Again I'm a little perplexed. All I can say about this is is that I think I have a specific style and it's obviously an "engagement army." Not one that is solely "close combat" or one that's solely "fire fight". In fact I find those armies one dimensional, one-trick-ponies and a little boring to play and play against. I've always felt armies need a mix of everyhing not just one thing or the other. <shrug>


While i disagree they're sacrificial (whether that's how you see it or not) I don't think you can get away from this theory. Any ground-based assault troops will end up being in the fore of an assault and likely dead at the end and, in fact, Blood Claws fight in the van and often seek glory or death and glory in death, hoping to perform glorious deeds before they die and head to Russ' Halls.


I would assume in an engagement army style you make units CC/FF oriented right?

==

Yep and they're already there and there's also aircraft. I'm not sure how I can change any of these things and still have them available as per their fluff. While I can see your point that I can still emphasize Long Fangs more - again I thought I had when I was plannng to include them as a Grey Hunter upgrade.


I've added the Land Raider Crusader and the Predator Destructor, Razorback and the Vindicator are already there. I could obviously remove the normal Land Raider and the Pred Annhilator but that's not even correct as they are viable options in Space Wolves wargear.


This is a possible option for Long Fangs as IIRC the original Space Marine 1 rules had them as 30cm shooters.


Yep this is why I was proposing the LF upgrade to Grey Hunters except they don't provide more than 2x 3+FF attacks so aren't too over-bearing and were already embedded so always move with the formation.


Yes I agree here, I'll look closer at what upgrades are available to what formations.


Yep SM1 LF stats point to this as I mentioned so I'm happy to look at this. I don't mind it as a proposal actually. In terms of a SW Pred there sin't but i don't see the Destructor as too far off the mark here.


Actually, this one thing is where you're wrong Neal. Swiftclaws are the "Speartip." They attack fast and hard and "engage" the enemy in hard-hitting attacks - it's one reason why I bumped them to 6-unit formations to provide a little more punch and a little more sustainability even at 2+ inititive. I would prefer to see more Attack bikes in a list than Land Speeders in this role. Land Speeders are piloted by Grey Hunters so I would see them more as a line formation - still able to perform the same role but in game-terms with Scout they provide another different role in ground-holding/objective-taking.


No, not at all. Like I said I don't see this army as that and I don't like the idea of it.


Ok fair enough, but how can I decrease the stats/abilities of these units as I have and still charge the same costs? People won't accept that and will flat out say (and have said already) they wouldn't take them. I'm not looking to include units that no one wants to use, I'm looking to make those units usable across any list they want - in my terms, "flexibility"


Again this is perplexing as I have already included just such a rule - Unblooded. The rule came out of Illushia's 1.6 list and other than wording, people seem ok with it so far. I balk at introducing special rules as I've seen other lists and they always get calls to reduce special rules. I think the Unblooded and Long in the Tooth rules are a minimalist additions and add some flavour. I'm not against more special rules per se, just wary. I'd like to see through playtests whether something "more" is needed for this army first - that is if I can get some time to play more games.


No not at all and a couple things do make me look at things differently. I can't say I'll implement your ideas as accurately as you'd perhaps like, but I'll do my best to bring the list closer to your views though.

Dobbsy: I'm not trying to push an agenda. All that above post is purely example for the sake of clarity, not specific suggestions on what to change. It's a rough broadside because I don't have a grasp on what you intend for the list.


There are a ton of ways to make an "engagement army." Eldar Saim Hann are an "engagement army" and Feral Orks are an "engagement army" but they are nothing alike and I don't think you want Space Wolves to play like either. This just isn't enough to go on. You need to be much more specific. Not only do you need to explain how they are different than Eldar and Orks, but how they are different than Blood Angels or Templars.

What makes them uniquely Space Wolves? What flavor and feel differentiates them from the many "engagement armies" that are already in the game?

I have just had a very quick look at the list and it is intruiging. I hope I have got the correct download - V2.1 playtest.

