfectly capable of doing that job, as opposed to finding them roles they are suited for and would excel in, which would be a much more positive way of utilizing this thread.

 

As such perhaps a better way of looking at the deathsworn would be to look at their target units in an opposition force? Whats the best layout of the unit to maximize their potential output?

 

I for one would love to see the years of experience, anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis brought to bare in a less negative and ultimately destructive "but it's actually the incorrect one" style statements and used in a more constructive and positive manner. Surely the goal of a tactical thread is to analyze the strategies and tactics that the units and armies can be used in as opposed to ripping everything to pieces to continually say, it's all   why do we bother?

 

I don't think he's saying why bother, just that he thinks they're not worth their points. It's a fair point but one I'll only be willing to corroborate when I get a chance to field Deathsworn for myself.

 

I really like their grenades, an ap2 fleshbane small blast is a nasty surprise for monstrous creatures or heavy infantry.

 

 

i'm just a little peeved that someone with 20 years gaming experience, a clear love for competitive gaming and a good understanding of the rules cant be more positive when commenting. Why not leave it at terminators are better for x whilst deathsworn are good at y?

 

If you read back through the thread there is a pretty regular feeling of that individuals opinion and I'm at a loss as to why someone with obvious love for this isn't able to post more positively and constructively.

 

As for their grenades, the deathsworn are gonna be an absolute pain in the rear for your opponent when utilized correctly, an those grenades mean that once the action starts with target saturation and multiple high threat units they will earn there points back real quick, imo, correct or not.

 

Let's not get personal here, we're all brothers of the same legion

 

Everyone's opinions will vary, as with anything.

 

I'm definitely converting 10 Deathsworn and running them in a land raider (Armour Breathrough or Pale Hunters, which I do think has plenty of potential).

 

 

Your right, and opinions and the differences of opinions is what makes the world go round. Just disappointed at the lack of constructive opinion, an i'm not trying to cause an issue just voicing a desire for a productive thread for space wolves heresy tactics now everyone has had there miss givings or dreams shattered.

 

However, I have already got the dwarf bits for axes for the deathsworn and shields for the GS. Little concerned they aint big enough compared to the marines but ill have to really get a model together to check properly. 

 

To be fare i cant wait to actually see the miniatures forge world release for the deathsworn, im hoping for knot masks and other really sinister bits of kit. I'm also putting some serious effort into running a deathsworn only force, or at least as many as i can get in at 3K

[Baluc]

I gave examples why the Terminators are better.

 

Dedicated Fast skimmer, assaul vehicle, with drop pod assault

 

Built in Invuln save

 

Implaccable advance

 

But there are more.

 

Relentless combi-weapons being one of the big ones considering how light we are on anti-tank

 

Your vindicator example is again pretty pointless the Terminators are never in the position where the vindicator has such a prime shot on them. In fact they can deep strike and kill a vindicator with their combi-weapons.

 

But again it misses the point. Deathsworn aren't being billed as out answer to fearless mobs. Grey Slayers do a good enough job managing them. They are supposed to be the answer to real threat units. And, I suppose in some ways they are, they are pretty good at beating up other mediocre combat legion special units like Palantin blades or Templar Brethren. But, I mean... those units are actually combatable with Grey Slayers if you want to invest the same amount of points in Grey Slayers that you are in Deathsworn. You have an idea of where the damage track will run, regardless of the situation, some people think that is worth more points. I personally don't and I'm pretty sure if you take a unit of 5 with a raider or dreadclaw the first time you use Terminators in their place you will drop them too.

 

I'm not typically an "optimist" when evaluating a piece of work I'm always critical because I have to make a purchasing decision. Purchasing Deathsworn or converting them means I'm not purchasing something else. And, while my collection keeps expanding eventually the reality of money takes charge.

 

In place of Deathsworn I actually would have preferred Fenrisian wolves as a Legion unit, their inclusion would have actually gone a long way in making an infantry assault army function. Deathsworn are just a more expensive/reliable version of Grey Slayers, which makes them pointless because I have to take Grey Slayers.

 

Why don't you elaborate on "utilized correctly" means? I have a feeling it means spending an additional 300-500 points on using them.

