Jump to content

FAQ out today confirms 10 point TWC SS


Bulwyf

Recommended Posts

TWC with dual chainswords would certainly cause people pause.

 

Is that allowed? If so, that's rather funny.

 

It does turn them into a mobile anti-chaff unit, which they sadly are relegated to now. I would love them to have even 5 pt. SS's; since that hasn't happened yet, here's to hoping GW figures out how to turn its collective brain back on soon.

 

 

 

Dont have codex to hand but Battlescribe seems to think that you can give two chainswords to each.

 

To me they still seem viable as an anti-horde/chaff clearer...

 

120 pts for a T5 unit with 9 wounds, that moves 10" and puts out 12 S5 attacks (f they can take 2 chainswords) plus 9 S5 ap-1 attacks...doesn't seem to shoddy, and should be good for clearing screens to let your big hitters through.

 

I get that people are annoyed that they aren't the elite CC beatstick they used to be back in 6th and 7th, but we have wulfen for that now. Annoying if you have to remodel all your SS TWC..but thems the breaks sometimes in this hobby.

 

As mentioned, run your TWC alongside other high threat targets and they shouldn't need the SS. And if people are still firing lascannons into them at whilst ignoring your dreads/wulfen...then great, theyve still served a purpose (distraction carnifex etc)

Are they really that bad with a few Thunder Hammers thrown in? even with 2 attacks they'll still be hitting on 3's in the first round of combat. I'm looking at running a Thunderwolf Lord with the Wullfen stone as well so that's 3 attacks each.

 

It's expensive sure but I did have my eye on a 298pt unit of 5, all with Storm Shields (boo 10 points) and 3 with Thunder Hammers. Same cost as a well kitted out Repulsor mind you... I haven't attached arms yet so open to advice.

 

Unless that advice is take Wulfen. I hate the models with a passion.

Are they really that bad with a few Thunder Hammers thrown in? even with 2 attacks they'll still be hitting on 3's in the first round of combat. I'm looking at running a Thunderwolf Lord with the Wullfen stone as well so that's 3 attacks each.

 

It's expensive sure but I did have my eye on a 298pt unit of 5, all with Storm Shields (boo 10 points) and 3 with Thunder Hammers. Same cost as a well kitted out Repulsor mind you... I haven't attached arms yet so open to advice.

 

Unless that advice is take Wulfen. I hate the models with a passion.

Take that passion and channel it into making badass wulfen conversions is my advice.

Are they really that bad with a few Thunder Hammers thrown in? even with 2 attacks they'll still be hitting on 3's in the first round of combat. I'm looking at running a Thunderwolf Lord with the Wullfen stone as well so that's 3 attacks each.

 

It's expensive sure but I did have my eye on a 298pt unit of 5, all with Storm Shields (boo 10 points) and 3 with Thunder Hammers. Same cost as a well kitted out Repulsor mind you... I haven't attached arms yet so open to advice.

 

Unless that advice is take Wulfen. I hate the models with a passion.

 

Thing is, why use TWC when you can use a number of other, more cost effective units?

 

TWC are reasonably tough (T5 3W) but for that baseline they cost a lot. Comparatively, you can get about two TH/SS Wolf Guard (32 each) for the same cost as one TWC TH/SS (66 each). There are benefits and drawbacks:

 

+ More Thunder Hammer attacks (same base amount)

+ More bodies (better vs multi-damage weapons, and for receiving buffs such as Arjac's +1A)

+ Can be transported (but that costs extra)

 

- Lower Toughness

- More vulnerable to single damage weapons

- Slower (can be transported, or have Jump Packs)

- Thunderwolf attacks

 

So off the bat, Thunder Hammers aren't ideal for TWC. It gives them target variety but it makes them somewhat schizophrenic: they'll want to leverage their TH against hard targets, but then their TW attacks will mostly go to waste, or the other way around. If we do start to include buffing effects (such as the Wulfen Stone and/or Arjac, which are potent effects for a decently sized Thunder Hammer unit) then the Wolf Guard get much more benefit (5 TWC would get 20 attacks vs the Wolf Guards' 40).

