New article reveals our chapter tactic

[WrathOfTheLion]

What do you mean by the last sentence?

The article says that you can't simultaneously have a Master Librarian named character and promote one in the same army. So if you take Ulric the Slayer, you could not purchase a Master of Sanctity as well, as he would count to that limit. However if you don't take the named character, you can promote one.

 

I think this is cool, allows you to play in a different time with perhaps a different command.

Edited October 1, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[TiguriusX]

Wanted to comment on heroic interventions and game scores because I literally just finished a game where the threat of infiltrators using 6" counter charge decided the game.

I had my infiltrators out of LOS behind a wall but 2 were touching an objective.

Opponent had 3 intercessors and 3 eradicators that could possibly reach the objective but not threaten my infiltrators.

My infiltrators are OBSEC so the only real option he had was to send his 3 man intercessors with their own OBSEC to try and deny me points. The eradicators could advance and stand there but were unable to shoot me and unable to overcome OBSEC.

He decided NOT to put his 3 man OBSEC intercessors on the objective to outnumber my 2 guys because with the counter attack stratagem I would basically pile more OBSEC bodies onto the objective and outnumber him. He played it safe and kept his last remaining OBSEC troop unit alive for a future turn instead of risking it on a roll of the dice that he could kill more of me and steal/deny the objective

That is the ONLY turn I managed to hold more than him and get the full 15 points...also got vital ground as a result.

8 point swing.

Final score of the game 69-64

Messing with objective interactions is a subtle but powerful ability

[Dark Shepherd]

What do you mean by the last sentence?

 

The article says that you can't simultaneously have a Master Librarian named character and promote one in the same army. So if you take Ulric the Slayer, you could not purchase a Master of Sanctity as well, as he would count to that limit. However if you don't take the named character, you can promote one.

 

I think this is cool, allows you to play in a different time with perhaps a different command.

Gahh I misread it, thanks

 

Still cool we can in theory have a non Logan chapter master

[VIth]

 

 

Ok, let's agree you are correct. When would HI ever be useful? Why would I ever put a character into a fight when they will 99.9%of the time become the primary target of the unit they just intervened into?

When you have a judiciar or armor of russ to remove their unit from the charge phase (when the attacker fights first) and place them in the non charge phase (when the defender fights first)

 

Or

 

When you have CP to fight on death and it is worth it to annihilate them to hold the objective with the unit that was originally attacked but ignored so your HI unit could be killed

 

 

Which, as I have said this entire thread, is completely situational. Would you rather have this or a +1 to wound on every roll the entire game? It isn't even close which is a better Chapter tactic. 

 

I apologize for being a bit harsh earlier, but, again, I think you're misunderstanding why this would be good.  I believe you're thinking of this strictly in terms of how it plays out versus a melee beatstick unit.  That, in and of itself, is a limited situation.  A BA player only has so many Sanguiniary Guard or Death Company units: I would not recommend heroically intervening a unit of Intercessors or Incursors sitting on an objective into a large unit of SG who charged the other unit camping the objective with them.  You'll simply give that beatstick unit two units to delete.

 

Where this ability will shine is twofold:

1) It creates enormously tricky situations for your opponent with a melee beatstick unit (or two or three) if you have a unit or two supported by a character with Armor of Russ and/or a Justicar.  That *is* situational, as you say while criticizing it, but it is also pretty easy to pull off: we *know* most games devolve into a massive scrum in the middle of the board so it is already likely these key assets will be there to react to the inbound scary melee beatstick.  

2) The real reason this is such a great tactic, and it's something I've not seen any critics address, is that for any scenario outside of the one I just mentioned (i.e. defending against a melee beatstick unit) this chapter tactic makes taking objectives from a well-positioned SW army extremely difficult.  As I noted, a unit must get within 3" of an objective to hold or contest it: that means any unit wanting to control an objective we are holding must get within range of our units' HI bubble.  While we're not going to HI into a Bloodletter bomb, large Bullgryn squad, or Assault Centurions with a unit of Incursors, we will be more than happy to charge into a unit of SM Scouts, IG Infantry, T'au, a 5-man Intercessor squad, etc, etc.  This is what I think makes it good.

 

So if you've thought through #2 as well, I'd love to hear why you think that is insignificant.  And this isn't even getting into heroically intervening Impulsors (with "FLY") into units...

