Lots of people are complaining about the IH being so strong, some even spoke about not playing against them anymore. So I was curious to know of your victories against them, in order to prove they can be beaten / to reassure moral of the troops !
So guys, have you faces the new IH ? Did you beat them ? Let us the world know !
BrianDavion wrote: Avoid Melee? why Am I forgetting something that makes then overly strong in Melee?
5+ overwatch with all those guns are bloody murder, and /getting into/ melee is a whole different trouble. They'll mow you down before you can get in. It's not what they can do to you in melee, its the inability to get into them in melee.
Lost two matches to them, and I play Custodes. Objectively however, my game play is somewhat, trash.
I only beat them once, and that was to a player who I outrolled like crazy, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing.
They are a very well built codex. Saw a guy using the codex with an Astraeus, which seemed positively unfair. A superheavy that can regain 25% of it's wounds per turn, with a 5++ and a 6 +++?
vaklor4 wrote: Yet to beat them, I can safely tell you to avoid melee, play the objective game and hope to the dark gods that you aren't playing ITC.
If "play the objective game" is the general advice against an army, it's a clear sign that the army is broken. And also that you need to think harder about your tactics and lists, because this won't be enough in the long run if you have a regular Iron Hands opponent.
Playing the objective game is a crutch you use in tournaments, when faced with a rock-paper-scissors situation where your specific army list is the paper to the scissors. But in general, any properly tailored army should be able to beat an army from any other faction in a straight "brawl".
vaklor4 wrote: 5+ overwatch with all those guns are bloody murder, and /getting into/ melee is a whole different trouble. They'll mow you down before you can get in. It's not what they can do to you in melee, its the inability to get into them in melee.
What would you rather face -- their 5+ overwatch, or their next 3+ shooting phase? If it's their guns you're afraid of, all the more reason to get into melee. Better take a slap now than a punch later. Anyway, there are many ways to avoid or reduce overwatch, including multiple-on-one charges, charging from outside line of sight, consolidation and heroic intervention.
In my previous game against IH, I sent some Drukhari forces (mostly characters) into melee and had some success against a couple of Primaris units, but my opponent moved his Leviathan Dreadnought into melee and I knew I was not going to win this one. So obviously all advice on "should I melee?" is situational.
BrianDavion wrote: Avoid Melee? why Am I forgetting something that makes then overly strong in Melee?
5+ overwatch with all those guns are bloody murder, and /getting into/ melee is a whole different trouble. They'll mow you down before you can get in. It's not what they can do to you in melee, its the inability to get into them in melee.
Hardly.
I've played two ITC practice games with my Iron Hands, both times going at it with strong opponents to test my list, tactics, and the codex. I lost them both. Neither games were a cakewalk for either play, but both times I was shut down to one extent or another by melee.
As it turns out, 5+ overwatch only gets you so far, and that also assumes that your most powerful guns actually get to *fire* overwatch.
You know what's really deadly? Having your screens get charged by a big, blobby unit that has enough room to get nice and close to all your other guns. Or having a unit with rerolls and bonuses to their charge come out from behind a wall so that you can't fire overwatch. Or having your biggest gun charged by a "You can't overwatch me" unit of one flavor or another and then being charged by everything else once your overwatch is soaked up.
Also, getting charged by an imperial knight or similarly beefy unit who can actually take your overwatch can hurt too.
Don't let the psychological aspect scare you. Getting into melee with Iron Hands is absolutely the way to go, and getting a somewhat better overwatch isn't the same as being able to just vaporize anything that tries to charge you, especially if you know how to maneuver well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Lost two matches to them, and I play Custodes. Objectively however, my game play is somewhat, trash.
I only beat them once, and that was to a player who I outrolled like crazy, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing.
They are a very well built codex. Saw a guy using the codex with an Astraeus, which seemed positively unfair. A superheavy that can regain 25% of it's wounds per turn, with a 5++ and a 6 +++?
To be fair, Iron Hands are a really bad matchup for Custodes. (Space Marines in general are, but especially Iron Hands.) Our doctrine and abilities favor heavy weapons with -1 and -2 AP, which also generally means 2-3 damage weapons that'll have their AP buffed. This puts the vast, vast majority of our firepower into a sweet spot that obliterates Custodes, because we've got just enough damage and AP to kill you without going overboard and either wasting AP on your invulns or putting too much damage into every model. It's one of the worst armies I can think of for Custodes to face, even outside of external balance issues and the strength of the codex.
I don't see the big deal about the Astreus though. It's going to be more than a third of that player's army, and while it's durable regardless of faction, Iron Hands don't have nearly as much to offer it as they do to Leviathans/other dreadnoughts.
BrianDavion wrote: Avoid Melee? why Am I forgetting something that makes then overly strong in Melee?
5+ overwatch with all those guns are bloody murder, and /getting into/ melee is a whole different trouble. They'll mow you down before you can get in. It's not what they can do to you in melee, its the inability to get into them in melee.
Hardly.
I've played two ITC practice games with my Iron Hands, both times going at it with strong opponents to test my list, tactics, and the codex. I lost them both. Neither games were a cakewalk for either play, but both times I was shut down to one extent or another by melee.
As it turns out, 5+ overwatch only gets you so far, and that also assumes that your most powerful guns actually get to *fire* overwatch.
You know what's really deadly? Having your screens get charged by a big, blobby unit that has enough room to get nice and close to all your other guns. Or having a unit with rerolls and bonuses to their charge come out from behind a wall so that you can't fire overwatch. Or having your biggest gun charged by a "You can't overwatch me" unit of one flavor or another and then being charged by everything else once your overwatch is soaked up.
Also, getting charged by an imperial knight or similarly beefy unit who can actually take your overwatch can hurt too.
Don't let the psychological aspect scare you. Getting into melee with Iron Hands is absolutely the way to go, and getting a somewhat better overwatch isn't the same as being able to just vaporize anything that tries to charge you, especially if you know how to maneuver well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Lost two matches to them, and I play Custodes. Objectively however, my game play is somewhat, trash.
I only beat them once, and that was to a player who I outrolled like crazy, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing.
They are a very well built codex. Saw a guy using the codex with an Astraeus, which seemed positively unfair. A superheavy that can regain 25% of it's wounds per turn, with a 5++ and a 6 +++?
To be fair, Iron Hands are a really bad matchup for Custodes. (Space Marines in general are, but especially Iron Hands.) Our doctrine and abilities favor heavy weapons with -1 and -2 AP, which also generally means 2-3 damage weapons that'll have their AP buffed. This puts the vast, vast majority of our firepower into a sweet spot that obliterates Custodes, because we've got just enough damage and AP to kill you without going overboard and either wasting AP on your invulns or putting too much damage into every model. It's one of the worst armies I can think of for Custodes to face, even outside of external balance issues and the strength of the codex.
I don't see the big deal about the Astreus though. It's going to be more than a third of that player's army, and while it's durable regardless of faction, Iron Hands don't have nearly as much to offer it as they do to Leviathans/other dreadnoughts.
Got it! Armies with decent melee units, check! Now since you seem to know the answer to everything, what does tau do?
Got it! Armies with decent melee units, check! Now since you seem to know the answer to everything, what does tau do?
... What?
I literally don't understand you're point. I never came remotely close to saying that you needed melee to win. I just shared two stories about games where I lost to melee, and posted a rebuttal to someone saying that melee wouldn't work.
I haven't played against Tau with my Iron Hands yet. If you want an answer to your question, you'll need to ask someone who has.
Got it! Armies with decent melee units, check! Now since you seem to know the answer to everything, what does tau do?
... What?
I literally don't understand you're point. I never came remotely close to saying that you needed melee to win. I just shared two stories about games where I lost to melee, and posted a rebuttal to someone saying that melee wouldn't work.
I haven't played against Tau with my Iron Hands yet. If you want an answer to your question, you'll need to ask someone who has.
People are staking their reputation on the death of 40k with the arrival of IH (and now IF).
One thing I do find interesting...the FAQ is way late.
Got it! Armies with decent melee units, check! Now since you seem to know the answer to everything, what does tau do?
... What?
I literally don't understand you're point. I never came remotely close to saying that you needed melee to win. I just shared two stories about games where I lost to melee, and posted a rebuttal to someone saying that melee wouldn't work.
I haven't played against Tau with my Iron Hands yet. If you want an answer to your question, you'll need to ask someone who has.
People are staking their reputation on the death of 40k with the arrival of IH (and now IF).
One thing I do find interesting...the FAQ is way late.
He stated melee is actually an option to take care of iron hands. I simply asked what an army with no melee should do. I do not mean to be rude or anything but... imperial fists are not iron hands level. Nor are ultramarines or raven guard. They have some good strong useful traits, but the iron hands resiliency needs to be addressed.
BrianDavion wrote: Avoid Melee? why Am I forgetting something that makes then overly strong in Melee?
5+ overwatch (4+ with a strat), -2 to charge, usually on top of a ruin or building, and vecting your no-overwatch spells, etc.. with a single CP.
You'll just never get there. And if you, in theory, one of your guys made it through blistering overwatch to tag an IH tank on top of a ruin, they are still -1 damage, will repair any damage you get through and simply fly away to blast you off the board.
Math it out with some GSC or Genestealers or Slaanesh/Khorne Daemons or Harlequins or whatever you have. It's not gonna go well.
BrianDavion wrote: man if 5+s to hit where a huuge deal you'd think we'd be hearing more complaints about OP Ork gunnery.
Imagine Ork shooting that also fired in your turn.
And your misdirection is obvious.
Simply put IH sure up all/too many of the 'weaknesses' of Marines - their durability is a joke, their damage output is a joke, they have tricks and shenanigans in spades and they require virtually no skill to play. A literal point and click army. It's very, very poor design on GWs part.
Oh and allegedly Salamanders might be even more OP. Can't wait for that bull gak to get released.
BrianDavion wrote: man if 5+s to hit where a huuge deal you'd think we'd be hearing more complaints about OP Ork gunnery.
You must not have read any thread about orks in the last year...
Newest one in - stompa shooting is OP.
Are we now reaching ultra dense territory then?
Also whilest overwatch 5+ is good, alone it is more or less useless, E.g. Scourged. It mostly punishes army that need to relly on melee to kill tough units.
'Tagging' IH is the best anyone's come up with yet? Jeez.
Executioners are the problem here, and even getting through the -2" charge 4+ overwatch rerolling all misses, the git just floats away next turn and heals 6+1d3 wounds. Thunderfire clear your campers and key positioning units.
I've played them twice with Alaitoc, to no avail. Worth pointing out that SM shooting is now super accurate too: even your one -3 alaitoc flyer is being hit 4+, rerolling all misses.
grouchoben wrote: 'Tagging' IH is the best anyone's come up with yet? Jeez.
Executioners are the problem here, and even getting through the -2" charge 4+ overwatch rerolling all misses, the git just floats away next turn and heals 6+1d3 wounds. Thunderfire clear your campers and key positioning units.
I've played them twice with Alaitoc, to no avail. Worth pointing out that SM shooting is now super accurate too: even your one -3 alaitoc flyer is being hit 4+, rerolling all misses.
My csm don't work.
My r&h Otoh do, mostly because i throw 150 morale immune models in the deathblob.
Altough even that does not really work.
grouchoben wrote: 'Tagging' IH is the best anyone's come up with yet? Jeez.
Executioners are the problem here, and even getting through the -2" charge 4+ overwatch rerolling all misses, the git just floats away next turn and heals 6+1d3 wounds. Thunderfire clear your campers and key positioning units.
I've played them twice with Alaitoc, to no avail. Worth pointing out that SM shooting is now super accurate too: even your one -3 alaitoc flyer is being hit 4+, rerolling all misses.
SM is the new counter to Alaitoc, and top players are saying that's one of the best things about the new dex, that Alaitoc has a proper trouble match up in the meta now. Not saying you are wrong in general, just pointing out that the Alaitoc match, you are right is gonna be a bitch for you, but is not reflective of SM or Iron Hands capability as a whole. I think the rest of us have a much better chance.
You are right that Executioners are the threat though, I genuinely aren't worried about Leviathans. Still forcing them to fall back out of the bubble may be all it takes, though they will definitely get their mileage out of them points wise, it has to come at the cost of board control theres no way to avoid that. I run 120 or so models in MSU, I'm gonna lose on kill more every turn, but I'm also gonna hold that board I'm confident in it.
Nitro Zeus wrote: SM is the new counter to Alaitoc, and top players are saying that's one of the best things about the new dex, that Alaitoc has a proper trouble match up in the meta now. Not saying you are wrong in general, just pointing out that the Alaitoc match, you are right is gonna be a bitch for you, but is not reflective of SM or Iron Hands capability as a whole. I think the rest of us have a much better chance.
Not sure why you believe any other army has a better chance.
The only 'chance' that any army has against IH is to literally flood the board with so many bodies that they can't wipe you quick enough and take objectives. If your army is unable to do this, you're SOL (unless you're one of the other nu-marine lists that can simply out-damage them).
Iron Hands' capability as a whole is incredibly strong, the fact that they can absolutely wipe the floor with what is another strong list in Alaitoc just shows how insanely powerful they are, not the opposite.
As far as I can tell from the (admittedly limited) stats, from the commentary of the playtesters and from limited experience, there is no real fun answer to Iron Hands. That is a/the problem.
The only 'chance' that any army has against IH is to literally flood the board with so many bodies that they can't wipe you quick enough and take objectives. If your army is unable to do this, you're SOL (unless you're one of the other nu-marine lists that can simply out-damage them).
Slight correction, enough bodies to get the meatgrinder bubble stuck AND maintain objectives.
F.e. I won only with my renegades because i had another 100 bodies sitting around and got incredibly luck to get t4 on the mutant blobs and he had no Snipers to remove my enforcers.
With regular CSM that would be night impossible, because you can't secure enough squads morale wise and have cheap enough units.
The only 'chance' that any army has against IH is to literally flood the board with so many bodies that they can't wipe you quick enough and take objectives. If your army is unable to do this, you're SOL (unless you're one of the other nu-marine lists that can simply out-damage them).
Slight correction, enough bodies to get the meatgrinder bubble stuck AND maintain objectives.
F.e. I won only with my renegades because i had another 100 bodies sitting around and got incredibly luck to get t4 on the mutant blobs and he had no Snipers to remove my enforcers.
With regular CSM that would be night impossible, because you can't secure enough squads morale wise and have cheap enough units.
You're not wrong, I just couldn't be bothered to post the entire tactic It's pretty self explanatory I guess - try not to die while holding objectives, somehow mitigate morale when snipers don't even need LOS to kill characters that provide morale mitigating buffs, good luck!
The only 'chance' that any army has against IH is to literally flood the board with so many bodies that they can't wipe you quick enough and take objectives. If your army is unable to do this, you're SOL (unless you're one of the other nu-marine lists that can simply out-damage them).
Slight correction, enough bodies to get the meatgrinder bubble stuck AND maintain objectives.
F.e. I won only with my renegades because i had another 100 bodies sitting around and got incredibly luck to get t4 on the mutant blobs and he had no Snipers to remove my enforcers.
With regular CSM that would be night impossible, because you can't secure enough squads morale wise and have cheap enough units.