 

298pts for a unit of TWC is not, necessarily, bad, but they need to have a clear role in your list. Storm Shields and either Power Axes or a Wolf Claw would do well to focus them: with Axe/SS they cost 55pts, which isn't bad for T5 3W 3++, and they'll get 2x S5 AP-2 and 3x S5 AP-1 attacks each, so they'd be able to munch their way through blobs well; and then even against vehicles 5/-1/1 is actually pretty solid, as you're wounding on 5s at worst.

 

5 PA/SS TWC would cost 275 (so 23 less than the three Hammers) but would have a much better defined role, where they'd perform better.

Vs Ork Boys (assuming Painboy and Wulfen Stone) they'd kill 16 (compared to the 3 TH unit killing 14.5, assuming Chainswords on the non-TH TWC)

Vs GEQs, they're killing 19 (vs 15)

 

---

 

Also, fun fact, Arjac buffs TWC (they have the WOLF GUARD keyword), so if you can deep strike him close enough then they can at least leverage their large base to get all of them attacking with the buff!

I'm confused, is the 10 point shield still a thing or did they retract that statement?

 

I'm still of the school that TWC are chaff busters and bully units. Use the advantage of T5 and the extra 3 swings from the mount with Chainswords or Power Mauls.. save the Elite killing for Arjac Chainfist/Hammer Terminator bombs

I'm confused, is the 10 point shield still a thing or did they retract that statement?

 

TWC Storm Shields were always 10pts.

 

No Chapter Approved made any change. Some people were, however, under the mistaken impression that the "Storm Shields (other models): 2pts" in CA2018 included TWC - which was wrong. This FAQ/Errata clarifies that, for those who just couldn't comprehend.

 

 

I'm confused, is the 10 point shield still a thing or did they retract that statement?

TWC Storm Shields were always 10pts.

 

No Chapter Approved made any change. Some people were, however, under the mistaken impression that the "Storm Shields (other models): 2pts" in CA2018 included TWC - which was wrong. This FAQ/Errata clarifies that, for those who just couldn't comprehend.

Your tone seems a bit harsh given the extenuating circumstances, re: the Simon Grant situation.

I do not see a reason why Simon would have lied.

I would be more concerned about the internal miscommunication on GW's likely part.

 

The impression Simon was under is the 2 points per SS presentation that he made.

The reason that GW told him one thing and then did another in print is the much more concerning to me part.

 

So, in short, GW dropped the ball.

Do additional chainswords actually give additional attacks? I thought it was...

 

Chainsword +1 Attack

Chainsword +1 Attack

 

Now pick one to attack with.

 

Or am I conflating editions in my head?

 

If a model has more than 1 Attack base, it can choose to move one attack to one weapon, and a second to the other.

 

So,

 

TWC have what, 2 or 3 attacks base?

 

+2 Attacks, so long as one puts at least 1 Attack die to each.

it was legitimately questionable

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Simon Grant saying otherwise put fuel on the fire, but the writing was clear: "Storm Shield (other models)" and "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" are separate entries, and anyone who thought the CA change applied to TWC was, simply, wrong or wilfully misinterpreting CA.

 

 

it was legitimately questionable

No, it wasn't.

 

Simon Grant saying otherwise put fuel on the fire, but the writing was clear: "Storm Shield (other models)" and "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" are separate entries, and anyone who thought the CA change applied to TWC was, simply, wrong or wilfully misinterpreting CA.

I am in this boat and got into my fair share of friendly arguments trying to explain why it was a problem and how it needed clarification for tournaments.

 

There was some crowing and condescending commentary towards my group after Simon's initial FB post that is going the other direction now.

 

I dont think either side should rub it in but this whole thing was definitely dividing

 

it was legitimately questionable

 

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Simon Grant saying otherwise put fuel on the fire, but the writing was clear: "Storm Shield (other models)" and "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" are separate entries, and anyone who thought the CA change applied to TWC was, simply, wrong or wilfully misinterpreting CA.

I’m sorry, I really don’t want to argue, but flatly saying “no, it wasn’t” is probably a little too strong for a number of reasons.