[Bryan Blaire]

Aren’t all the Chapter Tactics rules situational?

 

It seems like the bigger question is “How often will the situation come up” and that likely comes down to how active the player with the rule can be in regards to activating it - but just because a player can be more active in making a rule applicable situation come up doesn’t mean that it will actually come up or that they can force it to happen regularly.

 

If a rule requires an opponent to do something before it activates, then a player may feel that it is weaker because a canny opponent should be on the lookout to not do things that allows the rule to trigger. This then requires the player to be more active in trying to trap opponents in a situation where the rule will activate based on having to make a decision between two equally poor for them outcomes, or other circumstances where the player otherwise forces an opponent’s hand, etc.

[VIth]

Aren’t all the Chapter Tactics rules situational?

 

It seems like the bigger question is “How often will the situation come up” and that likely comes down to how active the player with the rule can be in regards to activating it - but just because a player can be more active in making a rule applicable situation come up doesn’t mean that it will actually come up or that they can force it to happen regularly.

 

If a rule requires an opponent to do something before it activates, then a player may feel that it is weaker because a canny opponent should be on the lookout to not do things that allows the rule to trigger. This then requires the player to be more active in trying to trap opponents in a situation where the rule will activate based on having to make a decision between two equally poor for them outcomes, or other circumstances where the player otherwise forces an opponent’s hand, etc.

But it's hardly "situational": the situation is any time an enemy unit gets within 3" of an objective (which you're currently holding).

Edited October 2, 2020 by VIth

[Karhedron]

Teleport some Terminators onto an Objective. Now your opponent can't risk pushing an ObjSec unit within 3" or you will HI into him in his phase. Against any other opponent, you would only be able to charge said unit in your own turn by which point the enemy unit would have cost you 5VPs (which may be a worthwhile trade in a close game).

[Bryan Blaire]

the situation is any time an enemy unit gets within 3" of an objective (which you're currently holding).

So you agree that it is situational by what you wrote... it’s not an objection when you actually use it as an example.

 

sit·u·a·tion·al

adjective

1. relating to or dependent on a set of circumstances or state of affairs.

2. relating to the location and surroundings of a place.

 

Note that the definition of situational has no relationship to the frequency of said situation occurring. That’s the problem with using the term as an objection to how good the rule is - the rule by its very definition is situational, so no one has said anything useful by using that term - it’s not a negative thing in itself even though it was connotatively used negatively. The word “situational” isn’t connotatively inherently negative.

 

Saying “it’s situational” as a statement about the rule is a non-statement, one has merely stated an inherent nature of the rule. Yes, it is factually situational. That fact is not a positive or negative thing.

[Guest]

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

[Dark Shepherd]

Hey maybe our successor chapters can pick something instead of it :)

[TiguriusX]

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

If the opponent stays away and the SW benefits then HI produced a positive result by influencing a choice by the opposing player.

 

Right?

[Guest]

 

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

If the opponent stays away and the SW benefits then HI produced a positive result by influencing a choice by the opposing player.

Right?

Not really from what I can tell, he was more worried about not charging his turn and the SW charging on the SW turn. I'll ask and see what he says. I'm trying to play a online game with my DG and see how it goes.

[FabulousRex]

It's weird that this Situational Trait of mass-HI is dismissed by critics as too corner case. "That's only just the situation you're in when defending an objective." Sounds to me like the old phrase attached to Chris Carter of the NFL.

 

"All he does is catch touchdowns"

 

Sounds like an insult at 1st glance...

 

 

Also, the Goonhammer review stated that our new Chapter Tactic is "incredibly powerful". Guess they made a bad mistake, huh? They're only top competitive gamers getting paid to analyze a wargame professionally..

Edited October 4, 2020 by FabulousRex

[Bulwyf]

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

 

Disagreeing with the group think is dangerous brother. Glad to see I am not the only one that sees this as not that good. I'd much rather have add +1 to advance and charge rolls or +1 to wound in melee over it just as examples of other melee based traits.

[Gherrick]

If HI counted the unit as having charged, I think it would far more useful. With so many objectives to cover, it isn't like we are gonna have more than 1-2 units per objective, and the shooting phase will likely reduce any HI-capable unit to ineffectiveness unless luck intervenes.

