Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Space Wolves 3.0 Approved

 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:01 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3123
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Exactly which of the changes are you interested in then Dobbsy? Isn't it easier to start discussing thoose which you agree on?

And by saying that any OP-build you show UvenLord will be dismissed by him you're doing exactly what you asked him not to do to you; putting words in his mouth.

I for one would be very interested in seeing any OP-builds with the new proposed formats since i play against the list regulary. In the current format I've yet to encounter any lists that felt crazy good (not that any marine lists feel easy to beat for me!)

So lead by good example and show us lists that makes you concerned.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Last edited by mordoten on Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Dobbsy wrote:
uvenlord wrote:

So right now I have two votes on "no change whatsoever" that thinks all my suggestions are bad.

That's where you're wrong. :)
This response have lots of things that I think will help in the debvelopment. It points to specific objects and gives reason and sometimes a solution. I only think you are grumpy in some of your answers, not all ;) I won't dissect your response but try to compile something so we can get on with something constructive.

I read it like it's two main things you do not like and you have explained why:

1. The option to by Long fangs etc to the Great Co. You want it to stay and I really have no objection to that if you use them. (S'Cipio seems to like the same thing) I never feel that they are worth the points, other then the bloodclaws and it feels a little like cheating to take them like this to negate most of their drawback.
Please post a list and a short "tactical summary", if you have the time, to why you take and use them instead of saving the money to get another activation so I may learn a thing or two :) I get it that Long fangs is for FF etc but isn't razorbacks cheaper... ::)

2. Great Company restrictions. I see the difference being that with my proposal people will take 1 great Co most of the time, before they took 2. So with the new build you will see 300 points used with something different. I feel that it is strange that the restriction is on hunting packs only and not on the support choices. Also if the Great Co is a viable unit, there is no restriction on taking 2 or 3, you just don't have to...

Also I'm very curious on what you think is good... :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
mordoten wrote:
Exactly which of the changes are you interested in then Dobbsy? Isn't it easier to start discussing thoose which you agree on?

And by saying that any OP-build you show UvenLord will be dismissed by him you're doing exactly what you asked him not to do to you; putting words in his mouth.

I for one would be very interested in seeing any OP-builds with the new proposed formats since i play the list regulary. In the current format I've yet to encounter any lists that felt crazy good (not that any marine lists feel easy to beat for me!)

So lead by good example and show us lists that makes you concerned.
Ninja!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:35 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3123
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
One thing that you guys could consider instead would be to allow 2 hunting packs per Great Co. Some kind of middle ground there maybe...)

Also i think 175 for scouts is too cheap. yes they are weal ass scouts but teleport is a very powerfull ability on a ATSKNF unit. Great way to steal objectives in turn 3 so 175 is a little bit to little to pay for that.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
mordoten wrote:
One thing that you guys could consider instead would be to allow 2 hunting packs per Great Co. Some kind of middle ground there maybe...)

Also i think 175 for scouts is too cheap. yes they are weal ass scouts but teleport is a very powerfull ability on a ATSKNF unit. Great way to steal objectives in turn 3 so 175 is a little bit to little to pay for that.
hmm, right now you can have the same number of every hunting pack as you have great co so if you buy 1 Great Co you can by 1 long fang, 1 blood claw etc... If you want a similar wording it would be that you can have double the amount... or how it is best written :)

175 might be to cheap, but at 200 you could get a Thunderhawk... :-\


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:20 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3123
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
uvenlord wrote:
mordoten wrote:
175 might be to cheap, but at 200 you could get a Thunderhawk... :-\


That can be shot down by ground AA and intercepted and that has to land in Turn 2 to be able to take objectives.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
mordoten wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
mordoten wrote:
175 might be to cheap, but at 200 you could get a Thunderhawk... :-\


