They are pretty much Imperial Fists, which I think we've all decided is pretty 'meh', right?

So I'm one of those guys that stopped playing in 5th ed and moved on to other, what I considered to be *better* games. The advent of 8th Ed pulled me back and I at least dug out all my old models to get some games in. The lack of flavor bummed me out, but made sense considering the scope of the change. I've been playing Iron Warriors for 15 years, Imagine my excitement when I see the Iron Warriors article pop up! Then imagine my lack of excitement when I see that their trait is pretty bland...

I might be watering down a post about the IW article with my personal thoughts and feelings... but I was EXCITED for this, and now I'm just... not. I guess I'll hold out hope that the Death Guard (my other Chaos love) are interesting...

Also, I know I shouldn't complain, there are plenty of other players in really similar positions. Now I know how all the loyal Fists players feel, casting jealous glances toward RG and Salamanders. Oh well, life moves on.

Edit: Here's the link - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/01/legion-focus-iron-warriors-aug-1gw-homepage-post-2/

Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

Why not? Have you not read Storm of Iron? Great book. They have a captain, and his unit, who favor Khorne.

Iron Warriors being just inferior Imperial Fists is fluffy, so what's the problem?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The best thing in there is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, I'm on board with that for sure. Still incredibly meh overall, IMO.

Link?

IronNerd wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The best thing in there is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, I'm on board with that for sure. Still incredibly meh overall, IMO.

Because an internet poll determines how well an army performs. /s

Go play against Mechanicus with it's ignore cover everything and tell me how useless the ability is on say.....autocannons, or heavy bolters, etc.

Iron Fists
Imperial Fist
Iron Warriors
Fist Warriors
Imperial Warriors
Warrior Iron
Imperial Iron
Warrior Fists


I don't know which is which anymore

The only thing they have in common with IF is their Legion Tactic.

Their relic, warlord trait and stratagem are entirely different.

Their relic is, unlike IF's, really good.
Their warlord trait is also pretty good, I'd say better than IF.
Their stratagem is bad, however.

 Talamare wrote:
Iron Fists
Imperial Fist
Iron Warriors
Fist Warriors
Imperial Warriors
Warrior Iron
Imperial Iron
Warrior Fists


I don't know which is which anymore

Imperial Fists

Loyalists, originally Legion VII (7th), bright yellow, Primarch is Rogal Dorn. Successor chapters include the Crimson Fists and the Black Templars. Have a self-harm fetish.


Iron Warriors

Traitor Legion, originally the IV (4th) Legion. Primarch Perturabo. Steel grey armour with yellow and black hazard stripes. Moody. Technophiles and like big guns. Don't like Daemons and Chaos Gods.

This is a pretty good trait, and the Emp Children one has to be better due to Emp Children having restricted unit choices (no units that can't take mark of slaanesh).

Iron Warriors are focused on shooting and for that ignores cover is very good. If they've improved the oblits and mutis in the codex Iron warriors might be the Legion with the most fluffy choices.
You also get tanky Daemon princes that can fly forward along your Drakes or Maulerfiends. Your cultists and CSM won't run away. I don't see what's not to like. I suspect we'll get linebreaker bombardment as a stratagem, too, so Vindis might improve as well.

 nintura wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

Why not? Have you not read Storm of Iron? Great book. They have a captain, and his unit, who favor Khorne.

Have you read all other fluff that stresses how they dont follow the gods and spurn any "gifts" by cutting them pff and replacing them with bionics.

Lancelot185 wrote:
Link?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/01/legion-focus-iron-warriors-aug-1gw-homepage-post-2/

hobojebus wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

Why not? Have you not read Storm of Iron? Great book. They have a captain, and his unit, who favor Khorne.

Have you read all other fluff that stresses how they dont follow the gods and spurn any "gifts" by cutting them pff and replacing them with bionics.

Actually the fluff I read says that they're just indifferent to the gods and cut off mutations. When they get gifts, they'll use it, but usually to power some kind of machine or tech rather than conventionally. It's the Night Lords that don't follow the gods at all (and as a consequence don't get any help at all from the gods).

I've also read somewhere that Iron Warriors are impartial to Khorne, and actually have a number of berserkers and Juggernauts. However this is less because of bloodshed and their berserkers have a sort of cold efficiency to the slaughter unlike world eater berserkers.

 MinscS2 wrote:
The only thing they have in common with IF is their Legion Tactic.

Their relic, warlord trait and stratagem are entirely different.

Their relic is, unlike IF's, really good.
Their warlord trait is also pretty good, I'd say better than IF.
Their stratagem is bad, however.

Their Stratagem hasn't been revealed yet, you must be thinking of the psychic power.

Stratagem has been revealed on FB, for 1CP you can give 1 unit a 6+ fnp that phase.

Iron warriors also used nurglified Orks in a campaign, marks for them wouldn't be that much of a stretch, especially when GW did away with the mark of undivided.

IronNerd wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The best thing in there is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, I'm on board with that for sure. Still incredibly meh overall, IMO.

You mean the people that overreacted to the Raven Guard trait? Alright then.

Also Ignores Cover is fantastic. Anything with an AP value starts putting in serious work.

Could you also provide a link to the article you're referencing? Is there Grey Knights news?

hobojebus wrote:


Have you read all other fluff

Source them immediately

I'm excited about that "Weaver of Fate" psychic power. I'm hoping to be able to use that for my TS!

With that and the All is Dust SR I'm looking at a 3++ for my SoT's for 1 dmg weapons.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Stratagem has been revealed on FB, for 1CP you can give 1 unit a 6+ fnp that phase.

Iron warriors also used nurglified Orks in a campaign, marks for them wouldn't be that much of a stretch, especially when GW did away with the mark of undivided.

...wow, that's an incredibly gakky stratagem. So: Emperor's Children get a better Tactic, a psychic power that gives better FNP, and a better stratagem (Oh, I dunno. I'd rather be able to shoot things twice). I guess you could combine the stratagem and the FNP warlord trait and the slaanesh power so you could roll 3 dice for each wound suffered, just to slow the game down to a snail's crawl!

Iron Warriors players have reason to be disappointed. Of the three aspects of their kit revealed the legion trait is far and away the best, and that is not a glowing compliment of the legion trait.

It's kinda sad that this article got me more hyped for Thousand Sons with the psychic power than it would have if I played Iron Warriors.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


Have you read all other fluff

Source them immediately

Siege of castelax for one goes into some depths about how they react to mutations and hate the chaos gods.

In dead sky black sun the possessed onyx is not trusted and kept a weary watch on.

Rest is articles all over the place.

 Marmatag wrote:
Could you also provide a link to the article you're referencing? Is there Grey Knights news?

It's on Warhammer Community in Latest News. No GK news :(

Relic is pretty decent (unless it costs a boatload)

Warlord thing is.. actually really situational- its very easy to do MSU with Iron Warriors and never care about morale.

Trait is basically half of one.

Stratagem is awful.

Overall... rather bland.


Psychic power seems a random and unrelated thing to toss in.

Far behind Emperor's Children in interesting things and utility.

Though EC would have benefited immensely from a new kit, but that's honestly true of CSM as a whole. An apparent lack of new kits makes this release just sad

the problem with iron warriors trait is the same as Imperial fists, it's great when your enemy actually takes buildings but USELESS otherwise

Voss wrote:
Relic is pretty decent (unless it costs a boatload)

Relics will most likely work the same for all codex-armies, where you can get 1 for free, 2 for 1 CP and 3 for 3 CP.