You're not wrong, I just couldn't be bothered to post the entire tactic It's pretty self explanatory I guess - try not to die while holding objectives, somehow mitigate morale when snipers don't even need LOS to kill characters that provide morale mitigating buffs, good luck!
MY win was probably precicslcly because the mate i played against didn't field a squad of them.
And whilest it is kinda funny for the first time to clogg up the meatgrinder that is the IH deathbubble with chaff, i find it disgusting that i need over 100+ models just to succesfully tarpit it.
Not Online!!! 781287 10596838 wrote:
Are we now reaching ultra dense territory then?
Also whilest overwatch 5+ is good, alone it is more or less useless, E.g. Scourged. It mostly punishes army that need to relly on melee to kill tough units.
True. They kill everything GK dead. multi wound causing weapons hurt NDK and termmintor armoured stuff a lot. ton of multi shot weapons melt power armored units. Lots of buffs to doing damage deals with stuff like Land Raiders or dreadnoughts, while their own dreads are untargetable. Very unfun to play, when something finaly reachs melee and gets blasted 20 times on +5, followed by Thunader hammer lords cheaing with 6" move after charge.
Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
Don't let the psychological aspect scare you. Getting into melee with Iron Hands is absolutely the way to go, and getting a somewhat better overwatch isn't the same as being able to just vaporize anything that tries to charge you, especially if you know how to maneuver well.
.
Fun when you are playing faction that sucks in melee(primaris marines with knife kicks ass with you) and is outshot by ih as well.
Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
I'd expect some major changes once it drops.
Wont hold my breath. They will probably get more buffs lol
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
Interesting. I wonder what the miscommunication could have been about.
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
Interesting. I wonder what the miscommunication could have been about.
That's what I was trying to get him to say lol. But, he cannot.
The issue is rules on rules on rules. Just in case people have not encountered it or seen it,
IH get:
6+++ FNP.
Overwatch on 5+
Double wounds for determining if something is degraded or not.
In Devastator Doctrine they get the regular +1 AP for heavy weapons.
They also get to ignore the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons.
They also reroll 1s to hit because screw you thats why.
The Iron Father then gives a 5++ 6" aura.
And makes a unit BS 2+
And can repair 3 wounds a turn (1 CP to do it twice).
The Ironstone relic reduces all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1.
They also have a stratagem which allows you to halve all damage on a dreadnought (see: Leviathans). At which point, in combination with the Ironstone, you have to do 5 damage per attack to inflict more than 1 damage, and you have to get through 14 wounds T8, 4++, 6+++ saves to kill it. In other words its mathematically near impossible to kill one in a turn, its only degraded at 3 wounds but as said you can just throw wounds back on it so doing so it will never be degraded.
Which is nice for the IH player, as it can happily blast you with 20 S7 AP-3 D2 guns at BS2 while jogging 8" around the table. Also heavy flamers, which tbh are as lame as any heavy flamers, but AP-2 is a nice touch if they ever come up.
Then you make the dread a character and you can boost them even more.
Its just crazy. Off the chain crazy.
Is it beatable? Sure. Its a dice game. Play the mission and hope your opponent fluffs their dice rolls. But people saying anyone worried about this are "cry babies" are not playing the game. Its obscene.
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
I'd expect some major changes once it drops.
Crossing my fingers.
I'm still wistful for the complaint threads on how awful the Executioner was going to be after the points bump.
Tyel wrote: The issue is rules on rules on rules. Just in case people have not encountered it or seen it,
IH get:
6+++ FNP.
Overwatch on 5+
Double wounds for determining if something is degraded or not.
In Devastator Doctrine they get the regular +1 AP for heavy weapons.
They also get to ignore the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons.
They also reroll 1s to hit because screw you thats why.
The Iron Father then gives a 5++ 6" aura.
And makes a unit BS 2+
And can repair 3 wounds a turn (1 CP to do it twice).
The Ironstone relic reduces all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1.
They also have a stratagem which allows you to halve all damage on a dreadnought (see: Leviathans). At which point, in combination with the Ironstone, you have to do 5 damage per attack to inflict more than 1 damage, and you have to get through 14 wounds T8, 4++, 6+++ saves to kill it. In other words its mathematically near impossible to kill one in a turn, its only degraded at 3 wounds but as said you can just throw wounds back on it so doing so it will never be degraded.
Which is nice for the IH player, as it can happily blast you with 20 S7 AP-3 D2 guns at BS2 while jogging 8" around the table. Also heavy flamers, which tbh are as lame as any heavy flamers, but AP-2 is a nice touch if they ever come up.
Then you make the dread a character and you can boost them even more.
Its just crazy. Off the chain crazy.
Is it beatable? Sure. Its a dice game. Play the mission and hope your opponent fluffs their dice rolls. But people saying anyone worried about this are "cry babies" are not playing the game. Its obscene.
Don't forget they can also vect any psychic power for 1 CP, further taking away a big tool from many armies. Trying to Doom something? Trying to Mass Hypnosis a Repulsor to get a cc unit in? Trying to Treason of Tzeentch or so? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Don't forget they can also vect any psychic power for 1 CP, further taking away a big tool from many armies. Trying to Doom something? Trying to Mass Hypnosis a Repulsor to get a cc unit in? Trying to Treason of Tzeentch or so? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Don't forget they can also vect any psychic power for 1 CP, further taking away a big tool from many armies. Trying to Doom something? Trying to Mass Hypnosis a Repulsor to get a cc unit in? Trying to Treason of Tzeentch or so? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Is it 1 CP, guaranteed Deny? Or 1 CP, 4+ to Deny?
The latter, but people also like to pretend they have cp to do all the things mentioned above all the time.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Don't forget they can also vect any psychic power for 1 CP, further taking away a big tool from many armies. Trying to Doom something? Trying to Mass Hypnosis a Repulsor to get a cc unit in? Trying to Treason of Tzeentch or so? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Is it 1 CP, guaranteed Deny? Or 1 CP, 4+ to Deny?
The latter, but people also like to pretend they have cp to do all the things mentioned above all the time.
I'd also assume it's got a range and is not just "1 CP, 4+ to Deny a power cast anywhere on the board, even out of LoS".
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
I'd expect some major changes once it drops.
I fins this hard to believe to be honest. The playtesters have been waxing lyrical about how strong marines are going to be for ages. The word from the playtesters seems to indicate that Salamanders are even stronger than IH too.
The IH mess should not have got through even initial testing. It's clearly broken
Nitro Zeus wrote: SM is the new counter to Alaitoc, and top players are saying that's one of the best things about the new dex, that Alaitoc has a proper trouble match up in the meta now. Not saying you are wrong in general, just pointing out that the Alaitoc match, you are right is gonna be a bitch for you, but is not reflective of SM or Iron Hands capability as a whole. I think the rest of us have a much better chance.
Not sure why you believe any other army has a better chance.
Because other armies have varying levels of ability to hold the board, or melee, or abuse terrain, or basically anything other than try to math off against the new gods of math. Trying to outshoot them is a losing battle. No matter how you feel about Iron Hands you have to be able to recognise that Alaitoc have a pretty bad match up here.
If the IH get nerfed expect fun and games anytime somthing meta changing comes along with massive knee jerking being stocked by tournament players to get counters to their favoured cheese nerfed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
A warlord titan struggles to kill most stuff there gak and knowing the goons they all play elder flyer spam and as such have an interest in removing the hard counter to it.
"they can beat grey knights" isn't anything special. gien the power level of grey knighs right now, if an army CAN'T curb stomp grey knights it's a problem
SeanDrake wrote: If the IH get nerfed expect fun and games anytime somthing meta changing comes along with massive knee jerking being stocked by tournament players to get counters to their favoured cheese nerfed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
A warlord titan struggles to kill most stuff there gak and knowing the goons they all play elder flyer spam and as such have an interest in removing the hard counter to it.
Yeah a Warlord Titan isn't exactly the pinnacle of offensive capability due to the rules Blasts went through.
"they can beat grey knights" isn't anything special. gien the power level of grey knighs right now, if an army CAN'T curb stomp grey knights it's a problem
Well I don't have expiriance playing any other army. Only playing against IH three times. Plus people here keep telling me GK are okey to play, I just do it wrong.
I tend to drown the Objective in troops, Aim for there weaker units, then focus down one dreadnought a turn. It usually is a close game but having them in a close bubble slowly moving up the board allows me to have better board control or kill whatever leaves the huddle.
Don't let the psychological aspect scare you. Getting into melee with Iron Hands is absolutely the way to go, and getting a somewhat better overwatch isn't the same as being able to just vaporize anything that tries to charge you, especially if you know how to maneuver well.
.
Fun when you are playing faction that sucks in melee(primaris marines with knife kicks ass with you) and is outshot by ih as well.
Why have I had two seperate people reply to my post, about how melee can be effective, to complain about how they don't have melee and imply that they therefore must not stand a chance?
The funny thing, Tau absolutely can and should be denying any Leviathans shooting by charging with drones and other green-carriers. It’s how Tau won NOVA this year. And if we’re talking about Repulsors falling back after being charged, that’s the same for everyone trying to melee them, that’s not a failing of your shooting army.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
The article was wrong and didn't use the standard mathhammer to see what it takes on average to kill a unit, instead, they used another method to inflate the numbers and make it look scarier than it is, not to mention they got the rules for the Dreadnought Stratagem wrong. They said the Dread Strat halved rounding down, when it halves rounding up.
Shouldn't the halving take place after the -1 anyways? So 4 damage, becomes 3 becomes 2? Since it's your turn you get to apply the sequence of effects right? Since it's modifying inflicted damage rather than the damage characteristic I'm not sure.
Weapon damage is a characteristic, and for characteristics multiplication/division comes before addition/subtraction.
Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that
model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier
(e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers
are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current
Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers
to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply
any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s
Strength characteristic.
p5freak wrote: Weapon damage is a characteristic, and for characteristics multiplication/division comes before addition/subtraction.
Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that
model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier
(e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers
are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?
A: First you must determine the model’s current
Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers
to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply
any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s
Strength characteristic.
When resolving an attack made against an IRON HANDS VEHICLE unit within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic, reduce any damage inflicted by 1, to a minimum of 1.
Use this Stratagem when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES DREADNOUGHT model from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of the phase, when resolving an attack made against that model, halve the damage inflicted (rounding up).
Damage characteristic? Highlight where you think it says the damage characteristic is modified.
Ok, i now see your point. I was wrong, damage is not a characteristic. Its just damage. You may be right that sequencing is used when it comes to calculating how many wounds are lost. And 4 damage would be 2. This could be worth a thread in YMDC.
Got it! Armies with decent melee units, check! Now since you seem to know the answer to everything, what does tau do?
Tie them up in combat, lead in with a big durable unit like a 3++ riptide and then follow up with shield drones.
If they are running the unkillable deathball then kill the rest of the army, play objectives and see if your sniper drones can whittle down the key characters to unravel the deathball.
DO NOT castle up and try to outshoot them. I think by now that Tau players should realise that castling up consigns them to being little more than a gatekeeper list, if they want to play on the top tables they need to be highly mobile and aggressive.
Honestly it always depends on what the IH player actually has and how they are playing it - and what the Tau player has and how they play. Discussing this in the vacuum of not having specific lists/missions etc always ends up being a fruitless exercise in what-ifs.. A Mech-Tau list would tackle Iron hands completely differently to Triptide and massed Sniper Drones would be different again.
Perhaps haywire cannon spam with skyweavers could work nicely against iron hands?
I put together a quick list of three squads of five skyweavers with haywire, a shadow seer with an ulthwe battalion of three min dire avengers, a farseer and warlock skyrunner plus four wave serpents with star cannons and CTM for 1750.
It doesn't matter if you add or divide first. IH are still broken with their relative durability and output. The argument of 'how broken' doesn't really matter at this stage.
kingheff wrote: Perhaps haywire cannon spam with skyweavers could work nicely against iron hands?
I put together a quick list of three squads of five skyweavers with haywire, a shadow seer with an ulthwe battalion of three min dire avengers, a farseer and warlock skyrunner plus four wave serpents with star cannons and CTM for 1750.
Probably one of the best anti-IH lists. You could also do Talos instead of Craftworlds for even more haywire guns since Farseer doesn't combo with haywire anymore.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It doesn't matter if you add or divide first. IH are still broken with their relative durability and output. The argument of 'how broken' doesn't really matter at this stage.
I think you're in the wrong thread buddy. This isn't the whine about Iron Hands being unbeatable thread, this is the Iron Hands beating thread. If you want to surrender all your games to Iron Hands that's fine, but whether because you're a competitive player or because you like a challenge I think this thread does serve a purpose in helping people win against Iron Hands. It's clear from tournament results that Iron Hands aren't unbeatable, don't forget that every faction has overpowered options, even if it appears nu-Marines have more and better options than everyone else. Knowing that your opponent can't halve and then subtract 1 means D6 damage does 25% more damage on average if you choose the right sequence of events (which you can on your turn). 40k has never been balanced, it's less balanced than before the Marine release, by how much is hard to tell. Hopefully Iron Hands get an emergency nerf and other factions get some love between CA19 and Psychic Awakening.
vict0988 wrote: I think you're in the wrong thread buddy. This isn't the whine about Iron Hands being unbeatable thread, this is the Iron Hands beating thread. If you want to surrender all your games to Iron Hands that's fine, but whether because you're a competitive player or because you like a challenge I think this thread does serve a purpose in helping people win against Iron Hands. It's clear from tournament results that Iron Hands aren't unbeatable, don't forget that every faction has overpowered options, even if it appears nu-Marines have more and better options than everyone else. Knowing that your opponent can't halve and then subtract 1 means D6 damage does 25% more damage on average if you choose the right sequence of events (which you can on your turn). 40k has never been balanced, it's less balanced than before the Marine release, by how much is hard to tell. Hopefully Iron Hands get an emergency nerf and other factions get some love between CA19 and Psychic Awakening.
There are no tournament results to prove Iron Hands are beatable because no/very few tournaments have played with their rules yet.
Also if you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you'll have seen that I have already fed my suggestions on how I believe Iron Hands are beaten - using a very boring, tedious list that swamps the board with bodies. Apart from that your options are to try and out damage them, which is a tactic largely for the other nu-Marines.
This thread doesn't really serve a purpose, each of the Faction specific tactics threads are discussing the very same thing anyway and without the details of at least which faction you're playing this is all a bit too vague.
Best strategy is to just play the objective, maybe tie some units in combat for a turn, and play for points. This is also the absolute worst way to play the game. This is why an emergency change is likely to happen.
Darsath wrote: Best strategy is to just play the objective, maybe tie some units in combat for a turn, and play for points. This is also the absolute worst way to play the game. This is why an emergency change is likely to happen.
Not to mention not all factions can pull that off successfully without impairing other matchups.
kingheff wrote: Perhaps haywire cannon spam with skyweavers could work nicely against iron hands?
I put together a quick list of three squads of five skyweavers with haywire, a shadow seer with an ulthwe battalion of three min dire avengers, a farseer and warlock skyrunner plus four wave serpents with star cannons and CTM for 1750.
Probably one of the best anti-IH lists. You could also do Talos instead of Craftworlds for even more haywire guns since Farseer doesn't combo with haywire anymore.