That can be shot down by ground AA and intercepted and that has to land in Turn 2 to be able to take objectives.
True, but land late turn 2 or teleport before turn 3... If you just want to contest it is easier with the plane.
Also if you got AA within range you can probably kill the Scouts with it instead but as I said, you might be right.
I will try it in our next game. (Now they cost more but it will probably not matter)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8434
Location: Manalapan, FL
this is a really good discussion! In no particular order some thoughts and general comments
-Mordoten is very correct that teleport is a very strong ability so we need to watch things like that
-Addition of warhounds with the cheaper air assault asset could be problematic. this is an area of synergy that would need lots of looking at; They're dis-proportionally good in EA due to how the rules work. Personally i liked that they were absent here which helped to reinforce the hoard marine army feel. not saying good nor bad.
-I can say that unblooded, as it stands now, really has a tendency to make the unit absolutely unattractive and it's not rare to see them slow-poking it across the table. I suspect that instead a mechanic much more like orks would work better where haulin ass at the enemy should be easy, sitting still or overwatching or slow advance (single) is hard to do. with that they probably shouldn't be able to support FF or need to bump, not sure. it's an interesting problem and ditching it doesn't really do the list any favors I think.
-A general note is that change is groovy and if they're liked then organically they'll get tested. If not popular, it doesn't go anywhere and no worries. Of course if the changes are simply end up being codex by another name then they tend to never get approved as well (aka "then why bother" ruling), so again, not too much of a worry to trial things as there's little downside.

What I am more interested in is that at this moment, we really don't know how this list is going to get leveraged in reality as it's simply not go the weight of the tourney circuit and wide range of play that is impossible to occur until after approval. it would be nice to let things percolate a bit before we draw too many conclusions. :) While the coffee is bubbling, trial away and experiment but I would not be too hasty either (other than thunder cav which I've done an about face and for some inexplicable reason actually want now :D )

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Right, so lets try out some things for at least some months and then we will see how things look then :)

Warhounds is only in pairs, but anyway it might be a problem. I really like titans in epic as it looks so good with the tiny soldiers and some big machines. The warlord or even the reaver is rarely taken at 3000 points so adding the pair is only to satisfy my own lust :) If it is bad, then we can just remove them.

I also have a "problem" with the unblooded rule not really representing their will to fight. I agree that they should be uncontrollable but if "Russ" or whoever said: lets run over there and kill those orks (marsh order) They will sometimes disobey and regroup instead...
What if we just took the ork rule? (and perhaps made something extra to the rally phase...?)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
uvenlord wrote:
I read it like it's two main things you do not like and you have explained why:

1. The option to by Long fangs etc to the Great Co. You want it to stay and I really have no objection to that if you use them. (S'Cipio seems to like the same thing) I never feel that they are worth the points, other then the bloodclaws and it feels a little like cheating to take them like this to negate most of their drawback.
Please post a list and a short "tactical summary", if you have the time, to why you take and use them instead of saving the money to get another activation so I may learn a thing or two :) I get it that Long fangs is for FF etc but isn't razorbacks cheaper... ::)

I'd like all the add-ons to stay, not just the LFs. In terms of the points issue you mention, there isn't really a negation of their drawback as the points you're spending comes out of the army points and creates a whole different drawback - less formations(as you say). It's a "trade" of drawbacks. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that to get shooting ability for the Great Company you have to pay for it which ups the cost of the formation. It's a balance I purposely built in. If you want shooting you get less in the army.

GC+GH+LF - This GC has great longevity on the table; it can lay BMs and damage at range; packs a punch in CC/FF and is a great support formation in an engagement. It does it all. For 525 points it's expensive but hard to kill off. Usually BTS unless I put a Titan in the list.