[One Two Wolf]

I have read these comments and see it both ways. Yes, other chapters have more immediately obviously powerful traits like +1 advance and charge and so on, but while HI for all perhaps isn't as 'wow that's great for every game all the time', if you consider it as a defensive buff I feel it starts to shine a little. By simply pairing units (or having triads of a shooty unit, a fighty unit and a character perhaps) this becomes a thing. You may prevent charges against your weaker-in-CQC unit; you may not prevent that charge but still get a cheeky 3" move and force the opponent to split attacks, potentially failing to achieve the objective of the charge in the first place (if whatever has charged can split attacks and smoke both units in such a case, then HI wasn't a bad trait, your decision to put models into a death blender was bad), or make the opponent have to tackle your fighty unit instead of their primary target.

 

If packs are out somewhere all alone then obviously it's basically useless, and that's not anything to do with it being a bad trait, it's to do with strategic decisions having been made in the knowledge that they are compromising this strength. Let's face it, 5 or even 10 intercessors are not going to last on an objective if the opponent really wants them gone. That same pack with 5 WGTDA all stormshielded up RIGHT NEXT to them is another kettle of kraken altogether (if someone wants to say they can just be shot off the objective then I reply what's the point of this discussion in the first place so don't come back with that looking for a pointless argument please).

 

Personally I think the best thing to do is play to strengths. The +1 to hit is so powerful that this being less 'always on' seems quite fair and proper - plan to use it when list building, deploying and moving, and keep pointing out what will happen if/when charges happen to your opponent and see how they choose to play it; leverage the threat. Or don't, wait for a charge and then surprise them. It's up to each Wolf Lord really isn't it, but either way, I don't think hating on it as 'situational' or 'worse than others' helps any in the halls at all.

 

I'm going to go and watch that review I've heard mentioned now, and see what the mathletes think, despite my own feelings that that math meta maxi approach is the worst possible way to enjoy this game of toy soldiers - but whatever, each fang to it's own flavour of meat.

[Guest]

 

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

If the opponent stays away and the SW benefits then HI produced a positive result by influencing a choice by the opposing player.

 

Right?

 

 

So his take (reminder this is his 2nd language so I'm trying to make it legible) "because the game forces you to be on objectives, armies are to not be together. The smaller squads I would  simply shoot off, the bigger squads I would charge to deny them objectives. The only time this went hill down (backfired?) was when I thought a group of intercessors as 1 group, when it was 2. The opponent  tried to pincer me, but I would just move away or charge one before the other could get near to the 2nd.  He would eventually also charge the unit (I assume he means the one he charged with) and I kill the unit (I think he meant he lost his own unit)." 

 

So in short his UM would just skirt around and kill smaller group off with shooting. He would then charge to deny SW them objectives, or when he knew he was being flanked to deny them HI and a chance to position his own troops into disadvantage. So instead of cowering, which I think most of us are hoping the enemy will do, he was bold and charged the SW and deny them the chance to use HI.

 

To make this work it is best for us to have groups go in pairs and position it so only one group can be charged and the other can HI. If you play a expensive army (like lots of WG or primaris and such) this may not be effective as we can't afford to have that many groups. To make HI as effective as possible, play like a Ork and take a bunch of cheap numerous units and bunch up.

[Fang_Guard23]

I was checking the reviews of it in HD and found some interesting bits for us in the possible future. The helfrost weapons that are in the codex don't have any rules regarding MW on a 6, so it could mean that helfrost could become either a Wargear stratagem or an ability. Crusade rules are showing honorifics for all 10 company captains so it's possible that we get honorifics for the space wolves 12 - 13 great companies. Blizzard Shield is 4++ with no +1 armor save, which is fine because Duty Eternal reduces inflicted damage by 1.

[FabulousRex]

To make this work it is best for us to have groups go in pairs and position it so only one group can be charged and the other can HI. If you play a expensive army (like lots of WG or primaris and such) this may not be effective as we can't afford to have that many groups. To make HI as effective as possible, play like a Ork and take a bunch of cheap numerous units and bunch up.

Spot on! I don't consider our new trait terribly useful outside of defending objectives.

 

Objectives win games now.

 

Narrow focus does not mean ineffective usage

"All he does is catch touchdowns."