That relic is awesome on a Daemon Prince.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Relic is pretty decent (unless it costs a boatload)

Relics will most likely work the same for all codex-armies, where you can get 1 for free, 2 for 1 CP and 3 for 3 CP.

That relic is awesome on a Daemon Prince.

Wait, what? I didn't pick up the SM codex.... relics cost no points?
Well, that will help keep 2nd tier armies in the doghouse, until they get a codex in a year or three. Yay, balance.

The whole thing with marks and following chaos gods is in reality more fluid and open to interpretation than people think. The IW, NL and AL may on the surface be openly indifferent or even opposed to the gods but 10k years of living in their back yard and eating their trash will have certainly done something to the staunch idea;s of the legions. The fact that practically every legion has fractured and splintered into warbands tells you there's no longer any unified creed amongst the chaos legions. So those legions that generally turn their nose up at demons and gifts will also house units, companies, even entire warbands that embrace the gods, whether it's out of service to their goals, kinship or an attempt to control and use them as a doomsday weapon.

There's nothing really to say that IW, NL or AL can't have DP's, Possessed or Daemon units in their ranks, at least from the fluff. It just states that it's very rare and that the relationship is uneasy at best.

Now the codex might rule that these legions cannot marked troops (as was the case in TL) and this would be fine from gaming perspective. You could always take separate detachments of daemon.cult troops and paint them up as your legion if you wanted (and take appropriate rules for them to boot). But if thee legions are going to be restricted thus I'd want something in return. I'd want to see IW with Basilisks again or Medusa's (ala the cool Legion FW models) and perhaps Vindicators/Preds taken in squadrons. I'd want to see AL get Cultists+ that are actual guardsmen with better armour and weapons (and perhaps something akin to the old 3.5 rules where they could sabotage etc) and I'd like to see them get something resembling SM Scouts, even if they just rip them out the loyalist codex and swap out the keywords. Dunno what NL would get, other than maybe Raptors and Bikes as troops. Though that in itself is good enough as chaos troops are pretty weak.

On topic of the IW, they seem solid. The WT means they can build a literal wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns. A couple large blobs of them would be a pain to tear through. Ignore cover is good. It's a sham they had to copy-paste but what are you gonna do with two legions that are so similar in doctrine? The stratagem they get sucks. I don't understand why GW thinks FnP 6+ is worth a damn. Paying poitns or expending CP's for a 16.6% chance at anything is poor. It's good for DE because they don't pay for it. And 5+ FnP is good because now your saving 1/3 wounds. But 6+ is worthless. look at overwatch. It's ok because it's free shooting, but would anyone do it if you had to pay for the ability, or if you had to sacrifice your turns shooting to do it (like in the old days of 40k and Necromunda)? Nope. Nobody would ever do it. Because 6+. The stratagem should be 5+ FnP. That's worth a gamble of 1cp in a clutch situation.

Voss wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Relic is pretty decent (unless it costs a boatload)

Relics will most likely work the same for all codex-armies, where you can get 1 for free, 2 for 1 CP and 3 for 3 CP.

That relic is awesome on a Daemon Prince.

Wait, what? I didn't pick up the SM codex.... relics cost no points?
Well, that will help keep 2nd tier armies in the doghouse, until they get a codex in a year or three.

Correct
Named Characters can't bring Relics, they already have a Relic in their default gear

Fleshmetal Exoskeleton is basically Armor Indomitus
Except FE heals for 1, and AI gives a 3++ for a turn once per game

If the trait was 'all ranged weapons get an aditional -1 to armour penetration' that would be a really good trait me thinks.

I suppose this trait depends on how people start making 8th edition terain.

Demantiae wrote:
On topic of the IW, they seem solid. The WT means they can build a literal wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns. A couple large blobs of them would be a pain to tear through. Ignore cover is good. It's a sham they had to copy-paste but what are you gonna do with two legions that are so similar in doctrine? The stratagem they get sucks. I don't understand why GW thinks FnP 6+ is worth a damn. Paying poitns or expending CP's for a 16.6% chance at anything is poor. It's good for DE because they don't pay for it. And 5+ FnP is good because now your saving 1/3 wounds. But 6+ is worthless. look at overwatch. It's ok because it's free shooting, but would anyone do it if you had to pay for the ability, or if you had to sacrifice your turns shooting to do it (like in the old days of 40k and Necromunda)? Nope. Nobody would ever do it. Because 6+. The stratagem should be 5+ FnP. That's worth a gamble of 1cp in a clutch situation.

The "wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns" is the bit I really want to touch on here. I was expecting something more... siege related. Perhaps roll 2d6 and take the highest when using weapons with random shots. This just doesn't feel very IW to me, except for the building part, which is complete garbage.

IronNerd wrote:

Demantiae wrote:
On topic of the IW, they seem solid. The WT means they can build a literal wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns. A couple large blobs of them would be a pain to tear through. Ignore cover is good. It's a sham they had to copy-paste but what are you gonna do with two legions that are so similar in doctrine? The stratagem they get sucks. I don't understand why GW thinks FnP 6+ is worth a damn. Paying poitns or expending CP's for a 16.6% chance at anything is poor. It's good for DE because they don't pay for it. And 5+ FnP is good because now your saving 1/3 wounds. But 6+ is worthless. look at overwatch. It's ok because it's free shooting, but would anyone do it if you had to pay for the ability, or if you had to sacrifice your turns shooting to do it (like in the old days of 40k and Necromunda)? Nope. Nobody would ever do it. Because 6+. The stratagem should be 5+ FnP. That's worth a gamble of 1cp in a clutch situation.

The "wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns" is the bit I really want to touch on here. I was expecting something more... siege related. Perhaps roll 2d6 and take the highest when using weapons with random shots. This just doesn't feel very IW to me, except for the building part, which is complete garbage.

the problem is chaos just doesn't have seige units worth a damn. :(

hobojebus wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

Why not? Have you not read Storm of Iron? Great book. They have a captain, and his unit, who favor Khorne.

Have you read all other fluff that stresses how they dont follow the gods and spurn any "gifts" by cutting them pff and replacing them with bionics.

If you had read the book I was talking about you'd see where they mention that and why it's allowed. It's normally spurned, but his khorne berserkers were so effective, the Warmaster was willing to look the other way. For now.

Still allowed.

IronNerd wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The best thing in there is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, I'm on board with that for sure. Still incredibly meh overall, IMO.

The poll is a bad thing to base anything off of because if you take a look at the lists subforum it becomes immediately clear the vast majority of dakka forum users and players in general are quite frankly terrible when it comes to actually playing the game which is fine when your going for friendly stuff/fluffy armies which the majority of people do in the hobby. Ignoring cover is a big bonus, you are right not as good as emp children but its far from being "meh"

Mesokhornee wrote:
The poll is a bad thing to base anything off of because if you take a look at the lists subforum it becomes immediately clear the vast majority of dakka forum users and players in general are quite frankly terrible when it comes to actually playing the game which is fine when your going for friendly stuff/fluffy armies which the majority of people do in the hobby. Ignoring cover is a big bonus, you are right not as good as emp children but its far from being "meh"

My annoyance may be a little pre-mature, but comparisons definitely DO matter. Yes, ignoring cover is a bonus. However, if it is the least effective bonus compared to all of the others, then it is very much a meh. At the moment, the only comparisons I can draw are with loyalist marines and the Emperor's Children. Out of all of those, this is one of the worst (as are Fists, since they are identical). That's my opinion, but it's shared by a LOT of other people.