I put the craftworlders in for marine clearing duty, the star cannons are good against marines and serpent toughness helps tank their shooting, farseer does mortals with executioner and smite, warlock jinx makes the star cannons go straight through and unlocks +1 to cast for him and the farseer, the avengers just hide on objectives.
I seriously lack experience and do not posess the IH supplement but as a general idea: would it be an approach to use Cyclops demolition vehicles? As they "attack" via an ability and not by selecting targets, some of the defensive stratagems might not apply (for example cogitated martyrdom, which needs "an attack made against that model" which is not made by the Cyclops. The same should apply for the Ironstone.)
In a similar note: if the IH approach is to clump together to get their buffs, wouldn't it work to drive some relatively (!) cheap suicide bombs (Cyclops, Hellhounds, maybe Malcador Infernus or Valdor tank hunter) close? If the IH destroys them the mortal wounds from the explosions might make considerable damage...
But as mentioned, I lack experience, so take that as a guess for a strategy
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
The article was wrong and didn't use the standard mathhammer to see what it takes on average to kill a unit, instead, they used another method to inflate the numbers and make it look scarier than it is, not to mention they got the rules for the Dreadnought Stratagem wrong. They said the Dread Strat halved rounding down, when it halves rounding up.
Shouldn't the halving take place after the -1 anyways? So 4 damage, becomes 3 becomes 2? Since it's your turn you get to apply the sequence of effects right? Since it's modifying inflicted damage rather than the damage characteristic I'm not sure.
I expect the order the stratagem is played will be FAQed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't use standard mathhammer" though. Its second tier mathhammer - looking at probabilities rather than averages.
So yes, if the combination of stratagem+stone works out as they say, and their maths is right (and it looks reasonable enough) 57 lascannons would have a 50/50 chance of killing a Leviathan dreadnought.
This is if anything more accurate than the traditional (for example) take of "right, on average a lascannon does 0.444 damage a shot to this target, so if you shoot 32 lascannons at the target its going to take 14 wounds and die" - which isn't right at all. Its just a useful rule of thumb to compare one "average damage track" with another "average damage track" (which is what you see in traditional mathhammer.)
Admittedly I lucked out majorly in the terrain department under ITC rules but the ~ No Line of Sight on the Bottom Story of Buildings ~ rule saw me through my match with them, rather upset my opponent to find out that he couldn't see my stuff as it travelled through buildings and couldn't overwatch them when they charged out of said buildings, I will say I'm super glad he didn't have anything that cared not for Line of Sight like Whirlwinds though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't Goonhammer math it out, and even a Warlord Titan firing all it's guns at a IH Relic Leviathan, has a 13% chance of failing to kill it, and even a Smash Captain needs 64 attacks?
The article was wrong and didn't use the standard mathhammer to see what it takes on average to kill a unit, instead, they used another method to inflate the numbers and make it look scarier than it is, not to mention they got the rules for the Dreadnought Stratagem wrong. They said the Dread Strat halved rounding down, when it halves rounding up.
Shouldn't the halving take place after the -1 anyways? So 4 damage, becomes 3 becomes 2? Since it's your turn you get to apply the sequence of effects right? Since it's modifying inflicted damage rather than the damage characteristic I'm not sure.
I expect the order the stratagem is played will be FAQed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't use standard mathhammer" though. Its second tier mathhammer - looking at probabilities rather than averages. So yes, if the combination of stratagem+stone works out as they say, and their maths is right (and it looks reasonable enough) 57 lascannons would have a 50/50 chance of killing a Leviathan dreadnought.
This is if anything more accurate than the traditional (for example) take of "right, on average a lascannon does 0.444 damage a shot to this target, so if you shoot 32 lascannons at the target its going to take 14 wounds and die" - which isn't right at all. Its just a useful rule of thumb to compare one "average damage track" with another "average damage track" (which is what you see in traditional mathhammer.)
It's just as useful as saying it has a 50% chance of dying, it won't be either dead or alive, it'll be dead or likely very close to dead. No the standard mathhammer is what you want to use in most cases. The chance of success stuff is mostly concerning whether it's worth it to even target something, not how many shots it takes to kill something. So if you want to evaluate how tough something is? Calculate how much shooting takes to kill it on average. Want to know whether you should start shooting it in your Shooting phase? Figure out the chance of you successfully killing it with the available shooting you have and weight out how much of your turn will have been wasted depending on much the target is going to heal back up.
On average 25 lascannons within range of a Captain and Lieutenant kill an Iron Hands Leviathan Dreadnought that halves damage and then reduces it by 1. Killing it is not guaranteed, but 15 might do it as well, that's why the 50% chance of success weirdness isn't worth paying attention to unless you actually have 25 lascannons and you're wondering where to put them.
kingheff wrote: I put the craftworlders in for marine clearing duty, the star cannons are good against marines and serpent toughness helps tank their shooting, farseer does mortals with executioner and smite, warlock jinx makes the star cannons go straight through and unlocks +1 to cast for him and the farseer, the avengers just hide on objectives.
I don't agree, sorry. I've had a pretty rough time against them with Alaitoc.
Starcannons are bad against IH main threats. Expected damage from CHE's twin starcannon is less than 1 most of the time vs an executioner, for example. But yes, goodish agains their intercessors though, as you say. Combine d3 damage with 6+++ and you have around 54% (rough guess) of killing an intercessor for each unsaved damage you inflict.
Serpents get dunked by Executioners, it's not even funny. -1 is nice but against executioner main guns, they go boom like everyone else.
Farseer's Doom has a what, 15% of going off, if IH player is willing to throw 1 (or 2 with reroll) cp at the problem? And IH is a very CP-light army, so they will, without doubt. But that does leave Jinx, so you have a point there. IH player has to choose which power to stop, assuming they haven't nuked a key psyker turn one...
Avengers will be obliterated by their double-firing thunderfire or their eliminators, once they've got through nuking your casters.
Alaitoc -1 to hit has taken a real kicking in the new SM codex, and IH can shoot very very well, on top of everything else they do.
You can't tie them up in CC either, so a desperate serpent charge, or a banshee attack will do nothing. Executioners float away and heal 6+1d3 wounds.
Not saying it's impossible, and I'm far from being a top CWE player, butI do think it will definitely involve plain plane spam and a lot of luck.
kingheff wrote: Perhaps haywire cannon spam with skyweavers could work nicely against iron hands?
I put together a quick list of three squads of five skyweavers with haywire, a shadow seer with an ulthwe battalion of three min dire avengers, a farseer and warlock skyrunner plus four wave serpents with star cannons and CTM for 1750.
Probably one of the best anti-IH lists. You could also do Talos instead of Craftworlds for even more haywire guns since Farseer doesn't combo with haywire anymore.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It doesn't matter if you add or divide first. IH are still broken with their relative durability and output. The argument of 'how broken' doesn't really matter at this stage.
I think you're in the wrong thread buddy. This isn't the whine about Iron Hands being unbeatable thread, this is the Iron Hands beating thread. If you want to surrender all your games to Iron Hands that's fine, but whether because you're a competitive player or because you like a challenge I think this thread does serve a purpose in helping people win against Iron Hands. It's clear from tournament results that Iron Hands aren't unbeatable, don't forget that every faction has overpowered options, even if it appears nu-Marines have more and better options than everyone else. Knowing that your opponent can't halve and then subtract 1 means D6 damage does 25% more damage on average if you choose the right sequence of events (which you can on your turn). 40k has never been balanced, it's less balanced than before the Marine release, by how much is hard to tell. Hopefully Iron Hands get an emergency nerf and other factions get some love between CA19 and Psychic Awakening.
Flawlessly said. If Iron Hands are OP, it’s by far less of a margin than past armies have been. I got wins vs TauDar back in the day with a low tier army and I’m certain I’ll get them vs Iron Hands too. I’m a competitive player and thus I’ll look for ways to compete even if the battle is uphill.
Isn't the problem with IH that even if you do kill the leviathan, you still have to deal with 2-3 repulsors and a bunch of normal dreads and scouts/intercessors or an eliminator squad or two?
Karol wrote: Isn't the problem with IH that even if you do kill the leviathan, you still have to deal with 2-3 repulsors and a bunch of normal dreads and scouts/intercessors or an eliminator squad or two?
Each repulsor and leviathan are ~300 pts. I dont think you will see more than 3 of those in one list. Thats 900 pts, two batallions need ~400 pts. for 4 HQs, leaving 700 for standard troops, a stormhawk/stormtalon, thunderfire cannon, and whatever you want to include. You may kill one repulsor, or one leviathan, but not more, because your heavy weapons will be killed when the IH player is finished with his turn.
And btw, damage is a characteristic, so its divided first, and then one point is subtracted.
Yeah, but the Repulsors aren't getting the halved damage Dreadnought strat. This is going to sound more condescending than I mean it, but why would you not shoot the stuff outside the aura first?
One of the IH lists placing second in a GT didn't even bring a leviathan at all. The "half damage Leviathan" just add insult to injury, dropping all those defensive buffs on repulsor executioners or an astraeus is already securing that a large part of your firebase will never die or degrade.
Inside the bubble is what's doing the damage and taking out your means to respond to it - if you spend your first turn shooting invictors, storm talons, scouts and eliminators, you'll have nothing left to harm any of the vehicles by turn 2 - and all of those units are cheap and durable enough to make shooting them sub-optimal in the first place.
Yeah, but the Repulsors aren't getting the halved damage Dreadnought strat. This is going to sound more condescending than I mean it, but why would you not shoot the stuff outside the aura first?
This has been my approach. Leave the bubble; kill the rest. It's still an uphill battle and the bubble breaks up once my big stuff is dead, but I score enough that it's not a massive win for IH.
On that note - you dont need to win every game in a tournament. Minimizing a loss will stunt them and keep you from dropping precipitously.
Don't people just deploy the flying stuff on the third floor, the HQs and eliminators on second floor and dreads on bottom floor. This way everything is within 6" of the father and the banner guy.
Karol wrote: Don't people just deploy the flying stuff on the third floor, the HQs and eliminators on second floor and dreads on bottom floor. This way everything is within 6" of the father and the banner guy.
At least in ITC you can sit repulsors on top if the base doesn't fit.
kingheff wrote: I put the craftworlders in for marine clearing duty, the star cannons are good against marines and serpent toughness helps tank their shooting, farseer does mortals with executioner and smite, warlock jinx makes the star cannons go straight through and unlocks +1 to cast for him and the farseer, the avengers just hide on objectives.
I don't agree, sorry. I've had a pretty rough time against them with Alaitoc.
Starcannons are bad against IH main threats. Expected damage from CHE's twin starcannon is less than 1 most of the time vs an executioner, for example. But yes, goodish agains their intercessors though, as you say. Combine d3 damage with 6+++ and you have around 54% (rough guess) of killing an intercessor for each unsaved damage you inflict.
Serpents get dunked by Executioners, it's not even funny. -1 is nice but against executioner main guns, they go boom like everyone else.
Farseer's Doom has a what, 15% of going off, if IH player is willing to throw 1 (or 2 with reroll) cp at the problem? And IH is a very CP-light army, so they will, without doubt. But that does leave Jinx, so you have a point there. IH player has to choose which power to stop, assuming they haven't nuked a key psyker turn one...
Avengers will be obliterated by their double-firing thunderfire or their eliminators, once they've got through nuking your casters.
Alaitoc -1 to hit has taken a real kicking in the new SM codex, and IH can shoot very very well, on top of everything else they do.
You can't tie them up in CC either, so a desperate serpent charge, or a banshee attack will do nothing. Executioners float away and heal 6+1d3 wounds.
Not saying it's impossible, and I'm far from being a top CWE player, butI do think it will definitely involve plain plane spam and a lot of luck.
Well, I did say that it would be an ulthwe battalion for the fnp, like you say alaitoc is much less useful Vs chapter masters now.
The anti tank is the duty of the haywire bikes not the star cannons although with doom the star cannons can do work, if you get it off. The psychic powers are more for mortals than anything else.
I'm not saying this is a hard counter list but it's got the tooth to decent damage at least.
I think my comment went a bit under, therefore again: what is you opinion about this?
Spoiler:
I seriously lack experience and do not posess the IH supplement but as a general idea: would it be an approach to use Cyclops demolition vehicles? As they "attack" via an ability and not by selecting targets, some of the defensive stratagems might not apply (for example cogitated martyrdom, which needs "an attack made against that model" which is not made by the Cyclops. The same should apply for the Ironstone.)
In a similar note: if the IH approach is to clump together to get their buffs, wouldn't it work to drive some relatively (!) cheap suicide bombs (Cyclops, Hellhounds, maybe Malcador Infernus or Valdor tank hunter) close? If the IH destroys them the mortal wounds from the explosions might make considerable damage...
But as mentioned, I lack experience, so take that as a guess for a strategy
I mean... I might be wrong, nur when everyone huddles in a small buff bubble, don't they get quite succeptible to suicide bombs?
Dumb Smart Guy wrote: Idk, you could stop acting like a huge dork? That would help more than being extremely condescending to anyone who brings up issues with the army
Englishman didn't bring up an issue with the army, neither did you. Who exactly are you referring to? Could you stop being condescending to people that try to stop the thread from being derailed? If you truly think the 25% extra damage you do with D6 damage weapons doesn't matter against a Leviathan then say that and say why instead of just calling me a dork.
I think the point of “stop complaining about how OP Iron Hands are” is to keep the good suggestions from getting drowned out. We all know IH are potentially the most broken thing yet in 8th. We all know what their list does, and how play testing either failed or was non-existent. We get it.
The purpose of this thread is to brainstorm and try and come up with general solutions to beat the army because we’re probably going to have to play them at some point. It may be a doomed quest, but we’re going to try regardless. So stay on topic.
greyknight12 wrote: I think the point of “stop complaining about how OP Iron Hands are” is to keep the good suggestions from getting drowned out. We all know IH are potentially the most broken thing yet in 8th. We all know what their list does, and how play testing either failed or was non-existent. We get it.
The purpose of this thread is to brainstorm and try and come up with general solutions to beat the army because we’re probably going to have to play them at some point. It may be a doomed quest, but we’re going to try regardless. So stay on topic.
They are far easier to face than most of the stuff we had to cope with in this edition.
Yes they are though, but in terms of firepower they lag a lot behind old IG/BA/IK lists with unlimited CPs, and are quite short ranged and stopped in melee.
Yes they are a problem. No they hardly are "Potentially the most broken thing yet in 8th".
So in this spirit for a third time: any opinion in driving a suicide bomb (Cyclops, Hellhound, maybe even Malcador Infernus) into the buff bubble? The cyclops does not choose units to attack, thus I think it messes with some stratagems and abilities that trigger "when a unit is attacked" etc. (But I might be wrong). And a 60 points unit doing D3 MW in D6'' upon dying could be interesting against an enemy that clusters much more expensive models together.
Pyroalchi wrote: So in this spirit for a third time: any opinion in driving a suicide bomb (Cyclops, Hellhound, maybe even Malcador Infernus) into the buff bubble? The cyclops does not choose units to attack, thus I think it messes with some stratagems and abilities that trigger "when a unit is attacked" etc. (But I might be wrong). And a 60 points unit doing D3 MW in D6'' upon dying could be interesting against an enemy that clusters much more expensive models together.