GC+GH+BC+WL - Wolf Lord body shield ;) Plus a great engagement formation or Blitz defence (doesn't even have to sit on the obj - just be nearby). A very good Air Assault formation if I only take one of the BC or GH add-ons. If I put a Titan in they make a good engagement support formation. e.g one supports the other depending on who engages. Still a very survivable formation on the table - except when playing Eldar then no one is safe. :D

Razorbacks are cheaper but the FF is 3+ on a LF unit. It's all about the 3's in the SW list and they're also infantry so harder to kill. The 125 points for the add-on is slightly less than half a formation but the 300 full pack gives you way more firepower and an additional activation. My personal choice previously has been to increase pack survival on the table but I've also used the stand alone pack. I vary what I take.

uvenlord wrote:

2. Great Company restrictions. I see the difference being that with my proposal people will take 1 great Co most of the time, before they took 2. So with the new build you will see 300 points used with something different. I feel that it is strange that the restriction is on hunting packs only and not on the support choices. Also if the Great Co is a viable unit, there is no restriction on taking 2 or 3, you just don't have to...

Like I said though, the Hunting packs should not be the focus of the army - and removing the restriction allows this to happen. I don't play without 2 GCs (I planned on painting up my third as well) this then gives me the ability to take two of any other type of hunting pack. That still allows you to take multiple Hunting packs types.

uvenlord wrote:

Also I'm very curious on what you think is good... :)

I think the addition of the Warhounds is at least a good trial formation. I didn't want them originally (Another anti-Codex-build measure) but I can see they will add something to the list as a pair - but it might just be too much/good. Keen to try it though.

I'm not completely against the Thunderwolves as I once was either - If people really want to see Disney-GW ;) I'm interested to see how they pan out.

I do like the cheaper air assets - I would have left them as that cost originally but people had concerns so I changed it and the price was a balancer for increased assault capability on the infantry. Giving me back 25 points per aircraft is not a bad thing but I still have concerns about the change.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:06 am
Posts: 264
Hi, Uvenlord. Thank you for reading and replying to my post so carefully.

uvenlord wrote:

So right now I have two votes on "no change whatsoever" that thinks all my suggestions are bad. :)

It would also be fun to know if you play with the list or if you just want to help out in the development. And especially if you go to tournaments please let me know how it goes.


LOL. Well, I don't vote for "no changes whatsoever". Actual bugs gotta get fixed as we find them. But you know how it is. You read over changes in a list you love, and the things you don't like jump out at you a lot more strongly than the things you do. I was specifically commenting on the changes that I thought damaged the theme and character of the list.

I am eager to try out the pair of Warhounds and I'm glad you didn't also include single Warhounds.

I also agree that some more attention should be paid to the Unblooded rule.

I'm not much interested in Thunderwolves, but I look forward to hearing stories from other people who use them.

I do play the list in games with friends, but I haven't been involved in any tournaments.

Uvenlord wrote:
<snip "The Great Company is an independent army, and the mixed formation shows the the mental nature of the Space Wolve's intrinsic pack society including members at different life-stages.">

Sure, I agree on this, that's why we need the restriction to always take one Great Company....
[The List] has always been able to field any number of Thunderhawks and Predetors, I just feels that it is weird to have the restriction tighter on the classic space Wolf units...


I think the restriction is for thematic reasons. You can stock up on a lot of machinery, and it only takes a relatively few Grey Hunters and Servitors to field a large amount of armor. But a Great Company traveling as an independent army only has so many men. Only a limited number of their Grey Hunters survive long enough to become Long Fangs. Only a select few--with a sociological disability that keeps them from fitting in with their Wolf Brothers--get the extra super-special training to become scouts.

Thus, to properly communicate the character of the Space Wolf army to the player at 6mm, the Great Company should be able to double or treble-up on armor support packs, but having more of the limited human specialists should bring in another Great Company.

And, I'm just curious, did you really never put any Long Fangs in your Great Companies? No terminators? It seems odd that I would no longer be able to have my Wolf Lord lead from the front of his Great Company while wearing terminator armor.

Uvenlord wrote:
S'Cipio wrote:
The current list is thematic, balanced, approved, and it works. It's also a lot of fun.
Glad to hear that :)
How would a typical Army that you think is the above look? What opponents have you played against?


Sure, I can do that. I should have some used force lists in my game closet. I'll try to post some of them maybe tomorrow.



Cheers!