In short: Having a bonus is great. Having a bonus when everyone else has a better bonus... it's almost worse than having a bonus at all.

At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

It is pretty meh. It's a 16.83% adjustment to one of three dice rolls, if the enemy is in cover (which in 8th seems largely to also mean 'is infantry').

It doesn't speak to their skill set (and the part that does, the building reroll, really doesn't matter), or push the legion in a particular strategic direction. It's just a mediocre bonus that depends a lot on the opponent, not the IW player.

'Each unit can reroll to hit with one heavy weapon shot per shooting phase' would be a lot more appropriate.

Also thematically, it suggests that GW sees IF and IW as not only mirrors, but exactly the same. Which is amazingly dull.

This is really not an edition where people will hunker down.

well I'd been trying to detirmine if I wanted my MK 3 plate to be iron warriors or black legion. might as well get out my black paint now ;/

Wayniac wrote:
At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

So true. I keep seeing posts like "It was misread/mistranslated here they are" Still garbage WB trait.

 Eldarain wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

So true. I keep seeing posts like "It was misread/mistranslated here they are" Still garbage WB trait.

Even as a loyalist Marine player I feel bad for Word Bearers. Especially with what EC got by comparison.

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

So true. I keep seeing posts like "It was misread/mistranslated here they are" Still garbage WB trait.

Even as a loyalist Marine player I feel bad for Word Bearers. Especially with what EC got by comparison.

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

BrianDavion wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

So true. I keep seeing posts like "It was misread/mistranslated here they are" Still garbage WB trait.

Even as a loyalist Marine player I feel bad for Word Bearers. Especially with what EC got by comparison.

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

One would hope so.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Stratagem has been revealed on FB, for 1CP you can give 1 unit a 6+ fnp that phase.

Iron warriors also used nurglified Orks in a campaign, marks for them wouldn't be that much of a stretch, especially when GW did away with the mark of undivided.

...wow, that's an incredibly gakky stratagem. So: Emperor's Children get a better Tactic, a psychic power that gives better FNP, and a better stratagem (Oh, I dunno. I'd rather be able to shoot things twice). I guess you could combine the stratagem and the FNP warlord trait and the slaanesh power so you could roll 3 dice for each wound suffered, just to slow the game down to a snail's crawl!

It's not that bad. It's just not OP as

It's a second save.

BrianDavion wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
At least it's not Word Bearers, who for their trait according to the rumors get ATSKNF and that's it (re-roll morale).

So true. I keep seeing posts like "It was misread/mistranslated here they are" Still garbage WB trait.

Even as a loyalist Marine player I feel bad for Word Bearers. Especially with what EC got by comparison.

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

The only shred of hope are the relic and strategem. Have to wait until second to last to be disappointed. With the state of summoning unless it significantly changes it somehow it will probably be just slightly less bad.

IronNerd wrote:

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The EC trait had better be better. EC is slanesh only while IW are undivided. EC are completely cut off from 3/4ths of the god-specific goodies while IW can mix and match like crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Also thematically, it suggests that GW sees IF and IW as not only mirrors, but exactly the same. Which is amazingly dull.

Have you read the fluff? They basically are. They're both siege specialists, and that's why they hate each other.

I always thought one was better at defending and one better at besieging.

The EC trait being "better" really depends what units you have in your army, and how assaulty the other player's any is. You could very well play whole games where there is next to no close combat and the EC trait does almost nothing.

IW get to use their trait any time the enemy is in cover, or more likely causes the enemy to not even try to get cover during the game.

The EC also can't use any powers or strategems that aren't either for generic chaos or specifically for slannesh.

IW presumably get to give their units marks as they please, and thus take advantage of all but the chapter specific strategems, which seems quite strong to me.

 Eldarain wrote:
I always thought one was better at defending and one better at besieging.

There was never a noticeable difference ever given in capability outside of Dorn saying he could do a better job than Perturabo at fortifying Terra, during the great crusade both legions spent most of their time attacking is siege situations due to the nature of the war and during the heresy Imperial fists were always defending since Istvaan V started the loyalists on the backfoot

I feel bad for IW fans. It's not that the trait is bad per se, but it is WAY too situational. How good it is is way too dependent on who you're playing and how the table is set up, and the thing with the buildings is a waste of ink. I agree with people on here that they should have some bonus regarding either heavy weapons or random shot weapons which would have been both fluffy and useful. I do like the warlord trait as it allows you to use cultists as bubble wrap and objective holders, and the relic is really cool. The strategem, though is just useless die rolling, which we don't need in the game. Overall this is a very bland update. Here's hoping the World Eater update is much more exciting......Blood for the Blood God!

Many of the CT's and LT's are situational though, depending on how you see it.

UM's CT is only good against units who want to charge you. If you end up against a shooty opponent it will do very little.

BL's LT is only good if you bring alot of rapid fire weapons, otherwise it will do very little.

IW's LT and IF's CT is only good against units in cover. If you're up against an opponent who doesn't care about cover it will do nothing.

WS's CT, BT's CT and WE's LT is only good if you're bringing close-combat troops (which, granted, you should), otherwise it will do nothing.

I could go on playing the devils advocate, but you get my point.

The only CT who isn't situational in any way or form is Salamanders CT: it will always have some effect, more or less, regardless of who you're up against and what you're fielding. (Unless you go with 100% tanks...)

IronNerd wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ignores Cover is awesome. What are you talking about?

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

Ignore cover is fine in a vacuum, but it's not good compared to other traits you see tossed about. Look at the poll for the loyalists traits, it's pretty clear that ignoring cover is far from the best thing you can get. Heck, I would argue that the only other spoiled trait (Emperor's Children) is significantly better.

The best thing in there is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, I'm on board with that for sure. Still incredibly meh overall, IMO.

Ignores Cover could be the name of nuhammer altogether, as in
40k 8th edition: Ignores Cover

Fortified positions either give cover saves (defense lines, trenches) or are buildings (bastions etc). IW negate the first and take out the second faster.

Seems a good trait for the siege specialists.

puree wrote:
Fortified positions either give cover saves (defense lines, trenches) or are buildings (bastions etc). IW negate the first and take out the second faster.

Seems a good trait for the siege specialists.

This. I'm not sure what people were expecting from a siege themed army. I mean you're basically complaining that your siege specialists are good at sieges.

If you're playing Iron Warriors, why not try to get a stronghold assault game in? Or planet strike?

There are missions in the book that focus on thematic elements of armies. Matched play missions aren't those.

If you want fluffy parts of your army to mean more, you have to play the games where they matter.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you're playing Iron Warriors, why not try to get a stronghold assault game in? Or planet strike?

There are missions in the book that focus on thematic elements of armies. Matched play missions aren't those.

If you want fluffy parts of your army to mean more, you have to play the games where they matter.

Your legion rules suck so just play a worse version of the game...