Inflicting scattered damage in the bubble will not really have that much effect, they have the iron father and second techmarine.
If you don't luck out and kill some HQs with the blasts then the damage will be repaired easily.
Pyroalchi wrote: So in this spirit for a third time: any opinion in driving a suicide bomb (Cyclops, Hellhound, maybe even Malcador Infernus) into the buff bubble? The cyclops does not choose units to attack, thus I think it messes with some stratagems and abilities that trigger "when a unit is attacked" etc. (But I might be wrong). And a 60 points unit doing D3 MW in D6'' upon dying could be interesting against an enemy that clusters much more expensive models together.
My answer is "this probably isn't very efficient".
If you go first, and they don't move/screen at all, maybe you can get into D6" range by turn 2 - but its pretty obvious, and since they can move without consequence (beyond terrain) there is no real reason they should allow it to happen.
But they still get one round of shooting - probably two. Cyclopses especially are not very tough, and are likely to shower your own stuff in mortal wounds.
On the other hand they are really tiny and easy to hide. I'm not familiar with Iron Hands. Do they have good firepower out of line of sight?
On a different note: I'm aware that it sounds dumb and expensive, but whenever I read about an army having a very powerful combo relying on a thight buff bubble, I feel tempted to try the following:
1. Take a Valdor Tank hunter (for that nice 2D6'' D6MW on 2+ explosion) Malcador Infernus (also 2D6'' D6MW or 3 Artemia Pattern Hellhounds (6'' D6MW) as Tallarn
2. put them in a Tallar ambush
3. drop out of 9'' turn 2
4. charge in (with command reroll), fingers crossed and hopefully reach CC (however badly damaged, it doesn't really matter)
5. get killed and explode violently
On the plus side my uneducated guess would be, that even iron hands would have problems killing a Malcador or even Hellhound using overwatch.
But I guess it is just to much of an investment pointswise and also very dependent on making that 9+'' charge. Anyway, an idea at least.
greyknight12 wrote: I think the point of “stop complaining about how OP Iron Hands are” is to keep the good suggestions from getting drowned out. We all know IH are potentially the most broken thing yet in 8th. We all know what their list does, and how play testing either failed or was non-existent. We get it.
The purpose of this thread is to brainstorm and try and come up with general solutions to beat the army because we’re probably going to have to play them at some point. It may be a doomed quest, but we’re going to try regardless. So stay on topic.
Strong disagree here. Iron Hands are powerful, but other armies have the tools to at least deal with them. This is nowhere near the clustertruck that early-edition Guard was, where they had some obscenely broken rules *and* nobody else had the capability to respond to it because their own good rules hadn't been printed yet.
If you said Iron Hands were in the top 5 for most OP, I'd possibly agree, (though I think we need to wait and see, my own experience has been that the massive durability buffs we can put out don't necessarily translate to easy wins,) but "the most broken thing yet" is way too far.
(Incidentally, my own 2c on Iron Hands: Their power comes from being easy to play. Activating their most potent abilities requires very little in the way of on-board strategy, so a mediocre Iron Hands player will have an easy time winning against a mediocre player of another faction. It's got an incredibly low skill floor. The skill ceiling, though, is also a little lower than some other factions - Maneuvering and tactics with a parking lot can only get you so far - so top players can still compete.)
We also always had Castellan apologists. Caladius apologist. Ynnari apologists. Etc.. There'll always be people who seem incapable of seeing the obvious.
Are Iron Hands beatable? Yes.
But that doesn't mean they are not too good compared to most other armies (and even compared to "only" tournament armies, which is only comparing it to the most powerful 0.1% or so of mathematically possible 40K lists to begin with) and beating them is usually uphill fight on a pure numbers-basis, which it shouldn't be in a (reasonably) balanced game.
Is it doom-and-gloom and the end of 40K as we know it? No.
But it would be nice if GW fixes them quickly and it doesn't take over a year or more as it did with the Castellan or Ynnari.
Does it mean we don't wanna see Marines be competitive? No.
But competitive on an even footing with everyone else, not overshadowing other armies.
On topic, the repulsor list costs roughly 1200 pts for the 2 HQs (including feirros) and 3 executioners. So if you can stay outside of range (36 except for the laser cannons) you can dance around the Death Star.
As far as attacking the thing itself, a couple ideas come to mind.
Massive sniper fire on the characters, mainly the one with the ironstone. Getting rid of the half damage will allow your anti-tank damage to actually get through.
Mortal wounds are good, either through shooting (Cawl bots, Necrons), psychic attacks (Chaos), or others (exploding vehicles).
Melee with something that can suck up the overwatch and deal enough damage to the repulsors to kill them through the -1 damage. Knights are pretty much the best option to do this with fists and chainswords.
Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
This is because so much of the SM codex is strong that they are one of the few factions that is able to take a variety of units in a competitive list and still perform. Not only are the SM supplements at a higher level competitively than all others right now, but they are also incredibly well balanced internally.
Why am I raising this here? Because it comes incredibly hard to tailor against a specific faction when the faction has so many competitive options open to it. I think Stormtalons and Stormhawks are going to be very common, mind.
Sunny Side Up 781287 10597728 wrote:Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
Do iron hand centurions get some option to deploy close to enemy like the RG ones, or were they use to defend home base, I wonder. All those flyers without -1 to hit from turn one, and with +++6 and possible repairs sound nice too. Flyers in general break a lot of basic 8th ed rules.
Who knows, maybe the repulsors and leviathans are just going to be non tournament armies bane, same way mono knights were.
For me the first thing to do to beat the iron hands is to kill the character with the iron stone.
I played with the army some times i think it's a good first step.
Take ways to kill characters.
Ps: On the other side i am happy than the eldar flyer list has a counter :p
greyknight12 wrote: Wow, so now we’re getting derailed with apologists instead. Sorry for trying.
So place 1-4 go to ih.
Question is, was the competition just bad or this a taste of the things to come?
its going to get worse before things get better as IH lists are refined and people paint up the models they are missing.
Yeah altough i am happy that these lists aren't deathblob of doom it still feels ashen.
To the point where index brimstone + malefic seems humane contrary.
Also top4 only one faction is highly questionable and rings quite a few bells.
Then again i am not surprised if the inferior deathblob could eat my whole infantry just dedicated to clogg up the meatgrinder alone...
Sunny Side Up wrote: Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
This is because so much of the SM codex is strong that they are one of the few factions that is able to take a variety of units in a competitive list and still perform. Not only are the SM supplements at a higher level competitively than all others right now, but they are also incredibly well balanced internally.
Why am I raising this here? Because it comes incredibly hard to tailor against a specific faction when the faction has so many competitive options open to it. I think Stormtalons and Stormhawks are going to be very common, mind.
in the same vein mind you, this is also something you WANT, ignroing iron hands for a moment (when everyone else gets 2 chapter traits and they get 3, there is no denying they're unbalanced) the space marine codex is a great codex. Whereas with Codex Adeptus Adepts I might be locked into 1 or 2 decent builds, Marines have a huge number of options that are solid. everyone focuses on Iron Hands, but IMHO Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are both really good too. (and IMHO make the the "top marines trinity" right now) And Raven Guard and Scars have their uses.
Generally it seems most of the chapters are designed with a specific build in mind. Iron Hands are intended as the "tank chapter" Imperial Fists are the "devestator marine" chapter. White scars the "RUN INTO CLOSE COMBAT AND BASH HEADS" chapter. Raven Guard are clearly designed to operate with a mix of close assault and ranged to kill enemy commanders and then shatter disrupted lines. Salamnders are a close range assault faction. And Ultramarines are the flexable donkey-caves with a tool for every situation.
Haha, it`s not strong its broken, IH just make it more obvious because their rules are absurd.
SM units are to good and most of them to cheap with their current rules and the stratagems, auras, powers and litanies make the army too good and flexible vs every opponent.
You can select random chapter put random units in the detachments and you still have chance to win games.
Marin wrote: Haha, it`s not strong its broken, IH just make it more obvious because their rules are absurd.
SM units are to good and most of them to cheap with their current rules and the stratagems, auras, powers and litanies make the army too good and flexible vs every opponent.
You can select random chapter put random units in the detachments and you still have chance to win games.
I highly doubt that, considering random means more likely non primaris.
Aren't primaris heavy armies with scout doing alright right now? Am not talking winning big tournaments with skew builds, but store games or smaller store events? They seem to be very popular in Poland. And it ain't just IH, WS and RG , even ultras are all very popular.
greyknight12 wrote: Wow, so now we’re getting derailed with apologists instead. Sorry for trying.
Question:
I'm looking at those tournament results right now, and it was Kurt Clauss, not Mark Hertel, who came in third place. Why does this screenshot not match the results on BCP?
Karol wrote: Aren't primaris heavy armies with scout doing alright right now? Am not talking winning big tournaments with skew builds, but store games or smaller store events? They seem to be very popular in Poland. And it ain't just IH, WS and RG , even ultras are all very popular.
Basically dex 2.0 made primaris in all rainbow colours good choices.
And good in a sense of good.
BrianDavion wrote: in the same vein mind you, this is also something you WANT, ignroing iron hands for a moment (when everyone else gets 2 chapter traits and they get 3, there is no denying they're unbalanced) the space marine codex is a great codex. Whereas with Codex Adeptus Adepts I might be locked into 1 or 2 decent builds, Marines have a huge number of options that are solid. everyone focuses on Iron Hands, but IMHO Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are both really good too. (and IMHO make the the "top marines trinity" right now) And Raven Guard and Scars have their uses.
Absolutely this is what I want, for all codexes. You're 100% correct with that. GW have done a great job with the Marine dex and supplements, it's just a shame they look so strong compared to everything else. I really hope other codexes get this treatment sooner rather than later.
Also, in addition, I looked at the three most recent events labeled as Grand Tournaments on BCP. (I'm not subscribed, so I can't look at events more than three days old.)
The top five factions in each were:
Michigan GT:
Iron Hands
Imperial Soup
Orks
Space Marine Soup
Knights
Armageddon Series GT:
Space Marine Soup
Iron Hands
White Scars
Tau
Chaos
BFS GT X: (The tournament cited above)
Iron Hands
Iron Hands
Asuryani
Iron Hands
Space Marine Soup
In other words, Iron Hands are doing quite well, but they're not unbeatable. Selectively citing only the tournament where they were most dominant while ignoring the others where they perform well but see other competition is incredibly disingenuous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: in the same vein mind you, this is also something you WANT, ignroing iron hands for a moment (when everyone else gets 2 chapter traits and they get 3, there is no denying they're unbalanced) the space marine codex is a great codex.
This is an incredibly stupid and ridiculous line of argument that I keep seeing. The flat number of abilities doesn't matter, the effectiveness of those abilities matters.
Imagine, for a moment, that Iron Hands got only one ability, but that ability was 4+ FNP instead of 6+. Would you still be arguing that the number of abilities is what dictates their power? Or would you be reasonably pointing out that Iron Hands' one ability is flatly better than anyone else's and that is what makes it stronger?
Marin wrote: Haha, it`s not strong its broken, IH just make it more obvious because their rules are absurd.
SM units are to good and most of them to cheap with their current rules and the stratagems, auras, powers and litanies make the army too good and flexible vs every opponent.
You can select random chapter put random units in the detachments and you still have chance to win games.
I highly doubt that, considering random means more likely non primaris.
Do they need to be primaris? Mini marines still get all the benefits of doctrines strategem etc plus access to drop pods and are now cheaper than csm and non codex equivalents.
Marin wrote: Haha, it`s not strong its broken, IH just make it more obvious because their rules are absurd.
SM units are to good and most of them to cheap with their current rules and the stratagems, auras, powers and litanies make the army too good and flexible vs every opponent.
You can select random chapter put random units in the detachments and you still have chance to win games.
I highly doubt that, considering random means more likely non primaris.
Do they need to be primaris? Mini marines still get all the benefits of doctrines strategem etc plus access to drop pods and are now cheaper than csm and non codex equivalents.
Primaris atm are just, well better at what they do.
Most oldmarines units entries are also some that never really see daylight.
Don't forget that, on all good oldmarines unit there are 2-3 meh to bad ones.
Atleast imo.
FA1: Land Speeder (45), Heavy bolter (10) [55pts]
FA2: Land Speeder (45), Heavy bolter (10) [55pts]
FA2: Land Speeder (45), Heavy bolter (10) [55pts]
I'm not well versed in Dark Angels or Necrons, but I'm seeing a serious lack of screens and infantry here. If you can get into CQC or use snipers to take out the Chapter Master, then the rest of the army should fall like dominos to good anti-tank. There's no dreadnoughts to take advantage of the half damage stratagem, either.
He also only has one unit that can fire without LOS, so make sure you're using sufficient terrain (ITC levels seem to be the best balanced in my experience, with the first floors of ruins always blocking LOS) so that you can avoid being gunned down too early. Deep Striking to get into good firing position should help as well, since almost nothing in his army can use Auspex Scan to repel your shooting. Dark Angels have Drop Pods, right?
Ok. I'll admit now that I was on the wrong and Iron Hand are way too powerfull.
I mean, I always tought they deserved some nerfs but didn't believed they were all that BAD. But when optimized they really are.
I believe they just get too much bonuses. Something like the 1 cp stratagem to deny powers, for example. Is like. Why? It doesn't make any kind of sense for them, Iron Hands have nothing to do with psychic power in their fluff, so why have they something like that? Is like someone wrote the supplement with the idea of giving them ALL OF THE TOOLS.
And then some.
He also only has one unit that can fire without LOS, so make sure you're using sufficient terrain (ITC levels seem to be the best balanced in my experience, with the first floors of ruins always blocking LOS) so that you can avoid being gunned down too early. Deep Striking to get into good firing position should help as well, since almost nothing in his army can use Auspex Scan to repel your shooting. Dark Angels have Drop Pods, right?
flat terrain on only one tier buildings happen, on our tables. And we don't use ITC building rules. Am not sure if DA drop pods work like the marine, ones, but I will forward the advice. Thank you very much.
He also only has one unit that can fire without LOS, so make sure you're using sufficient terrain (ITC levels seem to be the best balanced in my experience, with the first floors of ruins always blocking LOS) so that you can avoid being gunned down too early. Deep Striking to get into good firing position should help as well, since almost nothing in his army can use Auspex Scan to repel your shooting. Dark Angels have Drop Pods, right?
flat terrain on only one tier buildings happen, on our tables. And we don't use ITC building rules. Am not sure if DA drop pods work like the marine, ones, but I will forward the advice. Thank you very much.
I mean, that might be a big chunk of your problem. If you don't have enough terrain on your board, then gunlines are going to rule the day almost regardless of tactics. 8th edition pretty much requires decent LOS blocking terrain if you want movement and placement to mean anything.
BrianDavion wrote: in the same vein mind you, this is also something you WANT, ignroing iron hands for a moment (when everyone else gets 2 chapter traits and they get 3, there is no denying they're unbalanced) the space marine codex is a great codex. Whereas with Codex Adeptus Adepts I might be locked into 1 or 2 decent builds, Marines have a huge number of options that are solid. everyone focuses on Iron Hands, but IMHO Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are both really good too. (and IMHO make the the "top marines trinity" right now) And Raven Guard and Scars have their uses.