-S'Cipio


Last edited by S'Cipio on Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:06 am
Posts: 264
uvenlord wrote:
I also have a "problem" with the unblooded rule not really representing their will to fight. I agree that they should be uncontrollable but if "Russ" or whoever said: lets run over there and kill those orks (marsh order) They will sometimes disobey and regroup instead...
What if we just took the ork rule? (and perhaps made something extra to the rally phase...?)


The solution to this depends upon how far you are willing to break the historic mold. Adding +1 to initiative for Double moves like the Orks do could help stop them from slow-walking to the enemy. But, it still doesn't really solve the problem of a bloodthirsty formation having the default action of "stand still" whenever they "lose control of themselves". (You can see them setting up the chess boards right now, can't you?)

OR! you could try something really radical that reflects them charging toward combat even when that's a bad idea. Change Unblooded into:

-----------
Rabid Ragebeast: (Yeah, yeah. The name is a joke. But bear with me.) Instead of performing a hold action after failing an action test, formations with this ability must instead be given Engage orders. They must then move toward the nearest enemy, must use their full movement to attempt to reach base-to-base contact, and must stay within formation. In addition, they get a -1 assault modifier when determining the result of any assault caused by this move. These same movement conditions, but not the assault modifier, apply when they normally perform an Engage action, or when they have the chance to counter-charge. (They must always counter-charge.)
------------

Now, you might say, "what kind of limitation is that? You almost always want them to charge into combat anyway." But you might not always want them to end their turn in the open if they are too far from the enemy to reach them. And you might not always want them to charge into units that are on overwatch. And you definitely don't want them to charge at units on overwatch from too far away to make it in one turn.

"Hey, Feygor! Look at that! The little wolfies are running at us from wayyyyyyy over there. Place your bets everyone! I've got 200 credits that say none of them makes it far enough for Arnold over there to open up with his autocannon a second time!"

And there is the combat resolution penalty (in addition to the standard blast marker for failing an initiative check) representing the fact that this was a bad strategic time to charge, just as the Wolf Lord was trying to tell them when he said to "take cover". The enemy was well prepared to meet the charge because of <abstracted strategy reasons> and their morale is abnormally high.

Just a thought.

-S'Cipio


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
There was discussion about Unblooded way back in the beginning and the reason it is the way it is. Might be good to go back and check the history/development of it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
So when I have the time I will put back all the upgrades to the Great Company.

The reason that I do not use them is purely "power gaming" :) (Unless you take the Blood Claws, they are worth their points when they do not activate and rally on 2+) For 125 points you almost get another activation. When I play the value of another activation and a possible activation advantage over the opponent is much greater then the value of a more resilient formation. Two Long Fangs doesn't give that much firepower so most of the time it will just be a BM and perhaps a kill, the shots will hit on 6. (I see this formation as a purely engaging one so I will double or engage and sometimes marsh) So a razorback does the same job for me but cost 100 points less.
A big unit is good but I think that they already is big 6 marines and 3 rhinos that's already very hard to kill. They will probably outnumber other specialists in engagements because of their armour and size or be outnumbered by hordes no matter if they are 9 or 11...
Terminators have their place if you go drop podding big time and I have actually tried them a couple of times with good results but... You can get a similar boost from dreadnoughts (and use them to hide behind afterwards) And I tend to rather go with a whole Terminator formation and combined assault instead...

So that's my reasons for not taking upgrades :)

On the 1-1 Hunting pack, I see where you are coming from and think they are good reasons but I will wait awhile before I change it back. It would be fun to try other builds and if you want to take 2 core, no problem.
There might be a "spamming" tendency with the wolves as they are cheap activators but I rather restrict them in some way instead because I do not want the Space Wolves to be Wolves in Space with some marine support... ;)

Will read some backlog and think about the "Rabid Ragebeast" some more. I like the Hold = rush your opponent thing. But it needs some trimming. Also I would like to deal with the rally thing...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
The issue of "rush even when holding" came up years ago with the World Eaters rules. Getting to act how you want (engage) when you've failed to act was sort of counter to the rules IIRC.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net