 Talamare wrote:
Iron Fists
Imperial Fist
Iron Warriors
Fist Warriors
Imperial Warriors
Warrior Iron
Imperial Iron
Warrior Fists


I don't know which is which anymore

Iron Fist - Marvel superhero, origin story available on Netflix
Imperial Fists - Loyalist scum that happen to be the best siege specialists in the galaxy
Iron Warriors - Chaos Legion of the second best siege specialists in the galaxy
Fist Warriors - Also called Monks
Imperial Warriors - Basic infantry units of the Empire of the Rising Sun
Warrior Iron - A nickname for Steel
Imperial Iron - Even better Steel, reserved only for his majesty's army
Warrior Fists - The preferred weapons of street brawlers

Your legion rule is good. Your legion rule reflects what they are about. If you don't want to play the sort of games that your legion is about then paint your models the color of a legion that are supposed to be good at the sort of game you do want to play.

Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

You must have read the book where the Iron Warriors bravely besieged and open field, thus earning their reputation as experts at such tactic.

I personally think the Legion rule is ok, and the relic is ok. I think the major problem people have is that it's just....bland. Along with being a copypaste of the IF rules, it's just not very inspired. I think that's why the EC rule looks so tantalizing in comparison; there's so many different ways you can use that (either as a defensive gunline, as a backup for when you're charging up, so forth) and that it's something new (before 8th edition, I think the only ones who always struck first were banshees).

Not at all helped by the fact that the Iron Warriors are one of the more popular Chaos Legions for not being mustache twirling crazy most of the time and not being that hard to give them a fluffy yet useful legion rules (someone pointed out +1 AP?).

Again, not saying it's bad. Just saying it's bland. That's probably why it feels disappointing. This combined with the Obliterator change (not nerf, I still think they're pretty useful, just not auto-include like before) makes it look like Iron Warriors (along with the Word Bearers and the Summoning change) getting the short stick of the edition.

hobojebus wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you're playing Iron Warriors, why not try to get a stronghold assault game in? Or planet strike?

There are missions in the book that focus on thematic elements of armies. Matched play missions aren't those.

If you want fluffy parts of your army to mean more, you have to play the games where they matter.

Your legion rules suck so just play a worse version of the game...

Cities of Death is the best incarnation of 8th. At least the advanced rules about grenades, flamers, cover, etc..., you can ignore the special stratagems if you like.

Building are no joke. Stick a pack of Devastators in your bunker or bastion or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint and you might just find you have a hard to kill squad of anti-tank stuff.

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

It's a good rule for siege specialists but I think the issue for many players is two-fold. Firstly, some people are never satisfied and will still find issue if they have the best rules in the game. The second issue is that IW are much more than siege masters. sure they started off that way in the early days of the Great Crusade,, as did the IF's. But whilst the IF's largely stayed that way due to their prominence in being chosen to defend Terra and later on the splitting of the legion to ensure that elements that didn't conform to that stereotype (the BT's for example) left to form new chapters to focus on other aspects of battle, the IW's evolved differently. They became not just siege masters. They were also true enthusiasts of high strength heavy weaponry, in the same regard as Salamanders (though perhaps a little more focused on heavy weaponry instead of all wargear) and they also became every bit the technophiles the IH's are. You could argue the IW's could have had any of the new abilities from any of those three chapters, and in fact they did get two of them. The FnP stratagem they get is weak sauce, it needs to be 5+ to be worth a damn but this represents their cyber-enthusiasm. The heavy guns fetish may well be itched by other stratagems such as mirrors of the loyalist trip vindicator/trip Predator stratagems, or something that allows Daemon Engines to get a boost to firing. But there's no reason to restrict these to IW only, other legions might want to use them too. It's just that IW players choosing to play their legion fluffy will likely pick those units over others such as Raptors and so will play those stratagems more often to represent their legion specialities. ~This just leaves the siege craft and mirroring the IF tactic is the ibvious go-to choice. There's no real point in forcing something actually unique if what you ant (from a design perspective) is already there in front of you.

What I would like to see, as a non-IW player but an enjoyer of their character is for them to have access to IG artillery tanks like the old days. Precedence has been set with the R&H list straight up giving R&H access to IG units with their keywords swapped out. I'm sure IW player would enjoy having Heretic Astattes Basilisks and Medusa's in their lists. We already have those gorgeous FW models to represent them (that if I remember correctly are even painted in IW colours on FW's site!) I'm sure that more than arguing about whether or not they should get a re-roll on heavy weapons or just how good ignores cover is, that IW players would rather just have actual big guns to fire at their enemies.

Oh and about that Tzeentch power and it's efficacy in an IW list, IW should get themselves a LR Achililes. A frickin LR with a serious artillery cannon on it and two whopping big steaming guns on the side. Toss that Tzeentch power on it and you now have a LR with 3++ tjhat can regenerate wounds in combat with it's -3 AP spikey treads. It was already a beast but now with a 3++? And with Presience you cabn counter it's lack of PotMS when it moves and/or you can Warp time it right into your opponents face with it's melta batteries. And the ting is made to carry Chosen or Havoc's. That ting is made for IW's!

Between the Iron Warriors getting janky rules that go against being Iron Warriors, as well as the 8e changes to Obliterators, the is real.

Currently I'm not salty about the IW just yet (I have 4 full havoc squads, 9 obliterators 1 IW daemon prince, a Warsmith, a Warpsmith, copious amount of tanks, and a lone terminator for some reason). But if the codex drops and there's nothing about giving me my oblits as troops (or letting havocs as troops) then I'm gonna be a bit salty.

I mean it wont kill the game for me (I can always use the spearhead detachment) but it would make me feel like I'm just playing "Metal hazard marines" instead of a true legion.

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Currently I'm not salty about the IW just yet (I have 4 full havoc squads, 9 obliterators 1 IW daemon prince, a Warsmith, a Warpsmith, copious amount of tanks, and a lone terminator for some reason). But if the codex drops and there's nothing about giving me my oblits as troops (or letting havocs as troops) then I'm gonna be a bit salty.

I mean it wont kill the game for me (I can always use the spearhead detachment) but it would make me feel like I'm just playing "Metal hazard marines" instead of a true legion.

The detachment system pretty much makes 'XXX as troops' unlikely for everybody.

Voss wrote:
The detachment system pretty much makes 'XXX as troops' unlikely for everybody.

Depends I guess on how much those troops cost. The +3 battalion only requires 3 troops and 2 HQs making it fairly cheap and spammable for lots of CP. Now I'm not suggesting we all spam Cultists... but troops might have a place for some armies. ... Probably not Iron Warriors. Probably.

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

There could have been giving the Defiler its barrage option back, but AOEs are now extinct anyway.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

There could have been giving the Defiler its barrage option back, but AOEs are now extinct anyway.

AOE's live on as stratagems in C:SM. Hopefully we'll see more and more with each codex release.

I wouldn't mind returning to the iron Warriors although I will miss my conversions I sold. It is the only chaos army I like, and the Storm of Iron book was outstanding.

Glad to know that thematic battles that play to certain army strengths are worse than the generic missions that limit play options.

Turns out I've been playing this game all wrong, and shouldn't be taking on fortified central positions or beginning the game with scouting missions hoping for reinforcements to arrive before I am overwhelmed.

Thank goodness I was corrected on the internet, otherwise I would have thought it was a helpful suggestion...

They might be still ok depending on how oblits and muties will work in the codex. IW daemon princes are still decent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Glad to know that thematic battles that play to certain army strengths are worse than the generic missions that limit play options.

Turns out I've been playing this game all wrong, and shouldn't be taking on fortified central positions or beginning the game with scouting missions hoping for reinforcements to arrive before I am overwhelmed.