Absolutely this is what I want, for all codexes. You're 100% correct with that. GW have done a great job with the Marine dex and supplements, it's just a shame they look so strong compared to everything else. I really hope other codexes get this treatment sooner rather than later.
The game already has a problem with to much lethality, making everyone more powerful isn't good for the game.
BrianDavion wrote: in the same vein mind you, this is also something you WANT, ignroing iron hands for a moment (when everyone else gets 2 chapter traits and they get 3, there is no denying they're unbalanced) the space marine codex is a great codex. Whereas with Codex Adeptus Adepts I might be locked into 1 or 2 decent builds, Marines have a huge number of options that are solid. everyone focuses on Iron Hands, but IMHO Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are both really good too. (and IMHO make the the "top marines trinity" right now) And Raven Guard and Scars have their uses.
Absolutely this is what I want, for all codexes. You're 100% correct with that. GW have done a great job with the Marine dex and supplements, it's just a shame they look so strong compared to everything else. I really hope other codexes get this treatment sooner rather than later.
The game already has a problem with to much lethality, making everyone more powerful isn't good for the game.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I want for all codexes is for parity inter-codex. I don't want to have 1 or 2 builds and units that are far better than others.
It would be nice to take my Warbikes out without feeling like I should, without question, be taking something else if I want a hope in hell of winning.
IMHO the problem with IH is the quantity of extra rules they get:
- Overwatch on 5s and 6s (on 4s with a strat) -> better than T'au Sept Tenet, which requires a friendly unit to be within 6"
- FnP 6+ -> better than Tyr Leviathan Fleet Adaptation, which requires a friendly SYNAPSE unit to be within 6"
- Double remaining wounds on damage table
- Move and shoot heavy weapons with no penalty -> basically the Necron Sautekh Dynasty code (without the part on other weapons becoming Assault)
- Reroll 1s to hit with Heavy Weapons -> no requirement for standing still, just a flat reroll 1s.
And this is just the IH Chapter Tactic + Doctrine.
Other factions don't have a fifth of what the IH get just for existing, being on the board, not requiring a single support model nor an aura ability. We're talking about extra FREE rules, that don't cost any point.
Add to this the -1 Ap across the board with the Devastator Docrine, absurd healing potential, the Ironstone relic, Dreadnought-character strat and all others, psychic discipline and so forth.
Most importantly, add all this to the widest range of models in 40K which incidentally is also the most commonly owned by the playerbase.
If they gave all this insanity to Dark Eldars, for example, there would be way less outcry as DE players are mythological creatures more rare than bigfoot. But SM players are everywhere (myself included, as I have a few of them).
Considering that they can't nerf point for IH while not affecting other SM chapters, as the IH supplement stands alone, I have no idea on how they can address this. I just hope they intend to.
Other factions don't have a fifth of what the IH get just for existing, being on the board, not requiring a single support model nor an aura ability. We're talking about extra FREE rules, that don't cost any point.
No we're not. In order to get two of the abilities you listed you also need to cut off access to Battle Brothers and be in a specific gamestate, cutting off access to other tools that Space Marines have on hand. It doesn't cost points, but that doesn't make it free, because there's a significant opportunity cost.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
This is because so much of the SM codex is strong that they are one of the few factions that is able to take a variety of units in a competitive list and still perform. Not only are the SM supplements at a higher level competitively than all others right now, but they are also incredibly well balanced internally.
Why am I raising this here? Because it comes incredibly hard to tailor against a specific faction when the faction has so many competitive options open to it. I think Stormtalons and Stormhawks are going to be very common, mind.
We must not be playing the same game, because everything in the Marine codex is still sinfully overcosted for the durability. They're kind of in the same place as Guardmen at the moment: not actually good on their own merits, but with enough buffs to become a problem. (Not IG tanks, those are really good for the points.) The difference is that it doesn't take much to make 4-point guardsmen into a problem, while Marines need ... the IH rules, basically. Most of the Marine codex is still garbage without three or four layers of buffs.
(And before you jump in to point out how Guard are doing on the tournament scene, they seem to still be the rock to Marine's scissors.)
Sunny Side Up wrote: Note though, there isn't a single Repulsor in those 6 or so Iron Hands lists that are in the BFS Top 10.
It'll all about Stormtalons, Stormhawks, sprinkled with maybe 1-2 Character-Mortis Dreads, etc.. Nick Rose has 3 Landspeeders, Incursors and 3 Invictor Suits. Jack Harpster has Iron Hand Assault Centurions and some IH Smash Captains.
They all take up lots of board-space and maximize the ability of Iron Hand units to be out alone, unsupported. And all have combat units, rather than just shooty castles.
This is because so much of the SM codex is strong that they are one of the few factions that is able to take a variety of units in a competitive list and still perform. Not only are the SM supplements at a higher level competitively than all others right now, but they are also incredibly well balanced internally.
Why am I raising this here? Because it comes incredibly hard to tailor against a specific faction when the faction has so many competitive options open to it. I think Stormtalons and Stormhawks are going to be very common, mind.
We must not be playing the same game, because everything in the Marine codex is still sinfully overcosted for the durability. They're kind of in the same place as Guardmen at the moment: not actually good on their own merits, but with enough buffs to become a problem. (Not IG tanks, those are really good for the points.) The difference is that it doesn't take much to make 4-point guardsmen into a problem, while Marines need ... the IH rules, basically. Most of the Marine codex is still garbage without three or four layers of buffs.
(And before you jump in to point out how Guard are doing on the tournament scene, they seem to still be the rock to Marine's scissors.)
I think you are quote wrong, other chapters are also super good, it was shown on London GT - atleast 5 undefeated lists, took part of atrleast other 2 Impirium undefeated list.
They were only beaten by the aeldar flyers spam, who will probably be addressed in CA and IH are already destroying that kind of army.
What people should stop repeating is SM die like space marines, most of the armies would dream that their troops die like SM. T4 2+ in cover is not easy thing to remove for most armies and usually you have to dedicate 2x more costly units.
The release of SM 2.0 was really big mistake that really can push alot of people out of the game.
greyknight12 wrote: Wow, so now we’re getting derailed with apologists instead. Sorry for trying.
You guys will laugh when you see the lists.
Not a single Levi or repulsor and only one iron father.
Not really a surprise.
Those that read the rumors accurately already knew that the IH parking lot was going to be a trap choice (and far from unbeatable), while the real OP stuff would have been a multiple small vehicle list.
The true strenght of IH armies lies in mobility, not in durability, and those lists with lots of flyers and land speeders goes to show exactly that.
But let them think that the parking lot is the end of the meta and anyone else who disagrees is just an apologist.
godardc wrote: Lots of people are complaining about the IH being so strong, some even spoke about not playing against them anymore. So I was curious to know of your victories against them, in order to prove they can be beaten / to reassure moral of the troops !
So guys, have you faces the new IH ? Did you beat them ? Let us the world know !
Get first turn, charge things, and 4-corner things. If something beefy goes into the dreadnought[s], followed by something with a lot of cheap models, they'll wind up tarpitted by like 4-point guardsmen. Same goes for most of their infantry. Give them a target they're bad at fighting in melee, and keep them in melee [which might also get them out of devastator doctrine], and you can neutralize a portion of the list.
The Repulsors are a toughie, though and the only think I can really think of is to assassinate Fierros, the Ironstone caddy, and then knock them down. That said, it's far easier said than done and I haven't thought of a way to assassinate 1 in a turn, much less both.
I've been considering massed Leman Russ Demolisher as an idea, since they can blast their way through the Ironstone to knock down the Repulsors and if you have a lot of them, they can't answer all of them. That said, in any capacity, you need first turn before they destroy your things in detail. Outflanking a thing that can kill a Repulsor, like a Shadowsword or Knight, might also be a valid idea, but it would only get to kill one before dying, you need to kill 3, and it only arrives on T2.
Going mass heavy infantry or mass T7 tanks is basically a death sentence, since they're most efficient at fighting other marine-type units. I would also avoid going knights, because the Repulsors have high spike damage that can knock them out very quickly. I don't know what they're least effective against, but masses of light infantry and masses of T8 are both good candidates, the former somewhat limiting the contribution of the Repulsors and the latter somewhat limiting the contribution of the Leviathan[s] and bolter men. Somewhat is the key word though, because it doesn't really limit it.
It's worth mention the other SM subtypes are also really good. The Iron Hands unkillable dreadnought and Repulsors makes headlines, but it's not the only really nasty space marine list out there. As for the Iron Hands, the best answer I can think of is either "if you can't beat them, join them", or "play something as far from marine-like as possible."
Other factions don't have a fifth of what the IH get just for existing, being on the board, not requiring a single support model nor an aura ability. We're talking about extra FREE rules, that don't cost any point.
No we're not. In order to get two of the abilities you listed you also need to cut off access to Battle Brothers and be in a specific gamestate, cutting off access to other tools that Space Marines have on hand. It doesn't cost points, but that doesn't make it free, because there's a significant opportunity cost.
You mean the only cost is the fact you dont soup your faction with other factions? Ohh yeah... the horror... thats almost like saying factions like orks and necrons pay this price by simply existing..
Please. This gak is broken. The eldar flier spam everyone keeps referencing is just that.. one trick pony list eldar have been forced into because everything else in the codex is not good enough. Now even more so than ever. So yeah...
greyknight12 wrote: Wow, so now we’re getting derailed with apologists instead. Sorry for trying.
So place 1-4 go to ih.
Question is, was the competition just bad or this a taste of the things to come?
No.
Final results were
1st IH successor
2nd IH 3rd Raven Guard
4th Aeldari
5th IH successor
There was another IH in the top 10. Just for completeness sake there were 3 Aeldari lists and 2 Ork lists filling out the top 10. Some top players there so the competition was not just bad, nor was it a Marine shut-out although Marines were clearly overperforming with 5 of the top 10 from something like 25-30% of the total entries to the tournament.
None of the IH lists were what the internet has been raging over, they were all far more aggressive and clearly not designed to castle up. Also the IH chapter tactic is clearly not really the issue when 2 of the top 3 IH lists did not even bother with it. The super-doctrine is clearly very powerful when applied to already aggressively costed units like the Invictor Warsuit and the stratagems are also powerful and give the IH a real toolbox to play with.
Going forwards I think what we need to theory-craft is how to beat mobile aggressive Iron Hands lists with lots of things like Flyers and Invictors. That looks more like the real threat, retaining their full efficiency while on the move is giving some already strong units a bit of extra oomph.
The funny thing is that the people saying that anchoring around a buff bubble with "unkillable" vehicles might not be a strategy that can actually win events, and people should play it out before whining about it... were entirely correct, based off these results.
Not a single Iron daddy, Leviathan, or Executioner in all those lists that placed high. Iron Hands are still very strong clearly, but not for any of the reasons you guys were complaining about, which is an excellent example of why we should wait to these things hit tournament before changing them, and why mathhammer and theorycrafting isn't equivalent to actual play experience. A the very least you get to know what to ask for changes to, if any, though I still say lets get a bit of a clearer picture first. And yeah, Iron Hands look very strong, but honestly Drukhari was putting up similar results after release and they have a playerbase the fraction of the size of marines.
Nitro Zeus wrote: The funny thing is that the people saying that anchoring around a buff bubble with "unkillable" vehicles might not be a strategy that can actually win events, and people should play it out before whining about it... were entirely correct, based off these results.
Not a single Iron daddy, Leviathan, or Executioner in all those lists that placed high. Iron Hands are still very strong clearly, but not for any of the reasons you guys were complaining about, which is an excellent example of why we should wait to these things hit tournament before changing them, and why mathhammer and theorycrafting isn't equivalent to actual play experience. A the very least you get to know what to ask for changes to, if any, though I still say lets get a bit of a clearer picture first. And yeah, Iron Hands look very strong, but honestly Drukhari was putting up similar results after release and they have a playerbase the fraction of the size of marines.
There are a couple camps at play - those who hate ITC without playing it and those who don't play 40K who still come here to needle the game and IH was their best chance. I get that IH severely breaks single objective missions, which is exactly why you shouldn't use those competitively and IH still needs fixing, but a lot of these lists and nowhere near the hype. Remember when people said Chaincannons were going to wreck everything?
The winning list was this -- no 5+ overwatch; No 6+++; No bracket boost.
Basically he ran a bunch of 2+ vehicles. No 5++ from IFF. Good luck winning games with low AP weapons. Is this list unbeatable? No idea, but guess what he beat Round 1?
Round 1 - IFF, Levi, 2 Executioners
Round 2 - Basic Boyz mob w/ support
Round 3 - The ultimate in Eldar flyer spam
Round 4 - Haywire and Disintegrators
Round 5 - IFF, 2 Invictors, 5 Cents, Mortis
Round 6 - Smash cap; Smash chap; 6 Cents, 2 Mortis, 3 Stormtalons
Spoiler:
Iron Hands Successor -- Master Artisans (Salamanders single reroll to hit and wound); Stealthy (cover)
Captain on bike, SS Librarian, Jump
Librarian Phobos
Techmarine on Bike
Nitro Zeus wrote: The funny thing is that the people saying that anchoring around a buff bubble with "unkillable" vehicles might not be a strategy that can actually win events, and people should play it out before whining about it... were entirely correct, based off these results.
Not a single Iron daddy, Leviathan, or Executioner in all those lists that placed high. Iron Hands are still very strong clearly, but not for any of the reasons you guys were complaining about, which is an excellent example of why we should wait to these things hit tournament before changing them, and why mathhammer and theorycrafting isn't equivalent to actual play experience. A the very least you get to know what to ask for changes to, if any, though I still say lets get a bit of a clearer picture first. And yeah, Iron Hands look very strong, but honestly Drukhari was putting up similar results after release and they have a playerbase the fraction of the size of marines.
There are a couple camps at play - those who hate ITC without playing it and those who don't play 40K who still come here to needle the game and IH was their best chance. I get that IH severely breaks single objective missions, which is exactly why you shouldn't use those competitively and IH still needs fixing, but a lot of these lists and nowhere near the hype. Remember when people said Chaincannons were going to wreck everything?
The winning list was this -- no 5+ overwatch; No 6+++; No bracket boost.
Basically he ran a bunch of 2+ vehicles. No 5++ from IFF. Good luck winning games with low AP weapons. Is this list unbeatable? No idea, but guess what he beat Round 1?
Round 1 - IFF, Levi, 2 Executioners
Round 2 - Basic Boyz mob w/ support
Round 3 - The ultimate in Eldar flyer spam
Round 4 - Haywire and Disintegrators
Round 5 - IFF, 2 Invictors, 5 Cents, Mortis
Round 6 - Smash cap; Smash chap; 6 Cents, 2 Mortis, 3 Stormtalons
Spoiler:
Iron Hands Successor -- Master Artisans (Salamanders single reroll to hit and wound); Stealthy (cover)
Captain on bike, SS Librarian, Jump
Librarian Phobos
Techmarine on Bike
Would love to know if he used the iron stone relic as successors can use the relics for CP and with a brigade of CP 1CP wasn't going to break the bank.