I like the absence of Warhounds, and the concept of encouraging more of the signature formations by tying support formations to them. I am a fan of the LR Crusader as a transport/support unit used in the SW context, and the 'Venerable' dreadnought in concept (though perhaps limited to 1 per army?).

That said, I am unsure about the points for these formations, especially if ATSKNF still applies. If I am correct, you can get a GH (6x tactical), WG Termie (4x Termies) and ThunderHawk for 725, which is considerably cheaper than any other marine army (850). I am also less sure about the use of Predators as an upgrade given the army concept.

If the SW formations are supposed to be larger, perhaps the points could be left at 300, and the formation size specified as a maximum of 'x' including all upgrades of which 'y' must be infantry (Space Hunters, Bloodclaws etc). This will solve the issue of ATSKNF on bigger formations while also allowing some more non-codex variations. As these define the core of the SW list, it will also allow you to refine these to match the strategy and tactics of the SW envisaged in terms of these formations?

Finally some niggly details
Instead of 75 points per terminator, perhaps you could specify 350 for four, with an upgrade of 75 each for the other two.

For the vindicator upgrade, perhaps 50 each?

For the Land raider formation, would it be permissable to allow any mix of Crusaders as well? And the wording of the LandRaider upgrade is a little confusing - do you intend the LR upgrade to be formed of only only one type?
Equally, you may need to revise the wording around what can be transported; 3 'other' may be a little too vague.

Finally on the Heroes upgrade, it might be better worded :-
"Add a character to the formation, (Grey Hunters may add a second, different character to a separate unit)."

My 2 cents as they say

Yeah, what Neal says. Without referencing specific stats, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the Space Wolf army, that seperates it from any other. Just some off the cuffs.

White Scars - Positives, Rolling speed in force. Negatives, weaker garrisons and limits on first strike capability.
Scions - Positives, Combined arms formations. Negatives, weaker garrisons and limited infantry capacity.

Also, you might want to re-look at your costings again. The Black Templar army is all but done, according to Pulsar, and he costs 6 equivalent Grey Hunters (Sword Brethren) + Transport at 325pts. Granted, they have Infiltrate, but that's a 100pt difference between the two.

Morgan Vening

Oh I never thought you were Neal. In terms of what I intend for the list, I guess I'm just not clued in to your way of thinking - be it from a tactical point of view or a knowledge one. Examples are a huge benefit to me in this case.


OK, I guess I just figured that it was obvious in that everyone is familiar with how Marines in general work and that the changes to the units and the list structure gives players the sense of difference. The way I look at it (perhaps incorrectly) even those other lists use the same rules conventions to apply engagements, they just use their unit types in a different way - having those different unit types. I thought that Space Wolves players would apply those unit types in roles they obviously excel at.




(As a reply here and to Morgan's post).

Positives: Slightly larger formations, mixed (ad-hoc) troop formations, multiple characters in formations

Negatives: Not so reliable Marines (Claws), Slower hard hitting troops, minimal long range firepower, only expensive Titan support.

Is that enough info though?


Yep that's the current one out atm.


Yes the Ven Dread is 0-1 as I really want to portray it's rarity in comparison to normal Dreads.


Yep, the GH have no ranged fire (I based points costs on Tacticals and removed points for the missing MLs and their usability - being engagement only) and the Termies cannot teleport so are ground-based or Drop Pod-based so their tactical factor is greatly reduced and you have to pay for expensive transports to move them about with any speed. I'm pretty sure the shock factor for Termies is the teleport ability.


Can you explain a little better here Ginger? Just trying to get a better grasp of this theory.


That's easily done.


Can do. What is the generally accepted cost for these now? I wasn't sure so I based it off the Scions of Iron list (IIRC).


Hmm, I hadn't considered that people would want to mix and match. I've always thought people don't like mixed formation types e.g Pred Destructors in the same formation as Annihilators etc..


Ahh yes that's a typo. I've corrected that for the next list version.


Hmm, got me thinking now I'll look at this.

Thanks for looking Ginger.


Well double charge range for a transported formation that ignores ZOC is a big deal when you're dealing with foot infantry.... But maybe you're right, perhaps 250 for 6 is better. My only issue is then how do they compare to Devastators. Are they their equal in terms of cost and effect?