Thank goodness I was corrected on the internet, otherwise I would have thought it was a helpful suggestion...

one of the big issues with a trait like this is that if you play a game with more cover, but negate it completely you give little reason for players to want to play that sort of game.
Half the fun for big city fight battles is all the infantry, climbing though the city shooting from building to building.
The second half of the trait Seems kinda meh, tack on since the first is super situational.

Are people just forgetting (or not caring) there is more to the game than Matched Play w/Eternal War or Maelstrom missions? These rules are built for all types of games not just the "There is only one style of play" crowd.

A large portion of the community here play (or at least only care about) competitively, which generally only play those type of games so yeah, for this board it might as well only be those.

Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

zerosignal wrote:
Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

If you click 'click here to apply', there's an 'Apply Online' button on the next page.

Probably not, unless you can get to Nottingham and go through the process to work overseas in a short period of time.

beast_gts wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

If you click 'click here to apply', there's an 'Apply Online' button on the next page.

Woot. I clicked on the "How to apply" page and it just told me to send the letter with nothing else going forward.

However if they need me to actually move there then it might be an issue. Still though, ain't no skin off my back if I cast this die, so I'm gonna give it a shot.

IronNerd wrote:
The "wall of fleshy cultists around their big guns" is the bit I really want to touch on here. I was expecting something more... siege related. Perhaps roll 2d6 and take the highest when using weapons with random shots. This just doesn't feel very IW to me, except for the building part, which is complete garbage.

Well, the warlord trait is what you'd need if you were wanting to play as pseudo IG with artillery etc. Which is fluffy for IW. So this is one of the situations where it might result in a more fluffy army overall.

The problem is, barring something we haven't seen, IW still don't have much in the way of big guns to screen. Predators, vindicators, and then daemon engines which generally can handle melee fairly well.

MaxT wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Dang it, my contract doesn't end till next June...

-1 cover and damaging buildings matches their siege specialists expertise. Fearless bubble matches their human-wave philosophy. FnP 6+ matches their techno-fetish (even if it should be 5+ for a CP cost or it should at least be bought before the game begins for 1 CP per unit for the rest of the game). The use of heavy support based detachments can represent their love for havocs and oblits. What IW are missing are CP's from Brigade detachments if they take the HS ones. This can be fixed by giving them havocs/oblits as troops ala cult units in cult detachments. And they're missing actual big guns, easily fixed by adding basilisk's and medusa's to their list.

So add two extra units to the IW army list, throw in a take X and/or Y as troops and then throw in some balancing restriction and IW are now good to go. Easy restriction is restrict marked units to 1 per matched mark HQ. Given how the keywords interact and how buffs work in 8th chaos I don't think you can outright ban marked units as we saw in 7th. But if you restrict them to 1 unit per marked HQ you can add your fluffy IW Zerkers or some other themed unit/HQ combo without excising 3/4 of the chaos strategy combo's entirely from the army.

This is all that's missing from IW. It fills in the fluff gaps that are lacking (I son't think the fluff shows that IW are better shooters than other legions, they just prefer big guns over small ones) and it fills in the table-top gaps in their list.

What else are they missing?

I am seeing a pattern with army factions that have the word "Iron" in the name, with regards to the rules they get. So far they aren't very good.

Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Nonsense. Remember, Emperor's Children are just better Iron Warriors.

Has GW said if there will be any new units or characters in the codex?

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

Chaos players have to get use to the fluid nature of 8th ed chaos. You can mark practically anything. You can mix and match marks. Many stratagems are mark dependent, only a few (maybe 1 or possibly 2 per) are legion specific. If you want more shooting, your'e meant to take MoS on your havocs and spend the CP's on a double round of shooting. That's gonna work wonders for AL that have infiltrated a havoc squad 12" outside enemy lines, or units that have had an unmarked sorcerer cast Prescience on them. It's very clear that chaos is massively dependent on buffs, aura's, spells and the right combination of legion rules, marks and stratagems. Mixing in Daemons, including Heralds should be considered more often now, especially as many Astartes units (Possessed, Warp Talons, Cult of Destruction) get significantly better with Daemon buffs. Gonna have to gt out of the habit of looking at a datasheet and reading all of a units potential from that one source. You need to look at what buffing units and spells can do for it too, and decide how you best want to play it.

I'm currently mulling over which is better for mitigating damage, casting the Tzeentch +1 to invul spell on a unit that already has a 4++ or casting the Slaanesh power on the same unit that gives a 5+++. They both do very similar things, but then I have to consider which mark my sorcerer has, and what other buffs and stratagems I can use off them. It's looking like we can have multiple ways of doing the same things in this edition. EC Possessed with Daemon buff support could well be as good as Zerkers in CC, if you prefer pink perverts over blood red murderer's.Tzeentch units could be as tough as Nurgle if you prefer sparkly blue over vomit green.

I'd really like to see what it is IW can't do with the currently revealed rules that they should be doing, other than taking heavies as troops and having access to artillery tanks. The IW specific rules they have represent different aspects of their fluff, and what isn't IW specific youc an easily do through marks and psychic powers. 8th ed chaos isn't written to appease ultra-pure IW (or NL or AL) fans who will never ever take marks but still want to be able to do the stuff marks can provide. It's designed with the philosophy that you can (and should) take any of these keyword marks to open up the strategies you desire. You don't even need to look at them as worshipping the gods. You can easily write it up to some other advantage, or have troops marked despite openly opposing those gods (what I'm looking at doing with my own army). But from a mechanics point of view, you can do what IW do well throuh the rules we already have. And we only know a handful of them. We can assume chaos will get the predator and vindicator squadron stratagems out oft he loyalist book. They work really well for IW.

We're never gonna have every legion/chapter with a laundry list of awesome abilities than only they can do. You can do that in Horus Heresy, because everybody plays SM's, and there are only 18 factions. Yeah Mechanicus and Solar exist but they're a significant minority in that game and still only add a couple more factions. If GW is true to their stated (or hinted, I can't remember at this point) intention of fleshing out every old faction with multiple chapter tactic equivalents then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

The 6+++ for 1 cp needs to be changed though. That's just not value at all. It should be 5+++, though a better way to do it would be to buy the 6+++ for a squad for the entire game for 1 cp, though I don't even think this is worth 1cp. Actually thinking about it a better way to do it would be to buy a 6" 6+++ aura for Warpsmiths in an IW army. Warmsiths don't have any aura's, it'd be nice to give one to to IW's. The Warpsmiths/Warsmiths ensure their position in the warband by switching off the cybernetics of anyone who pisses them off!

 nintura wrote:
If you had read the book I was talking about you'd see where they mention that and why it's allowed. It's normally spurned, but his khorne berserkers were so effective, the Warmaster was willing to look the other way. For now.

Still allowed.

I remember back in 3rd when I started collecting Iron Warriors there was some bit of fluff about some Iron Warriors being really ground down mentally by the constant siege warfare and getting to the point of absolutely living for the moments where they would go over the top of a trench or through a breach in the walls and begin slaughtering their enemies at close quarters. These somewhat unhinged Iron Warriors were represented by being allowed to take a unit of Khorne Berserkers in the Iron Warriors list. I think this was in a White Dwarf issue that came out after the first 3rd edition codex but before the 3.5 codex, but that was a long time ago and I could have it all wrong.

When I start rebuilding my Iron Warriors I was thinking about having a small force with marks of Khorne and Khornate daemon engines, as well as a small Nurgle themed force with Nurgle daemon engines, but they would be their own separate detachments and my fluff would be that they're somewhat shunned by the main part of my Iron Warriors. I like the daemon engines, and am going to start picking some up, but I'm going to hold off until new infantry models come out before I really start collecting Iron Warriors again in earnest.