Some of those choices make sence, though combining master artisans, stealthy and the ironhands super doctrines is just filthy especially when your building around single model units
BrianDavion wrote: man if 5+s to hit where a huuge deal you'd think we'd be hearing more complaints about OP Ork gunnery.
They will be rerolling all those 5+ too...Use brain. They have chapter masters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a dice game boys and girls. Even and extremely broken army can lose just as an extremely UP armies like last years marines could win a game too. As long as everyone is trying to win some with go both ways.
There is no excuse for the power disparity in the game right now though. Rules should come out for all armies at the same time if we are to have "competitive" games. You quite literally should not be playing marines against non marines right now. Tournaments I guess have no choice but to allow 8.5 armies to play 8.0 armies but just expect a lot of iron hands.
Also - if you are losing with Ironhands - you really need to learn to make a list.
Not Online!!! wrote: I still find it quite amazing how fast IH show up on top tables after their Supplement.
I also will be awaiting the time when we see the really optimized lists for them.
Because they are marines, and everyone has a marine army lying around or knows someone they can borrow it from.
Lot easier to jump on a new OP army when its so common.
Not Online!!! wrote: I still find it quite amazing how fast IH show up on top tables after their Supplement.
I also will be awaiting the time when we see the really optimized lists for them.
Because they are marines, and everyone has a marine army lying around or knows someone they can borrow it from.
Lot easier to jump on a new OP army when its so common.
Yes but normally the first attempts for such lists would show up in the midfield if the army was good.
Now they get from the get go more or less top places.
And we haven't even seen real optimization yet, that is what amazes me.
BrianDavion wrote: man if 5+s to hit where a huuge deal you'd think we'd be hearing more complaints about OP Ork gunnery.
They will be rerolling all those 5+ too...Use brain. They have chapter masters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a dice game boys and girls. Even and extremely broken army can lose just as an extremely UP armies like last years marines could win a game too. As long as everyone is trying to win some with go both ways.
There is no excuse for the power disparity in the game right now though. Rules should come out for all armies at the same time if we are to have "competitive" games. You quite literally should not be playing marines against non marines right now. Tournaments I guess have no choice but to allow 8.5 armies to play 8.0 armies but just expect a lot of iron hands.
Also - if you are losing with Ironhands - you really need to learn to make a list.
Which iron hands we are talking about. The deathblob can be clogged up like any meatgrinder.
The mobile lists though.That's a whole other can of worms imo.
Not Online!!! wrote: I still find it quite amazing how fast IH show up on top tables after their Supplement.
I also will be awaiting the time when we see the really optimized lists for them.
Because they are marines, and everyone has a marine army lying around or knows someone they can borrow it from.
Lot easier to jump on a new OP army when its so common.
Yes but normally the first attempts for such lists would show up in the midfield if the army was good.
Now they get from the get go more or less top places.
And we haven't even seen real optimization yet, that is what amazes me.
BrianDavion wrote: man if 5+s to hit where a huuge deal you'd think we'd be hearing more complaints about OP Ork gunnery.
They will be rerolling all those 5+ too...Use brain. They have chapter masters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a dice game boys and girls. Even and extremely broken army can lose just as an extremely UP armies like last years marines could win a game too. As long as everyone is trying to win some with go both ways.
There is no excuse for the power disparity in the game right now though. Rules should come out for all armies at the same time if we are to have "competitive" games. You quite literally should not be playing marines against non marines right now. Tournaments I guess have no choice but to allow 8.5 armies to play 8.0 armies but just expect a lot of iron hands.
Also - if you are losing with Ironhands - you really need to learn to make a list.
Which iron hands we are talking about. The deathblob can be clogged up like any meatgrinder.
The mobile lists though.That's a whole other can of worms imo.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
Would love to know if he used the iron stone relic as successors can use the relics for CP and with a brigade of CP 1CP wasn't going to break the bank.
Some of those choices make sence, though combining master artisans, stealthy and the ironhands super doctrines is just filthy especially when your building around single model units
Yes, just the one relic though.
There are enough elements that would be out of the bubble and "safe" to shoot. I would bet that the TM on Bike was zipping around with the stone and doing double repairs where needed. Just another reason to take those old models out back and shoot them.
Would love to know if he used the iron stone relic as successors can use the relics for CP and with a brigade of CP 1CP wasn't going to break the bank.
Some of those choices make sence, though combining master artisans, stealthy and the ironhands super doctrines is just filthy especially when your building around single model units
Yes, just the one relic though.
There are enough elements that would be out of the bubble and "safe" to shoot. I would bet that the TM on Bike was zipping around with the stone and doing double repairs where needed. Just another reason to take those old models out back and shoot them.
IMHO that relic needs to be inserted into the designer responsible for that idea at speed.
Though it appears that people have already decied that ironhands super doctrine is the best and combines well with a few other choice traits for something truely disgustingly off meta.
Like seriously does GW not understand why no-one uses D6 damage single shot weapons of suck yet? As this makes the passable miltishot d2 weapons bad but still more reliable than d6 single shot weapons.
Nitro Zeus wrote: The funny thing is that the people saying that anchoring around a buff bubble with "unkillable" vehicles might not be a strategy that can actually win events, and people should play it out before whining about it... were entirely correct, based off these results.
Not a single Iron daddy, Leviathan, or Executioner in all those lists that placed high. Iron Hands are still very strong clearly, but not for any of the reasons you guys were complaining about, which is an excellent example of why we should wait to these things hit tournament before changing them, and why mathhammer and theorycrafting isn't equivalent to actual play experience. A the very least you get to know what to ask for changes to, if any, though I still say lets get a bit of a clearer picture first. And yeah, Iron Hands look very strong, but honestly Drukhari was putting up similar results after release and they have a playerbase the fraction of the size of marines.
There are a couple camps at play - those who hate ITC without playing it and those who don't play 40K who still come here to needle the game and IH was their best chance. I get that IH severely breaks single objective missions, which is exactly why you shouldn't use those competitively and IH still needs fixing, but a lot of these lists and nowhere near the hype. Remember when people said Chaincannons were going to wreck everything?
The winning list was this -- no 5+ overwatch; No 6+++; No bracket boost.
Basically he ran a bunch of 2+ vehicles. No 5++ from IFF. Good luck winning games with low AP weapons. Is this list unbeatable? No idea, but guess what he beat Round 1?
Round 1 - IFF, Levi, 2 Executioners
Round 2 - Basic Boyz mob w/ support
Round 3 - The ultimate in Eldar flyer spam
Round 4 - Haywire and Disintegrators
Round 5 - IFF, 2 Invictors, 5 Cents, Mortis
Round 6 - Smash cap; Smash chap; 6 Cents, 2 Mortis, 3 Stormtalons
Spoiler:
Iron Hands Successor -- Master Artisans (Salamanders single reroll to hit and wound); Stealthy (cover)
Captain on bike, SS Librarian, Jump
Librarian Phobos
Techmarine on Bike
Would love to know if he used the iron stone relic as successors can use the relics for CP and with a brigade of CP 1CP wasn't going to break the bank.
Some of those choices make sence, though combining master artisans, stealthy and the ironhands super doctrines is just filthy especially when your building around single model units
Master Artisans seems like an odd choice here, given that he's spamming multi-shot weapons for the most part. Not sure what I'd replace with though and free rerolls are always good. Cool list though
IMHO that relic needs to be inserted into the designer responsible for that idea at speed.
Though it appears that people have already decied that ironhands super doctrine is the best and combines well with a few other choice traits for something truely disgustingly off meta.
Like seriously does GW not understand why no-one uses D6 damage single shot weapons of suck yet? As this makes the passable miltishot d2 weapons bad but still more reliable than d6 single shot weapons.
Relic should have been maybe a single selected model chosen at the start of each round.
Super-doctrine does appear to be the major impetus though. It makes landspeeders pretty awesome. And as Rose figured out when you get them a 2+ save they become reasonably durable since they can hang out on the edges already.
Snipers are also quite a big issue these days. I have to shift to less open character support, because they're just dying too easily.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
Master Artisans seems like an odd choice here, given that he's spamming multi-shot weapons for the most part. Not sure what I'd replace with though and free rerolls are always good. Cool list though
It makes multishot weapons exquisitely reliable against their optimal targets, and viable against non-optimal targets. Taking Eliminators from 2 wounds to 3 wounds per squad for instance, is night and day difference. In conjunction with the super-doctrine it makes heavy weapons terrifying.
I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
Nitro Zeus wrote: The funny thing is that the people saying that anchoring around a buff bubble with "unkillable" vehicles might not be a strategy that can actually win events, and people should play it out before whining about it... were entirely correct, based off these results.
Not a single Iron daddy, Leviathan, or Executioner in all those lists that placed high. Iron Hands are still very strong clearly, but not for any of the reasons you guys were complaining about, which is an excellent example of why we should wait to these things hit tournament before changing them, and why mathhammer and theorycrafting isn't equivalent to actual play experience. A the very least you get to know what to ask for changes to, if any, though I still say lets get a bit of a clearer picture first. And yeah, Iron Hands look very strong, but honestly Drukhari was putting up similar results after release and they have a playerbase the fraction of the size of marines.
There are a couple camps at play - those who hate ITC without playing it and those who don't play 40K who still come here to needle the game and IH was their best chance. I get that IH severely breaks single objective missions, which is exactly why you shouldn't use those competitively and IH still needs fixing, but a lot of these lists and nowhere near the hype. Remember when people said Chaincannons were going to wreck everything?
The winning list was this -- no 5+ overwatch; No 6+++; No bracket boost.
Basically he ran a bunch of 2+ vehicles. No 5++ from IFF. Good luck winning games with low AP weapons. Is this list unbeatable? No idea, but guess what he beat Round 1?
Round 1 - IFF, Levi, 2 Executioners
Round 2 - Basic Boyz mob w/ support
Round 3 - The ultimate in Eldar flyer spam
Round 4 - Haywire and Disintegrators
Round 5 - IFF, 2 Invictors, 5 Cents, Mortis
Round 6 - Smash cap; Smash chap; 6 Cents, 2 Mortis, 3 Stormtalons
Spoiler:
Iron Hands Successor -- Master Artisans (Salamanders single reroll to hit and wound); Stealthy (cover)
Captain on bike, SS Librarian, Jump
Librarian Phobos
Techmarine on Bike
Would love to know if he used the iron stone relic as successors can use the relics for CP and with a brigade of CP 1CP wasn't going to break the bank.
Some of those choices make sence, though combining master artisans, stealthy and the ironhands super doctrines is just filthy especially when your building around single model units
Master Artisans seems like an odd choice here, given that he's spamming multi-shot weapons for the most part. Not sure what I'd replace with though and free rerolls are always good. Cool list though
The extra range one is AMAZING. Remember how sometimes you just needed that extra couple of inches to make a charge? Now you just needed that extra inch to Rapid fire or that extra 3" to stay away from a charge. That + Stealthy are easily my favorite traits together.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
But lets see with more tournaments.
Yeah, I remember seeing the stormhawk interceptor's points for the first time and going 'wait you get all that for so little points?" but wait, no PotM and you have to move so your effectively BS 4. Well that makes a big difference.
Oops, turns out if you give it PotM and re-roll 1's for free it becomes an undercosted flyer.
But you can't just raise the points of the stormhawk because then it becomes utterly worthless for everyone that isn't an IH, so how do you fix it?
Any time a you gave away rules for free you creating another potential major balancing problem.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
But lets see with more tournaments.
Yeah, I remember seeing the stormhawk interceptor's points for the first time and going 'wait you get all that for so little points?" but wait, no PotM and you have to move so your effectively BS 4. Well that makes a big difference.
Oops, turns out if you give it PotM and re-roll 1's for free it becomes an undercosted flyer.
But you can't just raise the points of the stormhawk because then it becomes utterly worthless for everyone that isn't an IH, so how do you fix it?
Any time a you gave away rules for free you creating another potential major balancing problem.
That's because the Super Doctrines were a poor idea and it's honestly just bizarre nobody caught it.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
Or just charge something like 10 hormagaunts at it. They don't have to charge anything that overwatches decently but have all the necessary movement to pile in on whatever they want. Done, leviathan shut down. No, you can't heroically intervene with anything, since that is declared before the pile in happens.
Castling around a model that can be shut down in melee isn't really effective, especially when you are forced to not soup and your faction does not offer screens.
Castling around executioners is a bit better, but they are not invulnerable in the same way as a dreadnaught, and they don't offer the same firepower for the cost.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
But lets see with more tournaments.
Yeah, I remember seeing the stormhawk interceptor's points for the first time and going 'wait you get all that for so little points?" but wait, no PotM and you have to move so your effectively BS 4. Well that makes a big difference.
Oops, turns out if you give it PotM and re-roll 1's for free it becomes an undercosted flyer.
But you can't just raise the points of the stormhawk because then it becomes utterly worthless for everyone that isn't an IH, so how do you fix it?
Any time a you gave away rules for free you creating another potential major balancing problem.
That's because the Super Doctrines were a poor idea and it's honestly just bizarre nobody caught it.
Super doctrines are firewalled. The problem is that everyone thought soup and CP were the cause of balance woes.
When you make units good and give free rules then it becomes more of a problem, but people asked for this - convinced they could bring down soup if they did so.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
But lets see with more tournaments.
Yeah, I remember seeing the stormhawk interceptor's points for the first time and going 'wait you get all that for so little points?" but wait, no PotM and you have to move so your effectively BS 4. Well that makes a big difference.
Oops, turns out if you give it PotM and re-roll 1's for free it becomes an undercosted flyer.
But you can't just raise the points of the stormhawk because then it becomes utterly worthless for everyone that isn't an IH, so how do you fix it?
Any time a you gave away rules for free you creating another potential major balancing problem.
That's because the Super Doctrines were a poor idea and it's honestly just bizarre nobody caught it.
Super doctrines are firewalled. The problem is that everyone thought soup and CP were the cause of balance woes.
When you make units good and give free rules then it becomes more of a problem, but people asked for this - convinced they could bring down soup if they did so.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
Or just charge something like 10 hormagaunts at it. They don't have to charge anything that overwatches decently but have all the necessary movement to pile in on whatever they want. Done, leviathan shut down. No, you can't heroically intervene with anything, since that is declared before the pile in happens.
Castling around a model that can be shut down in melee isn't really effective, especially when you are forced to not soup and your faction does not offer screens.
Castling around executioners is a bit better, but they are not invulnerable in the same way as a dreadnaught, and they don't offer the same firepower for the cost.
No - those will not survive a round of combat with intercessors. Intercessors are an amazing screen. Typically they beat what is charging them or survive the round at the very least. Plus in the executioner setup - you literally CAN NOT touch my levithan without killing an executioner with -2 charge -1 damage 6+FNP and a 5++ save. Because there is literally no way to place. GOOD LUCK with that.
I dont know that its terribly far off. People weren't losing their minds with UM or RG or WS (though I'm sure we'll discover their hidden talents, too). The boogeyman of IH is different in its actual application.
Things like the invictor being solidly efficient on top of unit dynamics that weren't easily exploited before makes a world of difference. And that on top of really useful stratagems.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
155 of morale immune mutants with T4.
Atleast for me that did the trick.
Well that and another 100 militia and another 50 command and regular disciples.
And that is R&H.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
155 of morale immune mutants with T4.