Hi Dobbsy

If the venerable Dread is that rare, perhaps the upgrade should read 0-1 per army, otherwise it will allow 0-1 per formation - and I know I would like to do that .

On the costings, I am less sure of the reasoning. Terminators should still be 350 for four.
Teleporting is Ok, but often suffers BMs which offset the tactical advantages - so in the UK at least, they are often deployed in THawks (or LC + Dreads in my case), and the Drop Pod capability (without BMs) more than offsets the loss of teleport IMHO.

Ditto for the GH. Shooting is not the stong point of tactical marines, so its loss is not that significant. As currently pointed, you run the risk of spamming, so I would suggest at most a 20-30 points drop. However they are also supposed not to follow the strict codex structures - hence my suggestion for a 'flexible' formation structure within a fixed size. So
[Spitballing on]

Grey Hunters
6x Gray Hunters + transport . . . 275
Upgrades
0-2 Grey Hunters + transport . . . 25 each
0-2 Long Fangs + transport . . . 50 each
0-2 Wolf Scouts + transport . . . 25 each
0-2 Fenrision Wolves (not transportable ) . . . 25 each
Heroes, Venerable Dread, Dread, Preds, Vindi, Hunter as usual

Maximum 8 (or 9??) infantry total, maximum formation size 12 including transport and upgrades

[spitballing off]

The point being to permit more ad-hoc formations also allowing the player to pay for the additional fire support. The flexible formation sizes follows the Templars model, though the formation size restriction is my way of trying to limit the effects of ATSKNF. You may also consider something simliar for some of the other infantry formations, but the trick here is not to go too overboard on this, so treat the above as an off-the-cuff suggestion.

Vindis in the UK are now 250 for four, upgrades 50 each (and they move better too)

Mixing Land Raiders is much less problematic than Preds, and allows some flexibility on transport options. And note that for 150 points you can mechanise your 'cheap' Termies . . . .

NetEA ones are now supposed to be the same as the EUK ones, except with the addition of Walker, as well.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Dobbsy: I'm afraid I'm going to be harsh here. I don't mean to offend, but I can't seem to communicate what I mean.


It definitely does not give any sense. Unit and formation changes only switch around the available combinations. The changes to the way people play will be purely mechanical, based on optimizing the options used. That gives no sense of direction. You have to give careful consideration to the style of play you want to enforce and make changes only to achieve that goal. Only once you have the goal in mind can you determine whether any particular proposed change will serve that goal.

A 24oz framing hammer is a great tool, and 2x4s are a useful cut of lumber, but if you're using them to build a birdhouse you'll end up with one screwed up birdhouse. You have a bunch of tools and materials (and you've done a great job on them) but without defining what you're building you're just throwing them out in the middle of the yard, telling people "build something," and hoping that they come out with what you want.


Not really. How can a player distill the "essence of space wolves" from that list of mechanical changes? I cannot.

How does "mixed troop formations" contribute to the Space Wolf flavor of the army?
How does "multiple characters" influence the way the army works on the board so it feels more like Space Wolves?
How does "slower hard hitting troops" fit Space Wolf style?

To me, it's just a pile of changes and I can't discern a purpose. There's no sense of theme, nothing for the changes to drive towards. That's what I mean about throwing a bunch of tools at the players and hoping they build a Space Wolves army.

As I've said before, you've focused on the tools and mechanics you want to use without ever considering what the end goal is. You have to define the job first, then pick your tools and techniques. Define what a Space Wolves army IS before you try to figure out what it should be made from.

Not ranting here just explaining my confusion. Apologies to the other marine list designers if this offends, it's not intended to be but I need to explain my confusion to Neal.

OK Neal, I didn't find that harsh just disappointing I guess that I'm not anywhere near where I thought I was.

My problem is that looking at all the other Marine lists - only three really have a "concept/focus" as you portray it - Ravenguard - and they're a drop list; and Scions of Iron - an armour list; and White Scars - fast attack. None of the others seem to really have a "focus" more a "flavour," which is portayed by their unit types and some special rules here and there.