I think that the way people make tables is going to make a big difference as to whether or not the Legion ability is any good. I'm wondering if we're going to see ruins, trees, etc. put on larger bases kind of like the old area terrain with felt. Sometimes fortifications are used as part of the terrain as well, rather than being purchased by a player. I guess it will vary a lot depending on location, unless GW or the ITC puts out some more specific recommendations.

I'm not sure about the Stratagem. Maybe it would be good on vehicles and Obliterators?

I do hope that they bring back Chaos Undivided.

Demantiae wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

<snip>

Yeah, yeah. But, see, the point of having Legion rules at all, is to better represent a particular Legion. Not just throw a mishmash of random crap together to exploit the best unit/mark/power/stratagem combinations. Going by the warhammer community articles so far, all terminators should be tzeentchian and accompanied by a tzeentch sorcerer (or be world eaters for more hitting power, because obviously all khorne does is face punch), all havocs should be slaanesh marked to exploit the shooting strat, and so on and so forth (and obviously every legion should bring world eater's berserkers specifically).

But none of that makes for a functional representation of Iron Warriors or any other legion, which negates the point of having legion rules in the first place.

then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

Nope. We're going to have a mishmash of completely indistinct subfactions that exploit the shared detachment keyword rules. Any <whatever> that gives close combat bonuses is going provide the close combat units, the shooting <whatever> will provide devastators and so on and so forth, the limitation will just be how many characters you can fit around each group so they can operate most efficiently. There isn't any reason game-wise to bring non-WE berserkers and accompanying support character, backed up by slaanesh lascannon havocs and their reroll guy. Fluff wise there are a lot of reasons, but its the exact opposite of what these rules (and you) are advocating.

How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

Nah its bs 8th cover rules being what they are makes ignore cover highly situational.

I'm not gonna bother unpacking my chaos army this edition.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

Bending the fluff over and having Tzeentchian Night Lord Warp Talons tag-teaming with Magnus and Changeling. You know, the opposite of how Night Lords work.

It's the same way that you can have Azrael and Cypher play a buddy cop comedy in 8th ("Nice gat, homie") while Sammael is off hosting Pimp My Landspeeder.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

I feel like it used to be "OMG CSM AREN'T GETTING ANYTHING, SM ARE GETTING EVERYTHING!" and now it's "OMG WE'RE GETTING THE SAME THING AS SM!" and I'm just not sure why that's a bad thing.

Voss wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

<snip>

Yeah, yeah. But, see, the point of having Legion rules at all, is to better represent a particular Legion. Not just throw a mishmash of random crap together to exploit the best unit/mark/power/stratagem combinations. Going by the warhammer community articles so far, all terminators should be tzeentchian and accompanied by a tzeentch sorcerer (or be world eaters for more hitting power, because obviously all khorne does is face punch), all havocs should be slaanesh marked to exploit the shooting strat, and so on and so forth (and obviously every legion should bring world eater's berserkers specifically).

But none of that makes for a functional representation of Iron Warriors or any other legion, which negates the point of having legion rules in the first place.

then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

Nope. We're going to have a mishmash of completely indistinct subfactions that exploit the shared detachment keyword rules. Any <whatever> that gives close combat bonuses is going provide the close combat units, the shooting <whatever> will provide devastators and so on and so forth, the limitation will just be how many characters you can fit around each group so they can operate most efficiently. There isn't any reason game-wise to bring non-WE berserkers and accompanying support character, backed up by slaanesh lascannon havocs and their reroll guy. Fluff wise there are a lot of reasons, but its the exact opposite of what these rules (and you) are advocating.

I get what you're saying but you're living in vain hope. I play AL. I want AL Scouts and I want my cultists to be more than crap chaff (I'd like the old 3.5 choice of skillsets for my cultists, like R&H Marauders get) but it's not gonna happen. At least not yet. I don't really want to take cult troops or even marked units, but I'm a pragmatist (one of the reasons I like AL I guess). The faction in 8th is built from the ground up for these keyword interactions and buffs. The moment we say buff aura's on HQ's it was clear how 8th was shaping up. Instead of the end-era 7th concept of tightly controlled detachments dictating what you could take to get the advantages out of them we now have a more fluid system of interactions. And this means we have to suck up some things we don't necessarily like in order to play the faction how it's been written to play.

GW are never gonna release codex IW or codex AL. so we're never gonna be anything other a different flavour of CSM. They'll make TS and DG different for sure, with all their extra units and much grater restrictions but never the Undivided legions. We're just regular chaos with different flavours. So accepting that you're never getting codex IW (that would be a 90% carbon copy of codex CSM anyway) you have to look at what you can do with the tools you have. And chaos has a LOT of tools now. Whatever strategy you take, there's something in chaos to buff it. You can focus on shooty or choppy armies and be damned good at either. Or you can go for a bit of both and still be good. Somebody said something about marks that was spot on - you don't have to follow a god to become marked. And you don't even have to like it. You just need to be good at what you do. It makes sense to add MoN to Raptors who are really good at terror tactics, even if they hate Nurgle. I'm writing into my own warband fluff (an AL force who eradicated Nurgles presence from a world so they cold take it themselves) Nurgle marked Raptors that have recieved his blessing not because they follow them, but because they were really good at crushing him. Their reward for stopping him was to receive his blessing. Hence they now offer a -2 to Ld instead of 1. Given this is a core mechanic of Raptors it makes sense to make the most out of it.

For IW imagine taking one of the FW dreads that can take double Butcher Canons. Toss out MoS and first turn issue the double-fire stratagem. You're now clearing out all the chaff/bubblewrap from your opponent in one round of shooting with one unit. And nothing gets cover. Buff the same dread with a Lord for re-roll 1's and it's gonna very well first turn. That's very potent for IW and the only thing you have to do is accept that you have to throw out a MoS and come up with a justification scenario in your head. Other players will just see this is an option and go for it anyway.

It's looking like you can pick any legion you like the fluff/style of and be able to play them properly to their theme without being gimped as in previous editions. There were a lot of AL players who actually played RG because they had nothing that came close to representing them on the table until Traitor Legions. Now, apart not having access to Scouts AL using the same RG rules are probably gonna be better than RG. RG can't infiltrate a devastator squad right in your face and double fire it. nor can their assault squads throw out the number of attacks that Slaanesh Raptors can. And they certainly can't buff their CC dreads with +2 S and +1 A. And Prescience and Warp Time are a thing for chaos. First time in a long time AL are probably gonna be stronger than RG and AL players don't need to proxy their whole army.

hobojebus wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

Why not? Have you not read Storm of Iron? Great book. They have a captain, and his unit, who favor Khorne.

Have you read all other fluff that stresses how they dont follow the gods and spurn any "gifts" by cutting them pff and replacing them with bionics.

First off, you can be marked by a God even if you don't worship that God actively. Ahriman never worshipped Tzeentch and doesn't think of him as a patron. Taking actions which are pleasing to a God is more than enough to earn their praise. Siege warfare exhibits all of the traits of the Gods of Chaos (Khorne is obvious, Nurgle in terms of its grinding nature, Tzeentch in the insidiously designed defenses, and Slaanesh in the excessive toll of life, expenditure of resources and preparation required to actually perform a siege as either defender or destroyer).