Edited October 4, 2020 by FabulousRex

[Bulwyf]

If you think you can play Space Wolves like Orks then I don't know what to say. We have no cheap units to flood the board. Space Wolves are not a horde army. We were never intended to be a horde army and will never play like one. 

 

With 9th being only about objective controls and with Space Marines being very expensive (which is fair because Astartes are elite) you won't have the points to flood a board with tons of MSU to just HI anything off the board. There's simply no way you can have enough units to have multiple units on every objective and dare someone to come at you.

 

Since we are all in the same codex now doesn't this mean you can pick and choose your traits? Why wouldn't I take +1 hit and +1 to advance and charge rolls and just forget about this inconsequential HI shenanigans?  

[TiguriusX]

 

 

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

If the opponent stays away and the SW benefits then HI produced a positive result by influencing a choice by the opposing player.

 

Right?

 

 

So his take (reminder this is his 2nd language so I'm trying to make it legible) "because the game forces you to be on objectives, armies are to not be together. The smaller squads I would  simply shoot off, the bigger squads I would charge to deny them objectives. The only time this went hill down (backfired?) was when I thought a group of intercessors as 1 group, when it was 2. The opponent  tried to pincer me, but I would just move away or charge one before the other could get near to the 2nd.  He would eventually also charge the unit (I assume he means the one he charged with) and I kill the unit (I think he meant he lost his own unit)." 

 

So in short his UM would just skirt around and kill smaller group off with shooting. He would then charge to deny SW them objectives, or when he knew he was being flanked to deny them HI and a chance to position his own troops into disadvantage. So instead of cowering, which I think most of us are hoping the enemy will do, he was bold and charged the SW and deny them the chance to use HI.

 

To make this work it is best for us to have groups go in pairs and position it so only one group can be charged and the other can HI. If you play a expensive army (like lots of WG or primaris and such) this may not be effective as we can't afford to have that many groups. To make HI as effective as possible, play like a Ork and take a bunch of cheap numerous units and bunch up.

 

 

Thanks for getting that info and relaying it

 

I don't spread my wolves across multiple objectives

 

My playstyle is take and absolutely dominate 1 or 2 while blowing him off anything else

 

When I commit my forces it is to hold the line and earn points when my next turn rolls around

 

If my opponent wants to spread small units across the board I am glad to pick him off with my scorpius artillery or my stormfang gunship

[One Two Wolf]

If you think you can play Space Wolves like Orks then I don't know what to say. We have no cheap units to flood the board. Space Wolves are not a horde army. We were never intended to be a horde army and will never play like one.

 

With 9th being only about objective controls and with Space Marines being very expensive (which is fair because Astartes are elite) you won't have the points to flood a board with tons of MSU to just HI anything off the board. There's simply no way you can have enough units to have multiple units on every objective and dare someone to come at you.

 

Since we are all in the same codex now doesn't this mean you can pick and choose your traits? Why wouldn't I take +1 hit and +1 to advance and charge rolls and just forget about this inconsequential HI shenanigans?

1. I agree with the ork comment but it's not quite what was meany I think.

 

2. You don't need to control every objective, just half, or one more than the opponent.

 

3. "inconsequential" - after all this discussion you can't be more than deliberately inciting frustration. If you can mix and match when the book(s) arrives go for it, until then maybe start a thread called "why we should all change armies".

[Bulwyf]

 

If you think you can play Space Wolves like Orks then I don't know what to say. We have no cheap units to flood the board. Space Wolves are not a horde army. We were never intended to be a horde army and will never play like one.

 

With 9th being only about objective controls and with Space Marines being very expensive (which is fair because Astartes are elite) you won't have the points to flood a board with tons of MSU to just HI anything off the board. There's simply no way you can have enough units to have multiple units on every objective and dare someone to come at you.

 

Since we are all in the same codex now doesn't this mean you can pick and choose your traits? Why wouldn't I take +1 hit and +1 to advance and charge rolls and just forget about this inconsequential HI shenanigans?

1. I agree with the ork comment but it's not quite what was meany I think.

 

2. You don't need to control every objective, just half, or one more than the opponent.

 

3. "inconsequential" - after all this discussion you can't be more than deliberately inciting frustration. If you can mix and match when the book(s) arrives go for it, until then maybe start a thread called "why we should all change armies".