Sure Salamanders have fire and Multi meltas, but that's a flavour not a focus and it's just an adjustment to unit types - in all other ways they fight like all other marines fight - they have tanks, they have land speeders, they have scouts etc. They're multimeltas shoot at short ranges. Is that the focus - short range warfare? Can you explain to me how that is a focus not a flavour?

Black Templars. Looking at them they don't seem to have any army special rules (AFAIK given the listing I have) and they just seem to have changes to unit types and list structure. How is that focus, not flavour? How do they fight any differently than other marine forces? Are they just an air assault list given all their thunderhawks? If that's the case they are the same as a Codex list right? Isn't it the unit types that make the list what it is?

Can you see where I'm coming from and why perhaps I'm confused? I only have other lists to go by and until I looked at the Ravenguard yesterday I have been following the other list designs and adding a flavour that they seem to use to determine the "focus" of the lists you mention.

There are only so many concepts out there for Marine armies to be. Most are already taken by other chapters. If I was to, say, make the SW list all about fast attack for example, that wouldn't be the Space Wolves. If I made them solely focussed on Armour that wouldn't be them either. If there's a single concept "focus" I could see for the SWs it would be ferocity. Given the rules already dictate this concept in the game already - it's a wargame afterall - I see little scope to expand that into the abstract for an army list. I could make them "horde-focussed" but I'm constrained by the ATSKNF rules and the complaints from players about overly large ATSKNF formations, which thereby kills any notion of a horde. I thought perhaps the ad-hoc idea would be a quasi-horde design but again there's already a mention to avoid a large ATSKNF formation.

Call me un-imaginative, but given all the other chapter traits and list designs already out there, I feel quite limited unless I step on the toes of other Chapter's Army champs, which I have no wish to do. I do want something original but right now I don't see how I can get that given the constraints. I guess I have a mental block.

Here's a question for everyone:

If you can sum it up in a couple of words, what do you see as the Space Wolves' "concept" or "focus"?

I'm stumped, given what I've just said above, so any input is very welcome as I hope it can spur me on.

OK I've rambled on long enough, I'm going to bed to see if a night's sleep helps me.

I'm a 'fluffyphobe' but what I think you have been moving towards is something like:-

• Slightly larger, less structured (or more flexible) formations than Codex
• Geared towards close combat assaults
• More emphasis on close suport weaponry (so Crusaders, Vindicators, Dreadnoughts etc within the standard formtions)
• Less access to (or less need for) marine armour with ranged weaponry (so fewer Razorbacks, no Warhounds etc)

I guess this will tend to emphasize combined ground and air assaults pinpointing some part of the enemy army using size, speed and close-quarter 'ferocity' to subdue opponents, whilst also using speed to avoid being mauled - much like WWII pocket-battleship strategy and tactics.

I've just re-found my epic whilst cleaning the house and my mind turned to my marines and how I didn't like the structure of the standard list.

My thoughts immediately turned to the space wolves and their ad-hoc style.

The way I see the wolves is that a wolf lord had his pack around him and this pack consists of several smaller packs.

In battle they all stride out as a giant ball of angry and slightly drunk space Vikings. In 40K this is shown as several squads working together on the battle field. A mixture of blood claws, grey hunters and so on. However they are all just part of one big hunting pack.

The younger pups chase the packs quarry encircling it and wearing it out whilst the older members move in for the kill.

In the epic scale of things this hunt would appear to be a single large formation, with a few outriding formations catching the scent (swift claws and sky claws spring to mind).

My idea for this was something along the following lines

Wolf hunt
1+ of the following
Wolf Lord
Wolf priest
Rune Priest
Battle leader

2-4 of the following
Blood claws pack: 4-6 blood claws
Sky claw pack: 2-4 sky claws
Swift claw pack: 2-4 swift claws
Grey hunter pack: 2-4 grey hunters
Long fang pack: 1-2 long fangs
Wolf guard pack: 1-2 wolf guards
Iron wolf pack: 2 predators
Sky savage pack: 1-2 hunters
Lone wolves*: 1 lone wolf
Wolf scouts: 1-2 wolf scout
[insert appropriate name] pack 2 whirlwinds or vindicators (or a one of each)

If you take a full pack then you may take a duplicate of that pack (for example if you take a pack of 6 blood claws then you can take a second pack of 4, 5 or 6 blood claws)

*Lone wolves would operate individually across the entire hunt, however their exploits and sagas yet written can be shown by a single stand.