Second, a Mark of Chaos is different from a mutation. It's a change to the very soul of the marine, and a change that they can't replace with an augmentic. A marked squad is easy to justify in the context of like-minded warriors congregating together.

Finally, the Iron Warriors are not anti-mutation. Obliterators are one of their most iconic units. And while some sects of Iron Warriors are pragmatically against mutation and daemons, it is not hard to believe that with the Cicatrix Maledictum that things have changed.

In terms of the OP, I think we can all agree that the Legions are not made equal. The Night Lords, Emperor's Children and World Eaters are miles ahead. Black Legion and Iron Warriors are lagging behind. Their power level is tellingly low. The fact that the Black Legion at least have Abaddon sadly puts the Iron Warriors at a major disadvantage.

assuming an entire legion all have the same views on the gods is proably a pretty bad assumption, I suspect there are entire warbands of iron warriors and night lords both who are basicly cults to certain gods.

 Kraytirous wrote:
In terms of the OP, I think we can all agree that the Legions are not made equal. The Night Lords, Emperor's Children and World Eaters are miles ahead. Black Legion and Iron Warriors are lagging behind. Their power level is tellingly low. The fact that the Black Legion at least have Abaddon sadly puts the Iron Warriors at a major disadvantage.

Did you mean alpha legion instead of night lords? Cause night lords are trash. WE extra attack puts the NL debuff to shame in melee, and it's so short ranged that's pretty much the only place it'll matter. That's without pointing out the NL chapter tactic is literally worthless against many armies.

If you think BL and IW are lagging behind overall, you aren't paying attention. IW have the best unique warlord trait, a middling chapter tactic, and one of the better relics. The stratagem is garbage but most of the unique stratagems are garbage. They are towards the upper middle, not WB or NL garbage for sure, certainly better than BL if you ignore Abby.

A lot of the previewed stratagems seem like they would work really well with Iron Warriors armies that used lots of daemon engines, Vindicators, Cultists, Obliterators and/or Havocs.

They also doubled the number of shots Obliterators get to make, although I didn't see if they changed the points on them.

No Chaos Undivided, which is a little bit of a bummer.

That is pretty meaningless, as they're available to all armies. So legions with real benefits gain just as much from said stratagems.



Chaos undivided is a sad but expected loss. It may be a trademark issue (where they can claim K, S, N and T), but it's made chaos armies far less varied and interesting, especially since their interpretations of the Big 4 have also become much more static and limited. Basically just a stat bonus now, with the exception of Slaanesh, who is a random variable every edition.

Chaos undivided isn't a thing? What do you think the icon for non marked CSM is? Or the generic chaos keyword with no marks? It is the default from which others diverge.

Also, there aren't any stat bonuses for god affiliation. Just icons.

SilverAlien wrote:
Chaos undivided isn't a thing? What do you think the icon for non marked CSM is? Or the generic chaos keyword with no marks? It is the default from which others diverge.

Also, there aren't any stat bonuses for god affiliation. Just icons.

The chaos keyword is the faction tag, same as imperium, tau or eldar.

The icon of vengeance, assuming it hasn't changed from the index version, really doesn't have anything to do with chaos. 'You can pay to waste points on leadership if you want to' is... nothing really. It doesn't have much to do with the old rich fluff of undivided worship.

Voss wrote:
The chaos keyword is the faction tag, same as imperium, tau or eldar.

The icon of vengeance, assuming it hasn't changed from the index version, really doesn't have anything to do with chaos. 'You can pay to waste points on leadership if you want to' is... nothing really. It doesn't have much to do with the old rich fluff of undivided worship.

Are you wanting mechanics or fluff here I'm confused. Mechanically being affiliated with chaos but not with a specific god is rather the definition of chaos undivided. You are chaos not tied to a patron god. Do you want a specific keyword for it?

Mark of vengeance is bad but it's not even the worst one (probably excess or flame).

As for fluff... have we had a breakdown of the fluff in book yet? Who knows what it'll have.

so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I have a land raider sitting around so that will get a combi-melta and transport 10 IW themed khorne bezerkers. Also have a sicaran tank. Plan to lead the army with a demon prince with fleshmetal exoskeleton and a sqd of warriors in a rhino. Havocs with ML or las, a few Oblits to DS and maybe a maulerfiend. Not sure on points yet, but this will be a start.

 bullyboy wrote:
so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I love spam, in my mind the word means "redundancy" and as such I am considering:

Auxiliary Support Detachment of Renegades and Heretics (-1 cp)
Earthshaker Battery - 240p
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform

Brigade Detachment of Iron Warriors Heretic Astartes (+9 cp)
Chaos Lord, combi-bolter, power sword - 80p
Daemon Prince - approximately 180p in new book
Warpsmith or something - about 76p

Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, power scourge - 165p

Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p

10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p

3 Obliterators - 195p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p

If I've done my math right which I probably haven't, this totals out to 1774 points, which leaves me wiggle room to add more units I think are cool or fun. I want to incorporate more Iron Warriors Marines so might swap out a troops squad or increase the Havocs.

Wanting to play CSM without any marks or God specific units and expecting to be rewarded for it is to me like playing Loyalist Marines, refusing to use any unit with a save of 3+ or better and expecting the codex to cater to your decision by giving you buffs and the like. I mean, why even bother playing with that codex. It's not as if there's some fluff at stake- there is not a single traitor legion that unanimously rejected the Chaos Gods; even fething Perturabo ultimately accepted Daemonhood, putting himself at the mercy of the Gods forever. So if it's a matter of wanting Your Dudes to be special snowflakes why not just play a loyalist marine faction with counts-as Chaos models?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Wanting to play CSM without any marks or God specific units and expecting to be rewarded for it is to me like playing Loyalist Marines, refusing to use any unit with a save of 3+ or better and expecting the codex to cater to your decision by giving you buffs and the like. I mean, why even bother playing with that codex. It's not as if there's some fluff at stake- there is not a single traitor legion that unanimously rejected the Chaos Gods; even fething Perturabo ultimately accepted Daemonhood, putting himself at the mercy of the Gods forever. So if it's a matter of wanting Your Dudes to be special snowflakes why not just play a loyalist marine faction with counts-as Chaos models?

It's not that weird to want to play CSM without marks or god-specific units. It's been pretty normal for a couple legions (Night Lords, Iron Warriors, maybe Alpha Legion but I'm not sure about them) to make little use of god-specific marks or units. Sometimes, like in the Traitor Legions book last edition, the Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Alpha Legion were prohibited by the rules from taking any units with marks or upgrading any unit to have a mark.

There are fluff justifications for Iron Warriors units taking marks, it's just not the norm. I don't think most Iron Warriors players would look down on someone else for playing an Iron Warriors army that had the occasional mark, but at the same time I think most Iron Warriors would feel resistant to throwing marks around willy-nilly and taking tons of god-specific units. It's really not a big deal for the most part, as Iron Warriors players aren't being forced to take any marks. It's more that there's big tempting rewards in throwing all of the established norms out the window, putting marks on everything and taking all sorts of god-specific stuff.