 

1) it was expected that TWC might be made cheaper in some way as they went from powerhouse unit to uncompetitive unit overnight with the change from 7th to 8th and they were only being used in either friendly lists or tournament lists that were losing consistently.

 

2) when CA came out it listed SS (other models) and SS (characters) only and did not give a price for SS (thunder wolf cavalry), why is it so outrageous to assume that thunder wolves would be lumped in with other? It’s not. Given that they were ignored completely, it was a natural conclusion to draw that they were now cheaper (especially given point 1 above).

 

3) Simon Grant came out and even said that they were included.

 

For the sake of getting along, I think it’s better to admit that there were some good reasons for people to assume that SS would be cheaper for thunderwolves, but that GW decided against it. The merits of GW’s decision is a completely separate argument.

 

Do additional chainswords actually give additional attacks? I thought it was...

 

Chainsword +1 Attack

Chainsword +1 Attack

 

Now pick one to attack with.

 

Or am I conflating editions in my head?

 

If a model has more than 1 Attack base, it can choose to move one attack to one weapon, and a second to the other.

 

So,

 

TWC have what, 2 or 3 attacks base?

 

+2 Attacks, so long as one puts at least 1 Attack die to each.

 

Ok, that makes sense. I looked at the CS after asking that ans went... wait, wut? and then came to the same conclusion. System design for work then trying to remember which edition of 40k Im playing is not conducive to me remembering stuff. :D

It didn't list SS (TWC) because they didn't change.

 

I didn't see anyone clamouring for Grey Hunters to be cheaper, even though they weren't included...

 

Edit: And expecting a change to be made isn't really a reason to ignore the way that CA works (ie, changes are for things listed, not for things not listed)

 

Edit 2: If you follow that logic then you could have 2pt character Storm Shields. Oh, sure, they have their own entry, but they're 'other' relative to Thunderwolves, right..?

 

 

it was legitimately questionable

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Simon Grant saying otherwise put fuel on the fire, but the writing was clear: "Storm Shield (other models)" and "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" are separate entries, and anyone who thought the CA change applied to TWC was, simply, wrong or wilfully misinterpreting CA.

 

2) when CA came out it listed SS (other models) and SS (characters) only and did not give a price for SS (thunder wolf cavalry), why is it so outrageous to assume that thunder wolves would be lumped in with other? It’s not. Given that they were ignored completely, it was a natural conclusion to draw that they were now cheaper (especially given point 1 above).

 

 

 

This is exactly the problem that needed clarifying and could not be assumed.

 

Rules have to be carefully read (the RAW aspect of this hobby)

 

Space Wolves are unique and while all other Marine codex had (1) SS-Characters and (2) SS-Others our codex added (3) SS-Thunderwolves.

When Chapter Approved modified items 1 and 2 it didn't address item 3 whatsoever.  Players who wanted the benefit said 2 obviously covers us because they assumed "other" included everything that wasn't a character.

While that may be true for all other Marines the problem for SW is that is Chapter Approve didn't delete item 3 from the SW codex so "other" did not include thunderwolves and the changes didn't apply.  

 

We hoped it was an oversight but GW smacked us with the ruling.

 

Regardless about right and wrong how about we just treat each other civilly please. That was my point.

I've only stated facts about the situation. TWC SS were never 2pts, even when Simon Grant posted on Facebook.

While being rather condescending to folks who found it confusing that's why everyone is on your case not because you were "right" whatever that's worth

While being rather condescending to folks who found it confusing that's why everyone is on your case not because you were "right" whatever that's worth

I got condescending in my second to last post, because this is a ridiculous amount of defence for a point that isn't confusing.

 

I don't particularly care if people want to be upset with me, personally, but the fact of the matter is that TWC SS were never 2pts, Simon Grant's Facebook post didn't make them 2pts, misconstrual of how the points lists works didn't make them 2pts, nor did wanting TWC to be more effective make them 2pts.

 

I want TWC to be better. CA didn't change that, and the issue was never unclear except for those unwilling to see the reality of the situation (that GW allowed them to languish - even though they did that with numerous other units in 8th already).

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.