Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Space Wolves(8E)

To end the Long Fangs Edit war: Imperium 1 FAQ:

Pages 167 – Long Fangs, Wargear Options Change the fifth bullet point to read: ‘• The Wolf Guard Pack Leader in Terminator Armour may replace his power sword with a storm shield or an item from the Space Wolves Terminator Melee Weapons list; he may also replace his storm bolter with an item from the Space Wolves Terminator Melee Weapons, Space Wolves Combi-weapons or Terminator Heavy Weapons lists.’

A similar entry exists for each model in terminator armor.

"**Stuff a wolfguard pack leader in terminator armor of whatever flavor you desire and 8 bloodclaws to deliver a fun little hate unit around the field." Terminator armor doesn't fit into Rhinos

Index Equipment

Because some people can't read, I'm putting a reminder here that all Index Options with no Codex equivalent are still valid, as per GWs. --2001:8003:3895:3A00:F875:5453:D816:58C0 10:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As one of the target audiences, it is fairly useful and is NOT redundant. It probably should be but the information written in the armoury sections and the information written in the unit sections are not always consistent. Some weapons might be good, but bad on specific models, or vise versa or simply vastly overshadowed by other builds for certain units. The armoury sections tend to be an objective look at the weapons whereas the unit entries tend to have subjective views of the units with the weapons, what is good for them and what is bad. And it doesn't really hurt. 1d4chan is great for a lot of this stuff, but you people suck at one specific thing consistantly, trying to be efficient, often at the cost of becoming less effective. Most of the articles mention that the number of shots per point you get out of the twin HB on a Repulsor is better than point per shot you get from Onslaught Gatling Cannons, which is just not relevant when you can't take enough twin HBs to get a comparable number of shots. Or the opinion that +1 on a unit with WS 5+ is a bigger increase than on a 3+ unit, ignoring that mathematically it has the same statistical effect in combat, the weapons and the number of attacks has the bigger impact. This article constantly whines about +1 to hit being worse than +1 to wound, when they are the same on most models (only really being worse on units with WS 2+ that are not using a power fist or thunder hammer).

So yeah, please don't fix wheels that aren't broke and just leave the things that are useful to people, or rewrite ALL of the articles so they actually do cover the weapon's stats and both subjective and objective opinions of the weapons. The articles that have had their armouries removed are less informative and do require me to go look at another source for rules and to do my own maths (although the maths done on 1d4chan are not always reliable so I often need to do that anyways). 216.154.62.174 02:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to try and repost what you already wrote on the Necron talk page I might as well repost my reply, since it doesn't seem like you've read it:

How's it more informative than the rulebook it came from? It's a copy-paste and the reason the unit entries don't cover the units options well is because the information is split between the armoury and unit entry, rather than having everything important be located in one spot. The Gauss and Tesla discussion only applies to certain units and doesn't always come with the same recommendation, so why shouldn't that be included in the unit's it affects, rather than scrolling down, seeing which unit it affects, then scrolling back up to find the bit about Gauss vs Tesla? How is that better than just having it where it's relevant? The tactics articles themselves are not meant to be replacements for the rulebooks, They're meant to be used in conjunction with them, which is why we don't list out full unit stats and points values for each individual unit. If we did you could just use this same reasoning for not removing those, even though they're still just copy-pasted info. If all we're doing is copy-pasting what's in the rulebook, then that should be removed because there's no tactical advice to be found there, you're not learning anything new or how to play/counter anything so why keep it? Before you answer, not wanting to read a different rulebook isn't an excuse. The articles are about how to play an army, not how to play against them. If you want that you can look up whichever army you play and scroll to the bottom for counter-play tips. -- Triacom (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As a little addition, the point of removing the armoury sections is to work it into the unit entries and make them consistent. Nobody's claiming the tactics pages are perfect, that's why they need changes here and there to improve them and bloat does hurt a page. If you're reading this article for counter-play, or because you don't want to read the army book, then I'm sorry but you are not its target audience like you think you are. Finally +1 to wound is better than +1 to hit in a lot of cases. As an example, if you hit on 3's and wound on 6's you're going to do 0.111 wounds per attack. If you have +1 to hit you do 0.138 wounds. That's a 0.027 increase, however if you have +1 to wound instead, you go up to doing 0.222 wounds, so your damage output has been doubled. It can go the other way but it's more common for the wound roll to be worse than the hit roll and benefit more from a bonus because of it. I do agree the article words it badly though, feel free to change it. -- Triacom (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wolf Guard with Jump packs!

Can't the WG take a jump pack in 8th? There is mention of Van-WG in the wolf lord entry.