I don't think your example of wanting to play Loyalist Marines and refusing to play anything with a 3+ save is a good one. Chaos Undivided used to be a pretty normal thing for about half the Traitor Legions, and god-specific marks and units have never as ubiquitous as power armor. Iron Warriors and marks of one god aren't as weird as, say, Black Templars taking Librarians. I'd say it is about as unusual as White Scars and Dreadnoughts. My understanding of the White Scars fluff is that they do have Dreadnoughts, just not nearly as many as most chapters as they feel that a warrior's soul should be free and not trapped in a Dreadnought or something like that. A White Scars player could totally come up with a fluffy explanation for having a Dreadnought in their army. If a Space Marine Codex came out that made Dreadnoughts a really big deal and was partly built with the assumption that everyone would be taking several in their Space Marine armies, and then in they preview they said something like "Hey White Scars players you have this stuff that works really well with Dreanoughts!" I think it would be understandable that many White Scars players would feel kind of weird about it.

It's a pretty minor thing overall. I'm also basing this on my understanding of the Iron Warriors fluff, which isn't perfect. I've read a bunch of the Iron Warriors books, but certainly not all of them. GW has been moving away from Chaos Undivided, which I think is a little unfortunate but things change and it's not worth getting worked up over.

I've only read summaries of the Iron Cage Incident that earned Perturabo his ascension to daemonhood. I'm not very versed in the details. Did Perturabo knowingly put himself at the mercy of the Chaos gods forever? That doesn't fit very well with what I know of his character, but I've mostly read Iron Warriors stuff set well after the Heresy and before Perturabo turned traitor, so I'm not that familiar with him at that specific time period.

Iron Warriors could probably be played pretty well as Imperial Fists or maybe Iron Hands. They would be missing out on Obliterators, Mutilators and Daemon Engines, which they use pretty heavily.

 ph34r wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I love spam, in my mind the word means "redundancy" and as such I am considering:

Auxiliary Support Detachment of Renegades and Heretics (-1 cp)
Earthshaker Battery - 240p
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform

Brigade Detachment of Iron Warriors Heretic Astartes (+9 cp)
Chaos Lord, combi-bolter, power sword - 80p
Daemon Prince - approximately 180p in new book
Warpsmith or something - about 76p

Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, power scourge - 165p

Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p

10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p

3 Obliterators - 195p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p

If I've done my math right which I probably haven't, this totals out to 1774 points, which leaves me wiggle room to add more units I think are cool or fun. I want to incorporate more Iron Warriors Marines so might swap out a troops squad or increase the Havocs.

I thought I heard somewhere that Cultists had been removed from the Troop slot?

I think you must be confused, cult units (noise marines and beserkers) may have been removed from the troop slot it still isn't entirely clear, but cultists are still there.

Since the marks are nothing more than keywords and don't actually give any bonus, but merely open up a strategy, I don't really understand the problem. Forge the narrative, and I don't mean that ironically. Yes, according to rules your havocs have the mark of slaanesh to fire twice. But you know better. These are trained warriors from the 31st millenium, their champion was one of the first havocs ever in existance and he trained his squad in siege warfare for 10K years. Accordingly they can fire twice. It's not that hard really. And since marks don't give boni anymore I don't think your opponents will be that mad if you don't show the mark on the model. Think of all the loyalist successor chapters with their different colors, nobody will tell you: "B-b-but your plastic toys aren't green, they can't be salamanders!"

Better to have marks reduced to keywords and open up possibilites for all legions than going back to 4th-7th edition where every list was Nurgle.

SilverAlien wrote:
I think you must be confused, cult units (noise marines and beserkers) may have been removed from the troop slot it still isn't entirely clear, but cultists are still there.

Ahh, that makes sense

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Since the marks are nothing more than keywords and don't actually give any bonus, but merely open up a strategy, I don't really understand the problem. Forge the narrative, and I don't mean that ironically. Yes, according to rules your havocs have the mark of slaanesh to fire twice. But you know better. These are trained warriors from the 31st millenium, their champion was one of the first havocs ever in existance and he trained his squad in siege warfare for 10K years. Accordingly they can fire twice. It's not that hard really. And since marks don't give boni anymore I don't think your opponents will be that mad if you don't show the mark on the model. Think of all the loyalist successor chapters with their different colors, nobody will tell you: "B-b-but your plastic toys aren't green, they can't be salamanders!"

Better to have marks reduced to keywords and open up possibilites for all legions than going back to 4th-7th edition where every list was Nurgle.

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure how I feel 100% about this concept yet but I certainly wouldn't mind my Iron Warrior havocs being able to fire twice.

I see 8th as the "counts as" edition. Sure, as far as the rules say these are slaaneshi havocs, but thematically they're augmented heavy weapon experts, and the models would have extra targeters and stabilizers. Not my favorite way to do things, but it is what it is.

Conversely, Slaanesh is also the god of perfection. Maybe these Havocs have just honed their skills to such perfection that they can load, aim and fire twice in the same span of time.

malcontent999 wrote:
I see 8th as the "counts as" edition. Sure, as far as the rules say these are slaaneshi havocs, but thematically they're augmented heavy weapon experts, and the models would have extra targeters and stabilizers. Not my favorite way to do things, but it is what it is.

...This is really questionable, because at least now you have things that aren't too off. Unlike 5th editions "Counts as Khornate" Spacewolves or Blood letters. Counts as Iron Warriors using the Space Marine dex..

Least people are actually using the CSM codex.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

malcontent999 wrote:
I see 8th as the "counts as" edition. Sure, as far as the rules say these are slaaneshi havocs, but thematically they're augmented heavy weapon experts, and the models would have extra targeters and stabilizers. Not my favorite way to do things, but it is what it is.

...This is really questionable, because at least now you have things that aren't too off. Unlike 5th editions "Counts as Khornate" Spacewolves or Blood letters. Counts as Iron Warriors using the Space Marine dex..

Least people are actually using the CSM codex.

I guess I don't understand why any of that's questionable. As long as models are distinguishable and you tell your opponent what's what, what difference does it make?

You don't see anything wrong with the idea that people are using other codex's because the CSM codex can't even properly represent CSM legions?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You don't see anything wrong with the idea that people are using other codex's because the CSM codex can't even properly represent CSM legions?

No, I don't.

I think the Chaos Codex does a fine job for most legions. Iron Warriors got a bunch of fluffy siege bonuses; all they're really missing is a good siege tank (Forge World helps with the Hellforged Typhon in that regard). Some people disagree with me, and that's fine, because fluff is subjective. If they disagree, they can use whatever rules they want.

Mechanics are not the same thing as fluff, and if you're playing for the fluff, then I don't care really if the names of a given mechanical rule don't match the fluff either.

Like, if someone wanted to play Imperial Guard with Leman Russ tanks that hover because their homeworld is one of the few Imperial worlds with access to grav-repulsor tech, then I'd be fine letting them use the Tau book to field their army.

Conversely, if someone wanted to play 'exodite' Eldar that used creatures and animals for their gear, I wouldn't mind letting them use the Tyranid codex for their army, as long as they were clear and consistent and sensible about what was what (e.g. this gigantosaurus being ridden by the Exodite Prince is the Hive Tyrant, this horde of Exodite warriors are termagaunts, etc.)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You don't see anything wrong with the idea that people are using other codex's because the CSM codex can't even properly represent CSM legions?

I don't see anything wrong with an individual using whatever rule set they chose to represent their models.

I, personally, don't like how the undivided legions are being handled, but for the moment, this is what we have to work with. My suggestion was just an example attempt to use existing rules to represent what we lost with the removal of things like veteran skills.

TL,DR; I said we can use the csm codex to represent the legions with some *cringe* imagination, but I don't see a problem with using whatever codex you feel fits best.