It's not set in stone. It's a WIP. I never said let's lock this in, it's just a brainstorm letting Hena know that something could be worked in if we so choose.

Dobbsy

I would like you to test the list against me/our group or allow one of us to play it against you.

Personally I think playing the rule with Unblooded giving the 2+ Initiative (and gaining their cheaper cost), and playing with the 'Commander on Defender' and/or even 'extended Commander' is good enough for the list.

I believe the list build gives the flavour of the list. In effect you have achieved this - without really going into everything - on initial view it looks different enough. Obviously making lists and reviewing it again and again will bring up things as time passes.

With this in mind, happy to test it with you with minor special rules, yet not something that may 'hide' things as I believe the +1 to Double etc may do. Once we get a few games down, I am sure you will start to see where exactly, if it does, start to lack in effectiveness and whether this is a problem or a signature weakness of the list.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

The main reason the suggestion was not implemented was that within the limited playtesting attempts for "defensive commander" the ability was almost never used. Decent opportunities for use were rare. The general opinion was that it was ineffective and therefore would have been change for change's sake.

That said, the deficiency may have been because play styles were not adjusted to take advantage of the rule. I'm definitely eager to see some tests of it where it is taken into account.

What is the reason for 10cm engage? With this change the big disadvantage of bunching up is mitigated and it looks more like a big pack if they stick together.

And that's the answer TRC. It's promoting pack support. The reason for a 10cm rule rather than 5cm is because
while they're dangerous close together on the assault, they're also dangerous when being assaulted due to the pack mentality and their heightened senses. SW's can sense what other packs are experiencing so it's not a huge stretch to imagine they're more aware of the battlefield. So they're not as easy to pin down/ambush etc. The way I see it, Space Wolves hunt in packs. Fight one pack and you may end up drawing other packs to the fight.

All that said, testing will tell more and I'm hoping to get more done.

I am not sure it should be allowed as part of the Commander rule. What it did was greatly minimise it's effect on those making the Assault. It looks good on paper - in practice I found it to be another negative against CC troops who strive to gain BtB contact.

It is hard enough as it is to BtB troops rather than allow another defender formation or two to be counted on the defence as part of the combat with their FF and numbers.

I see it worth far more than just the standard Commander rule.



Dobbsy, I believe TRC was speaking on the benefit of 5cm looking like the big pack rather than the 10cm. Go with the rule as you see it. I have already advised what I am prepared to help play test.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I am confused regarding the cost of Landing Craft for the SW. Neal Hunt mentioned I should cost it at 375 due to the amount of troops and their CC abilities etc.

I've been doing more comparisons and I'm missing why it should be more expensive.

Example 1:
Codex LC 350
4 Assault Marines 175
4 Assault Marines 175
4 Devastators 250
Total 950 = 8x 3+CC, 8x 3+FF optimal attack stats

versus

SW LC 375
6 Skyclaws +2 Skyclaws 300
4 Long Fangs 300
Total 975= 8x3+CC, 8x 3+FF optimal

Both of these examples put out the same amount of 3+ CC and 3+ FF yet in the SW example any Skyclaws unable to BTB the target get 6+ FF not the standard 5+FF of Assault Marines.


Example 2:
Codex LC 350
4 Assault 175
4 Assault 175
4 Assault 175
total 875= 12x3+CC, 4x 3+FF optimal

versus

SW LC 375
6 Skyclaws 225
6 SkyClaws 225
Total 825= 12x3+CC*, 4x3+FF optimal
Also, Skyclaws degrade after landing due to inferior stats to Assault Marines. Also, if they don't get to BTB they are FF6+

So my questions are:
1/Which of the two SW loads are the best possible choice for a SW LC?
2/What should the LC be costed at, given an optimal load and the stats placed on a target?

Thanks guys.

Don't forget
LC
3x Scouts
800 points (Similar stats with better FF if you use tacs with cost of 950)

4xFF3+
12x4+
6x6+ (Rhinos)

9 2/3 hits

Of course assault troops can spread out more when hitting big formations and avoid post assault intermingling.

However few formations are big enough to really get all those attacks in.

Ginger likes terminators and dreads.
LC
Terminators
Chaplain
2 Dreds
850

4xFF3+
4xCC3+
5xMWCC3+
2xCC4+
2xMWCC4+

6 1/3 normal
4 1/3 MW

Thanks TRC, I'm more after the best way to cost the LC. Is direct comparisons to load builds a slippery slope?

Do you cost it based on the nastiest (i.e best possible stats of the load) it can carry? If so how do you determine that if comparison troops from similar lists are costed differently for various reasons? i.e Wolf Guard 325 v Termes 350 etc.. Is it just a straight bump in cost because one formation type might be cheaper than the codex list price for that formation?

How can you balance the best build versus lesser builds and still keep the LC at a manageable cost?

Well for me I look at the initial impact on the assumption they are all going to die. Then moderating that is subsequent flexibility. And moderating that is my activation count.