Atleast for me that did the trick.
Well that and another 100 militia and another 50 command and regular disciples.
And that is R&H.
Heck if that became popular Auto Boltguns on the intercessors would be a lot more preferable. Me personally I don't see any armies like that. Repulsor and invictor party would probably do best against an army like that.
Marin wrote: I think you are quite wrong, other chapters are also super good, it was shown on London GT - atleast 5 undefeated lists, took part of atrleast other 2 Impirium undefeated list.
They were only beaten by the aeldar flyers spam, who will probably be addressed in CA and IH are already destroying that kind of army.
What people should stop repeating is SM die like space marines, most of the armies would dream that their troops die like SM. T4 2+ in cover is not easy thing to remove for most armies and usually you have to dedicate 2x more costly units.
The release of SM 2.0 was really big mistake that really can push alot of people out of the game.
I don't know why anyone should stop saying that Space Marines die like Space Marines, because they mostly still do. Aggressors and Centurions got a little bit harder, IH and RG tanks got a little bit harder, but overall Codex 2.0 Marines die just as fast as Codex 1.0 Marines.
The problem Codex 1.0 Marines had is that they had the strats and equipment of an army that could shrug off a turn or two of enemy fire and deliver decisive damage over three or four turns, but in practice a Marine army got blown off the table turn-one just like everyone else. An individual Marine is a lot tougher than most troops, but not nearly by enough for the state of the game.
I get the impression (just a feeling mind you) that GW started with trying to make Marines tough enough to actually tank fire for two or three turns and realized it just wasn't going to work with the current rules without getting really un-fun to play against and increased their effective firepower and melee ability instead.
Marin wrote: I think you are quite wrong, other chapters are also super good, it was shown on London GT - atleast 5 undefeated lists, took part of atrleast other 2 Impirium undefeated list.
They were only beaten by the aeldar flyers spam, who will probably be addressed in CA and IH are already destroying that kind of army.
What people should stop repeating is SM die like space marines, most of the armies would dream that their troops die like SM. T4 2+ in cover is not easy thing to remove for most armies and usually you have to dedicate 2x more costly units.
The release of SM 2.0 was really big mistake that really can push alot of people out of the game.
I don't know why anyone should stop saying that Space Marines die like Space Marines, because they mostly still do. Aggressors and Centurions got a little bit harder, IH and RG tanks got a little bit harder, but overall Codex 2.0 Marines die just as fast as Codex 1.0 Marines.
The problem Codex 1.0 Marines had is that they had the strats and equipment of an army that could shrug off a turn or two of enemy fire and deliver decisive damage over three or four turns, but in practice a Marine army got blown off the table turn-one just like everyone else. An individual Marine is a lot tougher than most troops, but not nearly by enough for the state of the game.
I get the impression (just a feeling mind you) that GW started with trying to make Marines tough enough to actually tank fire for two or three turns and realized it just wasn't going to work with the current rules without getting really un-fun to play against and increased their effective firepower and melee ability instead.
Just the FNP would have been enough. -1 damage aura is nutts. Like dude...have you ever shot at a wave serpent? It's pretty unsatisfying.
Fair points there...I really have no idea which will be best. I know they way I'd want to run it would be double executioner and levi dread with lots of intercessors. You only run deathblob if you need to - everything in this army can spread out and reroll 1's while on the move with no move penalties. Objectively - it plays objective game better than anyone gives it credit for.
In my mind I see Mass character dreads as probably being the strongest. Also Ironstone + Mass landspeeders and flyers seems pretty broken too.
Really - the thing no one is being honest about is how much iron hands benefits basically every unit better than any other chapter - or at least some build with that unit is superior. Regardless of what the powerlevel on this next wave of codex this needs to be addressed. Ether by buffing the weaker chapter aspects to be on par with the field or nerfing iron hands to be on par with the feild (also likely nerfing IF as well).
The deathblob is relatively easy beatable if you have a lot off chaff.
How exactly? Like maybe a daemon horde who doesn't even care about the AP. Still a pretty good chance they just get shot off the table. That is certainly the reason ITC rewards killing. So you can't take 400 nurglings and win games.
155 of morale immune mutants with T4.
Atleast for me that did the trick.
Well that and another 100 militia and another 50 command and regular disciples.
And that is R&H.
Heck if that became popular Auto Boltguns on the intercessors would be a lot more preferable. Me personally I don't see any armies like that. Repulsor and invictor party would probably do best against an army like that.
Tbf it was mostly a test match against a long standing mate, i did the same match with my csm list, the result was decidedly in favour of nu marines.
I dont know that its terribly far off. People weren't losing their minds with UM or RG or WS (though I'm sure we'll discover their hidden talents, too). The boogeyman of IH is different in its actual application.
Things like the invictor being solidly efficient on top of unit dynamics that weren't easily exploited before makes a world of difference. And that on top of really useful stratagems.
I actually lost my mind about White Scars until I discovered there's literally NO way to get the benefit until T3.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
But yeah, I think the key is going to be taking stuff that is pointed to take into account the penalty for moving, and then going "nah, and I reroll 1s. So I expect to get over 50% more damage out of it". I think the stone and 5++ save is however a great boon for ensuring your opening deployment doesn't get shot up if you go second versus certain armies. You can then spread across the table with penalty.
But lets see with more tournaments.
Yeah, I remember seeing the stormhawk interceptor's points for the first time and going 'wait you get all that for so little points?" but wait, no PotM and you have to move so your effectively BS 4. Well that makes a big difference.
Oops, turns out if you give it PotM and re-roll 1's for free it becomes an undercosted flyer.
But you can't just raise the points of the stormhawk because then it becomes utterly worthless for everyone that isn't an IH, so how do you fix it?
Any time a you gave away rules for free you creating another potential major balancing problem.
That's because the Super Doctrines were a poor idea and it's honestly just bizarre nobody caught it.
Super doctrines are firewalled. The problem is that everyone thought soup and CP were the cause of balance woes.
When you make units good and give free rules then it becomes more of a problem, but people asked for this - convinced they could bring down soup if they did so.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
I dont know that its terribly far off. People weren't losing their minds with UM or RG or WS (though I'm sure we'll discover their hidden talents, too). The boogeyman of IH is different in its actual application.
Things like the invictor being solidly efficient on top of unit dynamics that weren't easily exploited before makes a world of difference. And that on top of really useful stratagems.
I actually lost my mind about White Scars until I discovered there's literally NO way to get the benefit until T3.
Me too. I think I made a case that Ultras were going to be unstoppable OP (currently 5-0 with them after release...) Literally never beat my friends CWE with marines all edition until this release...now I trounce him so bad all we can do is laugh.
Lets just look at this example here. Cronus in a stalker has always been good...but if I had to move to get in range to shoot his spears I'd be at a -1 then he could go to -2 (hittin on 4's and cant reroll 2/3) for 2 CP and I'd still only be AP -1 so if he was in cover he'd get a 3+ save.
Now I can use the same unit. Except for 1 CP I am hitting on 2's rerolling everything with +1 to wound and ap-2 instead of 1...it will literally result in double damage or more. Killing 1-2 spears is a big difference between killing 2 or 3. It's like the across the board for literally everything that shoots in this army now. An additional -1 AP on every gun and likely hitting better to because I can reroll more shots. It is day and night in comparison. Plus with the addition of invictor dreads...I'm not sure I will lose to CWE again for some time.
This is just Ultras too..Ironhands would be even more disgusting.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
TFC is typically not in your reroll bubble so the reroll 1's for it is big. As it wants to be out of LOS so it can shoot twice at the same target out of LOS. The ability to move and shoot without pentalty is also big for it as it can move behind something and blast at you out of LOS rerolling all hits on 2's. It's not a phenomenal unit though...it's pretty terrible without the stratagem. Ironhands land speeders though...jezz...who woulda thought they had the best speeders?
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
TFC is typically not in your reroll bubble so the reroll 1's for it is big. As it wants to be out of LOS so it can shoot twice at the same target out of LOS. The ability to move and shoot without pentalty is also big for it as it can move behind something and blast at you out of LOS rerolling all hits on 2's. It's not a phenomenal unit though...it's pretty terrible without the stratagem. Ironhands land speeders though...jezz...who woulda thought they had the best speeders?
One note: You *can't* fire twice with the stratagem if you move. Even with Iron Hands, the TFC will want to stay stationary.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
TFC is typically not in your reroll bubble so the reroll 1's for it is big. As it wants to be out of LOS so it can shoot twice at the same target out of LOS. The ability to move and shoot without pentalty is also big for it as it can move behind something and blast at you out of LOS rerolling all hits on 2's. It's not a phenomenal unit though...it's pretty terrible without the stratagem. Ironhands land speeders though...jezz...who woulda thought they had the best speeders?
One note: You *can't* fire twice with the stratagem if you move. Even with Iron Hands, the TFC will want to stay stationary.
That is a good point but - the option is always there. Like if you are out of CP or had no where to hide to shoot twice anyways without moving. It's true the move and shoot is not that important for the TFC. The reroll 1's is. Also - staying in devastator doctrine with it is also big. This is one of the few units that is hands down better as another chapter with no argument - Imperial fist TFC is best TFC.
Tyel wrote: I am sort of struggling with "you idiots, you fools, IH are not remotely overpowered for castling up... They are in fact quite clearly overpowered for a different reason, as you can see by all the placings in this tournament".
Dakka spent weeks complaining about things that weren't even used at the event and then wants to act like this one GT is vindication.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
Why is everyone losing their minds about Iron Hands?
I played two games over the weekend, one against Iron Hands and one against Ultramarines. Personally, I found the ultramarines to be a lot harder.
Abaddon made quick work of that iron father character without taking a single wound. My Obliterators and Plasma Marines made quick work of the rest of the army.
I found the "fall back and shoot hellblasters at full Ballistic Skill" to be a lot more scary than the iron hands being super durable.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
TFC is typically not in your reroll bubble so the reroll 1's for it is big. As it wants to be out of LOS so it can shoot twice at the same target out of LOS. The ability to move and shoot without pentalty is also big for it as it can move behind something and blast at you out of LOS rerolling all hits on 2's. It's not a phenomenal unit though...it's pretty terrible without the stratagem. Ironhands land speeders though...jezz...who woulda thought they had the best speeders?
I might be misreading you Xenomancer, but I've read over that strat several times since the wording is a bit odd and I'm pretty darn sure it just says that it only works on a weapon that can fire at a target it doesn't have LoS to, not that there must be such a target available.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
I have a friend with a Catachan artillery list I'd like you to meet. It's absolutely brutal to face, I've yet to be able to beat it.
I think part of the problem with super doctrines is that there are some that start turn one. I think for the most part everything should have been in the tactical doctrine. That or Rearrange each factions doctrine table so maybe IH/IF don't get theirs till turn 2
Why is everyone losing their minds about Iron Hands?
I played two games over the weekend, one against Iron Hands and one against Ultramarines. Personally, I found the ultramarines to be a lot harder.
Abaddon made quick work of that iron father character without taking a single wound. My Obliterators and Plasma Marines made quick work of the rest of the army.
I found the "fall back and shoot hellblasters at full Ballistic Skill" to be a lot more scary than the iron hands being super durable.
IH took up half of the top placings in multiple tournaments, in the same week, across the world, as soon as the book became tournament legal. I have yet to see a faction become so dominant so fast in the whole of 8th edition, so yeah that's probably why people are freaking out.
Ultramarine's doctrine explicitly excludes when they fall back so they are definitely getting a -1 to hit after they fall back, so those hellblasters aren't as scary as you think
Why is everyone losing their minds about Iron Hands?
I played two games over the weekend, one against Iron Hands and one against Ultramarines. Personally, I found the ultramarines to be a lot harder.
Abaddon made quick work of that iron father character without taking a single wound. My Obliterators and Plasma Marines made quick work of the rest of the army.
I found the "fall back and shoot hellblasters at full Ballistic Skill" to be a lot more scary than the iron hands being super durable.
IH took up half of the top placings in multiple tournaments, in the same week, across the world, as soon as the book became tournament legal. I have yet to see a faction become so dominant so fast in the whole of 8th edition, so yeah that's probably why people are freaking out.
Ultramarine's doctrine explicitly excludes when they fall back so they are definitely getting a -1 to hit after they fall back, so those hellblasters aren't as scary as you think
Five hellblasters falling back, popping strat that says no -1 to hit outright killed three obliterators from one of my units. In addition, when I returned fire upon them with my oblit squad #2, they all got to roll to shoot when they died thanks to the 9" banner guy, and killed 1 more obliterator and put 2 dmg on a second one. It drastically reduced my effectiveness, though because I had built in redundancy, I was able to recover. It seems pretty powerful to me.
Here’s some real results. Iron Hands SLAUGHTERED this week at events, and the Repulsor saw plenty of play. So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.
Anyway, this is too far past to be outliers or popular models anymore. With numbers like this up here, I’ll unhappily say that it definitely seems like Iron Hands are too much
For the game right now and it’s not healthy, and a nerf can’t come soon enough.
Nitro Zeus wrote: So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.
I mean some of us actually understand how this game works and thus knew this would happen.
By their own admission, the best players in the game aren’t capable of looking at a dex and knowing for certain what will happen. You thought you knew but your lack of understanding of the game is so deeply fundamental that you aren’t capable of distinguishing what you were right about from what you knew. This forum rages back and forth with a bunch of low level analysis based off theory hammer at every now release, there’s a reason the good players say wait and see
Crimson wrote: Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.
That's the theorycraft speaking. There's no formula that can tell you how negative the impact of a 3" anchor is going to be on an elite-style faction in an objective based game. You can't accurately math out board control.
At best you can recognise that something is likely going to be a bit too strong, but as you say in your final sentence, the extent of which requires playtesting, and that's all I think too, that we should let these things hit the meta to see. No shots at anyone who suspected Iron Hands were going to be OP, it's certainly was not an outlandish prediction and it was proved right at this point imo, but I just think that speculation does not trump experience. Just remember what this forum said about Drukhari, Orks, and GSC, and Knights in the opening weeks. They were right about Knights, wrong about the rest, and that's my point about being incapable of separating what we knew, from what we were right about.
Crimson wrote: Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.
That's the theorycraft speaking. There's no formula that can tell you how negative the impact of a 3" anchor is going to be on an elite-style faction in an objective based game. You can't accurately math out board control.
At best you can recognise that something is likely going to be a bit too strong, but as you say in your final sentence, the extent of which requires playtesting, and that's all I think too, that we should let these things hit the meta to see. No shots at anyone who suspected Iron Hands were going to be OP, it's certainly was not an outlandish prediction and it was proved right at this point imo, but I just think that speculation does not trump experience. Just remember what this forum said about Drukhari, Orks, and GSC, and Knights in the opening weeks. They were right about Knights, wrong about the rest, and that's my point about being incapable of separating what we knew, from what we were right about.
Well the forum was right about Dark Eldar and to an extent Genestealer Cults, so I don't see how this post helps prove your point.
Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay.
People being wrong in predictions about balance issues here on the forums doesn't mean that ALL balance issues are inherently unpredictable by anyone until actual statistics start rolling it. It just means that those specific people were wrong.
Some balance issues in 40k are so blatant as to be absolutely noticeable without having to playtest.