[Lord Blackwood]

Criticism  of a unit for its obvious short comings is not negativity for the sake of negativity. 

When we look at something like Grey Slayers ,  Deathsworn or Wolf Guard we look at them in the scope of alternative options in the same list and in other legion lists. 

Let me be clear ,  not liking a unit is not tantamount to not liking the legion. 
A great example of this is Phallanx Warders in Imperial Fists lists , they are largely overpriced garbage that  are just ... entirely passable mot of the time. 

It is a tactica Thread so we are approaching units from  the idea of  " how can we make this a tactically sound inclusion and what will it take to get them there. " 

Deathsworn in a Raider is a legitimate option ,  Are there counters to it ?  Sure.  In an Armored Breakthrough list where there are problematic battle tanks all over  are those counters going to potentially be used on the  Deathsworn Raider ?  Probably not,  Do I  feel like  they will be worth the points invested when they get there ?  

No .   I do not.   Possibly ?  Sure maybe but I doubt it.  

Thats not me saying Yea your dumb for taking your army in this direction , or  , the idea of the unit is dumb,  or   even that I am not excited for the bits to come out. 
None of those things are relevant to a tactica thread. 

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

One thing I want to say if you play Russ a lot you will prolly quickly grow tired of your new SW army. I rarely field Sigismund for the same reason. Not taking him will up your skill. Anyways very happy to see all the hard core tact discussion now.

[Baluc]

I'm Curios Runefyre when you say armoured breakthrough do you mean Armoured Spearhead the RoW that lets infantry units which can take dedicated rhino transports take Land Raider Phobos or Proteus instead or Armoured Breakthrough the RoW that makes Legion Predator tank squadrons a compulsory troop choice. Because, SW can't do the later, and Deathsworn can take a Phobos as a dedicated as it.

[Runefyre]

I mean Armoured Breakthrough. I'll just take two GS squads and two Preds as troops, and I'll be good to go.

 

I know you technically can't raw, but my group's fine with it so that's really all that matters in my case. FW has said over and over again that we are free to play the game how we like.

 

And I already can guess what your response will be I'm well aware that it's a house-rule.

 

Armoured spearhead has alot of potential as well, as is actually legit.

 

I suspect in games of 2500 or more I'll probably always bring Russ and take Varagyr as troops.

[sturguard]

Runefyre- and there is nothing wrong with that- in fact the guys I play with in the basement would probably let me run anything I wanted to run.

 

Yet, I am also curious if it is even possible to make a competitive SW list and if it is, it probably doesnt have any unique SW units in it or use a SW RoW. So I don't understand how folks balk at those of us who are frustrated. I started playing SW 28 years ago (or something like that, 1989)- do you know how long I have anticipated this release? I don't play 40k anymore because the rules and units have gotten so out of whack. I don't play multiple armies. SW are my deal. GW has always been hit or miss- look if you wanted Custodes or 1K Sons, boy you got a treat, SW got the lemon. The problem is I probably dont have another 28 years to wait for them to get it right and if  I wanted to play with just the base units in Age of Darkness, I would have done that already- I wanted to play competitively with SW units and a SW RoW. Now, all entitlement aside, I don't get what I want and the world isnt ending, however, it does really leave a bad taste in ones mouth.

 

So back to tactics-

I think the consensus is the Pale Hunter is horrible. Grey Hunters are marginally better than tacticals, but won't compete against any elite units- so its essentially your 2 GH squads against his 2 tactical squads (if he has to take them). Deathsworn are overpriced for elite troop killing and more importantly suffer from durability issues. Yes you could put Russ in there to tank and a Speaker, but then thats over half your army. I think our terminators are okay, but just bog standard legion terminators are better because they are more cost effective in what they do. 

 

So I guess I am hoping for some major rules changes to 8th which could potentially boost our army. If we could assault out of outflank would that make Grey Slayers better? I would think so. If we could assault out of rhinos it would make all our units better. What other rules would increase the effectiveness of our units (moreso than say other armies)
?

[Baluc]

I have zero issues with house rules. And to be honest I would probably include 2 units of infantry in a Armoured Breakthrough list.

 

I think Deathsworn are a missed opportunity. But varagyr are passable certainly better than original Justaerin.