Transport
If the wolf hunt consists of only blood claws, grey hunters, long fangs, wolf guard and lone wolfs then it can have drop pods for free
Or
Up to 1 Razor back per blood claw, grey hunter and long fang stand
Up to 1 land raider per wolf guard stand
Plus as many free rhinos to carry the remaining infantry stands

Up to 2 blood hound formations may be taken per wolf hunt
blood hound
Sky claw pack: 4-6 sky claws
Swift claw pack: 4-6 swift claws
Wolf scout pack: 4 wolf scouts
Thunderhawk gun ship: 1 Thunderhawk

Up to 1/3 o the army may be allies
allies
1 warhound titan
2 warhound titans
Reaver titan


This is just a rough idea, basically marines using the Ork build

It can allow you to build a few massive hunt filled with warriors
An armoured hunts
The glorious remains of a great company
and a mix of all three.

I thought I would throw it out as a fresh idea.

Dobbsy: First, I don't think you are far off. Don't let me discourage you. By its nature, feedback tends to focus strongly on the negative and I am particularly bad about that.

I think you have a lot of elements that are conducive to the kinds of things you seem to be hinting at. It's more a matter of sorting through for the best stuff.

==


I think there is room to run with this. How can you flesh it out?

You've also indicated that you want them to be an engagement force, but not necessarily heavy CC and definitely not heavy FF. I assume that you mean more assault oriented than normal space marines. a "vanilla" SW build should be able to choose FF or CC against a particular opponent to demonstrate their strategic flexibility as Space Marines? If I understand correctly, that's a play style goal.

Do you want the player to have the option of going with a strong CC berzerker force almost on par with World Eaters? Would that be a manifestation of both "ferocity" and "engagement army" aspects so as to allow an alternative play style for the list or is it too far over the top for what you have in mind?

To me, the idea of "ferocity" points to a tendency to perform overrun maneuvers and run fleeing "prey" to ground. Having them work in sort of a pack-like manner, clustered but coordinated, would be ideal. Are either of those something you want to incorporate? (or, well, to be fair the list can do those now, it just doesn't really point towards them)

What other aspects of "ferocity" should be included? What other play styles do you think Space Wolves should they have (e.g. should a foot-slogger/garrison force be viable)?


If you think this is a cool stylistic direction (and "ferocious horde" is cool in my book), then check this out before discounting it.

A combo of size and TSKNF might end up working to show the SW overall implacability. Space Wolves don't seem to mind their units breaking up to a certain extent, as long as they are running the enemy down. It might be plausible for that to manifest as resistance to BMs via formation size and TSKNF.

It's true that large formations can be a problem, but it's not universal. Size can be taken into account in terms of formation design and point costs. Templars started out with this as part of their concept via the Neophytes and, after design/point adjustments, Neophytes definitely don't overpower the list. Certainly, given the Templars' results, I don't see a reason not to try it with SW.

As far as horde ideas, the break point on "Way Too Much TSKNF" seems to be in the 15 unit range. Codex Tacticals + 5 Razorbacks + Hunter is nothing anyone complains about and it comes in at 13 units/500 points. If you set up a Grey Hunter formation that comes in at a max of 8 infantry plus transport and a couple support units that is ~14 units. If you get that in the range of 450-500 points, I would bet most people would find it balanced.

An option if you want a multi-purpose basic Grey Hunter formation that forms the backbone of the list would be to limit the number of upgrades like in Black Legion. I also think it would be fine if you had more than one Grey Hunter formation instead of trying to put all the options in one formation. Basically, pre-assemble some of the combos, like a "basic GH" and a "fire support GH" with Long Fangs.