 

 

I'm not trying to incite anything other than discussion. Just because something is in a codex, FAQ or errata means you have to like it or think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

 

I have read every post in this thread and it only further proves to me that HI isn't good and that other melee centric Chapters have better tools in their toolbox. I played SW throughout the nightmare of 8th edition when we were battling it out with CSM as the worst army in 8th. I have played this game since Rogue Trader and SW since they became a legal army in I want to say 2nd edition without googling. I'm not going to just throw my hands in the air and quit playing because I don't like a bad rule we're stuck with. 

 

If some here think this rule is better than what other Chapters have gotten then I'm happy for them. I disagree. I don't go out and either insult others or try to infer they are disagreeing with me for some nefarious reason. I only ask the same respect in return.

[FabulousRex]

Give respect 1st. When you disagree, don't make absolute statements. Acknowledge that you might be wrong. I think the HI trait will suit my playstyle, but acknowledge that it has limited effectiveness and takes more effort to make it work at all.

 

I think it's a high skill ability. Reaction moves outside of your activation are incredibly powerful, but usually have difficult triggers. Learn the application, try it on the table or watch others use it before dropping THE TRUTH.

 

It only seems less effective because those Successor traits have already been kicking butt for over a year.

Edited October 4, 2020 by FabulousRex

[Guest]

 

 

 

Watched a match on 9th rules (although not finished as we lack our supplement and physical codex). The opponent would just stay away or charge a unit to deny the SW the objective. The only time the HI was useful was when there was 2 SW squads next to each other, the opponent charged 1, and the 2nd performed HI. To me it just doesn't seem that useful, and I think I prefer the old HI and strat.

If the opponent stays away and the SW benefits then HI produced a positive result by influencing a choice by the opposing player.

 

Right?

 

 

So his take (reminder this is his 2nd language so I'm trying to make it legible) "because the game forces you to be on objectives, armies are to not be together. The smaller squads I would  simply shoot off, the bigger squads I would charge to deny them objectives. The only time this went hill down (backfired?) was when I thought a group of intercessors as 1 group, when it was 2. The opponent  tried to pincer me, but I would just move away or charge one before the other could get near to the 2nd.  He would eventually also charge the unit (I assume he means the one he charged with) and I kill the unit (I think he meant he lost his own unit)." 

 

So in short his UM would just skirt around and kill smaller group off with shooting. He would then charge to deny SW them objectives, or when he knew he was being flanked to deny them HI and a chance to position his own troops into disadvantage. So instead of cowering, which I think most of us are hoping the enemy will do, he was bold and charged the SW and deny them the chance to use HI.

 

To make this work it is best for us to have groups go in pairs and position it so only one group can be charged and the other can HI. If you play a expensive army (like lots of WG or primaris and such) this may not be effective as we can't afford to have that many groups. To make HI as effective as possible, play like a Ork and take a bunch of cheap numerous units and bunch up.

 

 

Thanks for getting that info and relaying it

 

I don't spread my wolves across multiple objectives

 

My playstyle is take and absolutely dominate 1 or 2 while blowing him off anything else

 

When I commit my forces it is to hold the line and earn points when my next turn rolls around

 

If my opponent wants to spread small units across the board I am glad to pick him off with my scorpius artillery or my stormfang gunship

 

 

 

The problem with securing 1 or 2 resources and just shooting at your enemy hoping  to make it so they have 1 less objective I have thought about when I go to play against a SW player. My counter to that is a simple unit of 7 or so Blightguard+LoC onto a SW held objective. It'll be difficult to knock them off and the SW will lose the objective while the blightguard are there. I am going to test this and see how it works. However if i secure 2 with Plague Marines, fight over 1, and then deny him for 1 with the blightguard, I should come out on top. 

 

HI is not a OP stratagem, it has it's uses and if  you can trick your opponent it can be used will. I just don't think it's as powerful as people make it out to be. Just for my personal standard and the way I play, I prefer the old HI trait. I also run 2 wolf priests and a wolf lord at minimum in every game I played. You ran at my Intercessors you were being met by a Wolf Priest also pretty much.

 

As for my "play as ork" comment, my expression may be off but I meant "don't run your squads heavy in points, run only what you need and field as many squads paired as possible so they can HI off each other and obsec.