If I can for example have a very high activation count army its possible at the end of turn 1 I will be able to use an LC full of tacs to attack a forward enemy formation then for the consolidation move get back into the rhinos ready to launch two 45cm FF start of turn 2.

Otherwise Gavins favourite - the Terminators and dreds - really has to hit its objective area as it isn't going to go anywhere fast after that and if the dreds survive it can't be thawks somewhere else.

Another factor is can you eliminate barrage weapons? They are the biggest threat I think post assault as you are quite bunched up. If you can't stuffing it full of Assault marines is good as they will be further apart post combat (maybe - if you have attacked a big spralling formation). Here something like a terminator formation is good as it limits the hit you take and can probably survive it.

So costings wise I look at impact and cost that. Then you see what other stuff you can do for marginal cost to make them better all round.

Terminators are a greater example. They are all about that intial attack. After that if they had 1 assault cannon instead of 2 - would that make any difference?

With the LC added in you have to make the decision where the costs go. On it or elsewhere? make it to expensive and the lucy critical has a massively disproportionate effect.

Saying that currently you can buy LC's and fly them around empty and you get an ok deal

I think the LC is such a big hammer that you almost have to look at it in less than fully loaded conditions, e.g. all the examples above are infantry-only, skipping the vehicle capacity. The reason is that even though the LC makes for a really big hammer when you load it up, it is such a huge point drain that it tanks activations. Therefore the "optimal" load would need to either leave unused capacity or use the cheapest troops in the list, or some of both.

Personally, if I were going to load an LC from this list, I'd probably go with Bloodclaws + Skyclaws. Bloodclaws get the good CC and the Skyclaws can reach out and hit units farther away to help guarantee maximum CC. There's space for the free Rhinos. Overall, it is cheaper and has marginally better optimal attacks and FF just due to numbers than 2x Skyclaws. Both formations are relatively cheap, keeping the total as low as possible for activation count. Because they are different kinds of formations, they only require 1 Great Company for the Hunting Pack slots instead of 2. A comparable option would be Swiftclaws + Skyclaws.

If hunting pack slots were tight, a Great Company + Skyclaws would be 100 points more expensive, but more powerful in follow-on actions and would provide an extra slot instead of using up 2.

I finished playing a vassal game last night with Jagged Tooth Grin's Bloody Hand Gang and I used a Frogbear designed "uber air" list.

LC + Grey Hunters + Wolf Priest & Skyclaws + Wolf Priest x3

While I obviously found the LC air assault nasty - two of the LC Air assaults killed both his Warhounds - once they're on the ground they're very easy to pick on - as TRC says especially with artillery/template weapons.

So in the scheme of the game, the later turns don't factor into costing of formations and thus effect the cost of the LC? i.e it's all just about the impact of the first action?

I would expect that army to have problems simply due to inability to prep assault targets with BMs.


Why would you go for Warhounds? That's 1000 points of assault/CC specialists hitting 275 points, and only 6 units can reach base contact. They should be hitting backbone formations where they can max out their mega-assault.


I'd say it's mostly about the initial assault, but later turns do matter. The LC is decent close support and you can potentially cycle a big assault with the LC like you can with Thawks.

Or is that not what you're asking?

Yeah it had Thunderbolts for prep, but I found that the unprepped Warhounds got destroyed without it.... vassal dice... say no more IMO

I went for the warhounds as they were the fastest units that could hurt me most. JTG's list was fairly slow. I didn't realise his Warhounds were not standard WHs till late in turn 1 but the inferno cannons hurt a lot I found out too so...

I really think the LC costs should remain where they are now. Part of the joy / challenge of the marines is the way that the various formations and strategies interact. Often, the use of one formation or strategy requires or imposes the use of a second formation to provide battlefield synergy.

As far as I am concerned, LC have two modes of operation, Assault and Deployment. In both cases planetfalling has to be a major consideration because of the significant potential for an AA critical to spoil your day.

If 'Assaulting', you need to minimise the number of formations onboard while maximising the output - hence the Termies+Dreds. Main issue here is that it almost invariably becomes the BTS (Note 1), and you are proposing to put that very close to the opponents army! The use of the two formations yields about the best 'bang for your buck', but as TRC notes, tends to leave the formation stranded (unless you can contrive to let the dreds die . . . )

If 'Deploying', the intention is to land a significant force somewhere it can pose a significant threat, so perhaps 2x Tacticals with transport, or some Devs, Predators and 2x Assaults (or scouts). Here planetfalling is mandated both to avoid losing a significant number of activations, and to make the best use of the troops!

Therefore, IMHO a space craft is mandated when using a LC (especially in a 'blind' or tournament situation), which in turn has already put the costs up.

Note 1.
If you load up a tactical formation to be 525 points you get the BTS with the SC and give your opponent a nice juicy target. If you choose a Reaver as the BTS, you start to run out of activations while putting the SC in a relatively weak formation.