Either would allow the large-ish formations and some flexible formation composition like you mentioned without allowing huge monstrosities or frankensteinian "everything but the kitchen sink" formations that are going to be problematic to balance.


So, basically, pretty much everything you have suggested could potentially work. The list elements just need to be examined with respect to the specific intended result and tweaked to fit. Then strip out the stuff that doesn't work.

==

[quote="Dobbsy"]My problem is that looking at all the other Marine lists - only three really have a "concept/focus" as you portray it ... None of the others seem to really have a "focus" more a "flavour," which is portayed by their unit types and some special rules here and there.[quote]
I can understand this. Looking at the examples you noted...

Salamanders are slow, steady and durable. They specialize in short-range fire, especially flame-based stuff. To create that effect mechanically they have access to extra transport slots and 4+RA armor to protect their transports to provide the steady and durable. The 4+RA land raiders slow the ground formations slightly and they have limitations on both fast attack and air options to provide slow. And they obviously have short ranged weapons and slightly better FF. Overall, they do fight differently than Codex because they succeed in having a slow, hard feel in play.

Also, note that the Salamanders create the steady and durable feel with the addition of Land Raiders. That's unique to the Epic tool box. Nothing in 40K mechanics or background fiction points to that. That's why defining the target feel is so important. There may be solutions unique to the Epic mechanics that will never be apparent if you don't.

Blood Angels are still a work in progress. My best guess is that they are going to end up as fast, elite (better on a unit-to-unit basis than other marines) assault force with command and control issues that offset their superior unit-by-unit abilities. In past iterations, they were a very infantry-focused fast attack SM force. The larger and more flexible fast attack formations allowed the army to redeploy rapidly and still be effective. Where Salamanders went slow and steady to make a groundpounder force, BAs went fast and light so they can better react and concentrate effort in a small area. I think E&C's efforts will end up in largely the same area.

I agree to a certain extent that Templars could use a stronger focus. I've addressed this in discussions about that list as well. They can take slightly more horde-ish formations with Neophytes and their Crusader core formation means they take a few more Tactical formations than a normal SM force. Theoretically, Neophytes and a required core of non-specialist Tacticals should allow them to pull off a "Space Marine Horde" feel. However, most feedback says they usually end up being a variant of the "Codex air assault" style army and the "Space Marine horde" is only so-so.

And maybe that's okay. It would not be my first choice, but Pulsar is the AC and he is okay with the level of "horde" element. I've said my peace and others seem to enjoy the list, so all's good.

Stuff for thought in this thread.
So WHAT are Space Wolves?
- The tend to gather around enigmatic individuals (Characters in Epic). So every formation should have one.
- They throw the Codex Astartes out of the window so formations of one type Infantry units + transports/upgrades as in the rulebook Space Marine list should be a rare thing.
- They are ferocious Space Vikings. That Grey Hunters have no ranged weapons and that Blood/Swift/Sky Claws will charge into CC at on the first opportunity shows this.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Ok, following up from BL and Ragnarok, if the SW major on co-ordinated assaults could each core formation have an 'alpha male' character who has Commander (but not leader), armed with CC EA(+1) weapon? (a steal from Eldar Farseer).

If this idea is adopted, then the list should also provide the capacity for smaller formations that can be 'adopted' by the 'Alpha' formation.

The "typical"/"core" Space Wolves formation could consist of 1 Wolf Guard Hero Character upgrade (= Captain), 1 Long Fang unit, 2 Grey Hunter units and 3 Blood Claw units plus transports and upgrades.
Sky Claws formation could be 6 units of Sky Claws and Swift Claws formation could be 3 units of Swift Claws Bikes and one Swift Claw Attack Bike.
Iron Pack formation consisting of 4 vehicles of the same type (but can get more, see below).

Upgrades could be things like additional Characters (Wolf Lord, Wolf Priest, Rune Priest or a second Wolf Guard Hero), 3 Fenris Wolf units, 2 non-transport vehicles of any type (yes even Whirlwinds), 2 Wolf Guard units, etc.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/