Nitro Zeus wrote: So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.
I mean some of us actually understand how this game works and thus knew this would happen.
By their own admission, the best players in the game aren’t capable of looking at a dex and knowing for certain what will happen. You thought you knew but your lack of understanding of the game is so deeply fundamental that you aren’t capable of distinguishing what you were right about from what you knew. This forum rages back and forth with a bunch of low level analysis based off theory hammer at every now release, there’s a reason the good players say wait and see
"The best players in the world"....
This game is about list building and the skill is in list building. Knowing the power of a unit about all it takes to build a list. Can list deal with x/can list deal with y....that is about it man. Sure you actually have to play the list right but that really is not that difficult. ESP when your army is practically indestructible compared to what opponents can field. I'm sure if it wasn't for Ironhands there would be a whole lot of Ultramarines doing well too but not this complete and utter dominance that requires your army be so durable it can't lose. As for your comment about Levithans - perhaps the overall plan is to never get close and just table your opponent from across the table where a 24" ranged unit is more of a liability. I'm sure any one of these winning players could take a 2x executioner+ levi dread and do just as well - they just chose another path.
Also - we didn't need to wait for these results. These results were preordained.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fraser1191 wrote: I think part of the problem with super doctrines is that there are some that start turn one. I think for the most part everything should have been in the tactical doctrine. That or Rearrange each factions doctrine table so maybe IH/IF don't get theirs till turn 2
I agree. Turn 1 dsuper doctrines shouldn't be a thing and also the iron hands doctrine should straight up not give you reroll 1's. Ironhands should also not get 5+ overwatch...5+ overwatch in an army that has the ability to reroll all hits is absolute madness.
Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)
IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?
Yeah there's a reason Basilisks are the staple of every Cadian list I've ever played against...
Waaaghpower wrote: Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)
IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.
Compared to any other army release we ever had, where all those factors apply just the same, it's still unprecedented (at least since we have internetz and social media and easy access to lots of tournament results to compare).
Waaaghpower wrote: Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)
IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.
Compared to any other army release we ever had, where all those factors apply just the same, it's still unprecedented (at least since we have internetz and social media and easy access to lots of tournament results to compare).
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
Nitro Zeus wrote: Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.
Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.
Edit, just from this week: First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners
Well.. how do you know IH are broken? Maybe its just cos they are popular you see them winning?
When the SM book came, i looked at all the rules and saw it was on its own merits, very strong. Because I can read. It doesnt take a genius. Good/useful free Rules on more rules with extra rules.. unless you take cut throat min max list against nu marines you can forget about winning a casual matched game. Its just obvious.
The supplaments layered on top are really pushing that boat out. If you can read, you can tell. There are many different builds that can be competative. Where as other factions are tied to one maybe two one trick pony lists.. so yeah. Still not seeing forest through the trees for some..
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?
In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?
Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.
Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.
Edit, just from this week: First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners
I didn’t say Executioners, so that’s not in any way a counter to what I said. I said LEVIATHANS. Read it, it’s not a difficult distinction. I have no high horse here, my argument is literally that the results have confirmed Iron Hands are OP. An impartial party may even say that the people with the high horse are the ones trying to sneer at others and rub their face in the fact that “I was right and if you disagreed, or even said to wait and see, then you don’t understand the game” - but it might take some measure self awareness to be able to recognise that.
I don’t think there is any high horse involved in pointing out to the people in here snarking about for malicious vindiciation, that while Executioners were proven good, the louder half of that prediction was the OP'ness of Leviathan dreads, a prediction that was met with a 1/72 hit ratio, for possible inclusions out of placing Adeptus Astartes lists - so it's clear that maybe this forum's "deep understanding of the game" isn't really something that was at all supported by these results, but hey.
Jidmah wrote: Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.
Nope. One single lone Leviathan in Iron Hands the top placing lists there as well, and it was at the very bottom of that list.
So, I think the only correct response at this point is - Get off YOUR high horse. You weren’t proved smarter smarter than anyone who said "wait for some results" to get a clearer picture, if anything these results serve as a good example of why.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.
Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.
Edit, just from this week:
First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan
First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners
First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners
I didn’t say Executioners, so that’s not in any way a counter to what I said. I said LEVIATHANS. Read it, it’s not a difficult distinction. I have no high horse here, my argument is literally that the results do confirm Iron Hands are OP. An impartial party may even say that the people with the high horse are the ones trying to sneer at others and rub their face in the fact that “I was right and if you disagreed you don’t understand the game” - but it might take some measure self awareness to be able to recognise that.
I don’t think there is any high horse involved in pointing out to the people in here snarking about for malicious vindiciation, that while Executioners were proven good, the louder half of that prediction was the OP'ness of Leviathan dreads, a prediction that was met with a 1/72 hit ratio, for possible inclusions out of placing Adeptus Astartes lists - so it's clear that maybe this forum's "deep understanding of the game" isn't really something that was at all supported by these results, but hey.
Jidmah wrote: Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.
Nope. One single lone Leviathan in Iron Hands the top placing lists there as well, and it was at the very bottom of that list.
So, I think the only correct response at this point is - Get off YOUR high horse. Anyone who is saying they KNEW what was too OP and didn't need to wait for results, but was also saying Leviathan's were going to be OP - nope, that's a perfect an excellent of example of why math and overconfidence doesn't trump actual experience.
This forum isn't made for informed opinions, stop projecting your personal delusions of what a forum should look like on our lovely nest of random gibberish.
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.
B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?
In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?
Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.
Probably because i see them more, on my shelve
Why would you assume that someone talking about "Guard artillery" was talking about "Guard field artillery" and not "Guard artillery"? I assumed you were actually responding to the post you quoted.
Sure, Guard field artillery might suck, but they're not what the post you compared to was talking about.
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.
B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
I wouldn't call a 5% difference "Far beyond anything we've seen", but thanks for supplying the hard numbers.
The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.
Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.
Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.
The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.
Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.
Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.
In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?
In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?
Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.
Probably because i see them more, on my shelve
Why would you assume that someone talking about "Guard artillery" was talking about "Guard field artillery" and not "Guard artillery"? I assumed you were actually responding to the post you quoted.
Sure, Guard field artillery might suck, but they're not what the post you compared to was talking about.
The Post i am talking about did not state the type.
And excuse my military training but if someone complains about field artillery (tfc) and then says that he does not have to field IG ones now I am kinda confused.
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.
B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.
Incidentally, can you point me to where those numbers are from? I want to compare.
Waaaghpower wrote: I wouldn't call a 5% difference "Far beyond anything we've seen", but thanks for supplying the hard numbers.
Actually 5% is massive for 40k! Even things like mono GK are only at a bit over 5% below the 50% mark. 5% above Ynnari, a win-rate already ridiculously high win rate that I feel largely hinged off a small-but-skilled playerbase and mostly heavily piloted by Nick Nanavati, is just insane for Iron Hands to be reaching that level of success. Stats only tell so much, but something being this successful statistically is most definitely unprecedented as of yet.
However, one small disclaimer to sunny Side Up's statement - the meta not being ironed out is something that can go both ways. For example, I think Drukhari's win rate was at it's peak right after release, the longer it went on the more players adapted.
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.
B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
I wouldn't call a 5% difference "Far beyond anything we've seen", but thanks for supplying the hard numbers.
That is disingenuous; he detailed more than that and phrasing it as 'a 5% difference' makes it seem smaller than it is. If one army wins 3/4 times and another wins 4/5 that's a pretty big difference.
Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)
A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.
B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
I wouldn't call a 5% difference "Far beyond anything we've seen", but thanks for supplying the hard numbers.
That is disingenuous; he detailed more than that and phrasing it as 'a 5% difference' makes it seem smaller than it is. If one army wins 3/4 times and another wins 4/5 that's a pretty big difference.
If we compare subjectively, the difference between 75% and 80% is 6%. I prefer objective numbers, but even subjective comparisons aren't that different.
I can't compare his other data without looking into the source. Is being new actually a disadvantage, or do new powerful builds sometimes benefit from nobody having a counterpick?
Sure. Things will likely change a little once people get the hang of it. Also, as more people pile into the faction, it'll have more people that will lose with them (though it will also make up more of the meta).
The 2017-saison LVO (in January 2018?) had only 8 or so Ynnari players, but their win rates were insane. the 2018-saison LVO had 5-6 times as many, but their win rate dropped (still good).
I would expect this one-year-trend of Ynnari to play out with Iron Hands in a month max. People now see the success of Iron Hands (and/or experience the frustration of being tabled by them playing something else) and jump on the bandwagon, decreasing their win-rates but (perhaps actually more problematic) increasing the frequency you run into them at events.
Also thus far the main-counter to Iron Hands appear to be other Marines, whether it's White Scars builds as those of John Lennon or Innes Wilson, or the Raven Guard thing by Andrew Gonyo. This IMO creates a bit of the Castellan/Smash Captain problem, where (one of) the best counter to the Castellan/Smash Captain was a Castellan and some Smash/Captains.
Thus we might get a 2-3 built Marine meta, where you'll see an increasingly optimized Iron Hands build emerging, along with one or two counter-builds, but if those counter-builds are also Marines, it'll only hasten the sprint into faction-monotony.
Overall, I actually think super-high win-rates are less problematic than ubiquity for the overall health of the game. Ynnari were super-good, but it was never more than 5-10% of people playing them (and far fewer at their height). It was individually frustrating if you got tabled by them, but overall people still had diverse tournaments.
Knights were more problematic (in my humble opinion) as they were just so much more common. Even if you beat them once or twice, chances were you'd still play more Knights afterwards. It wasn't uncommon in the late summer of 2018 to play 3-4 rounds against Knights in a 5-round tournament, which definitely felt like echos of 7th Ed. monotony. Marines are gonna be that phenomenon dialed up to 11. It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.
This forum isn't made for informed opinions, stop projecting your personal delusions of what a forum should look like on our lovely nest of random gibberish.
you're right, I sometimes forget which forum this is
Overall, I actually think super-high win-rates are less problematic than ubiquity for the overall health of the game. Ynnari were super-good, but it was never more than 5-10% of people playing them (and far fewer at their height). It was individually frustrating if you got tabled by them, but overall people still had diverse tournaments.
Knights were more problematic (in my humble opinion) as they were just so much more common. Even if you beat them once or twice, chances were you'd still play more Knights afterwards. It wasn't uncommon in the late summer of 2018 to play 3-4 rounds against Knights in a 5-round tournament, which definitely felt like echos of 7th Ed. monotony. Marines are gonna be that phenomenon dialed up to 11. It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.
I'm agree with this. And it basically boils down to "the strongest armies should be the hardest to play" I think.
Sunny Side Up wrote: ...It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.
That's a good point. Part of what has me worried about IH is that, in addition to having a high maximum strength, they're also incredibly simple to run for inexperienced players looking for an easy army to play around with. Without some kind of patch, (Change it to "Move without negatives OR get reroll 1s" would do a lot all by itself) it's very easy to see the meta being completely dominated by marines until other armies get tools to catch up.
Crimson wrote: Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.
That's the theorycraft speaking. There's no formula that can tell you how negative the impact of a 3" anchor is going to be on an elite-style faction in an objective based game. You can't accurately math out board control.
At best you can recognise that something is likely going to be a bit too strong, but as you say in your final sentence, the extent of which requires playtesting, and that's all I think too, that we should let these things hit the meta to see. No shots at anyone who suspected Iron Hands were going to be OP, it's certainly was not an outlandish prediction and it was proved right at this point imo, but I just think that speculation does not trump experience. Just remember what this forum said about Drukhari, Orks, and GSC, and Knights in the opening weeks. They were right about Knights, wrong about the rest, and that's my point about being incapable of separating what we knew, from what we were right about.
What are you going to playtest now, IH got a bunch of rules that are proven good for 2-3 years of the game:
Ignore penalty with moving with havy weapons-super strong most armies still dream of having such rule.
-1 damage - wave serpent proved how good it 2-3 years
overwatch on 5++ - Tao
full rerolls - Gulliman
rerolls on wounds, extra shoots in death - proven by so many armies
FNP 6+++, degrading harder and having easy way to regain wounds- having 2 of those is fantastic, having 3 is fething OP.
The only way combining such rules together and not be broken is that the army units are super bad and unscientific. SM units can hardly be called like that, so it was obvios by most people that IH are broken.
When the IH get nerfed it will be obvious that the codex is broken.
Nitro Zeus wrote: It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.
Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.
So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.
80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.
Incidentally, can you point me to where those numbers are from? I want to compare.
Ask sunnysideup.
Not my numbers, he did quote a redit article.
The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)
Nitro Zeus wrote: The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)
May I recommend you stop wasting your energy? There is a small group of users who produce an obscene amount of content on this forum, mostly negative and mostly not worthwhile. Your experience will change drastically and for the better if you simply ignore their posts or don't involve yourself in the back-and-forth. I guess you might feel differently and get something out of the exchange, but what are you hoping to accomplish here?
Nitro Zeus wrote: It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.
Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.
Well explaining doesn't often explain stuff. How questions maybe, but why almost never. Most of the anwsers to why questions I have to take on faith, because I find no logic in the explanations.
Nitro Zeus wrote: The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)
The irony is that I was one of the early people to post the leviathan maths, and unfortunately it was only supposed to be a way to show how much potential for broken IronHands Supliment contained but certain people got fixated on it as being the be all end all as they weren't interested in the flyers or multiple repulsor builds.
Nitro Zeus wrote: It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.
Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something. After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.
These exact same words have been said multiple times with slightly different variations for every change to the game since i have memory.
Hard data shows that when people say so, they are wrong 50% of the time and right 50% of the time. Which is another way to say that they have actually no idea.
The "I don't need data, i can read" approach has been demonstrated a failing one multiple times, let it rest.
Maybe that iron hands will indeed turn out to be the next meta thing, and the first data coming seems to confirm that (still, i saw that data and is ITC only, so not fully applicable to 40K).
In any case, i'm witholding my judgement until a couple of months have passed. I want to see the FAQ, the evolution of the meta and most importantly the CA19.
What is probably going to happen, and i do like this, is that the game will become Power Armor centric. Now that the codex compliant chapters are fully fledged factions, 16 factions of the game are marines of some flavour, which is a huge percentage (half the factions of the game? And i'm not counting FW or minor marine factions like Blood Ravens). Marines will become the most common enemy.
As the theme of 40K already was in the narrative, it is now marines vs everyone else also on the table. For some reason, i like it.
okey but if marines suddenly become super proficient at killing other marines, and the meta also shifts to counter marines. Every marine army that has not yet been given their doctrines, relics and new stratagems is going to be very unfun to play, while at the same technicly having access to the same units.
Looking at my own 'chaos knight' army I think I should go full thermal cannons and moirax lightning locks. Either go big on the d6 damage output and/or cheap 1 wound shooting (lightning lock). Also dreadblade 'no -1 ap' pact could also help against various space marine shooting. One knight rampager with as much movement bonuses could go in for the kill or be a giant bullet magnet.
So one could face a IH dreadnought/repulsor/hawks castle combi, most likely, right?
Well, if all the Marine Supplements are well-balanced against each other as well as internally, and even Iron Hands produce a variety of unique and interesting lists, and the only issue is Marines vs. non-Marines, it’ll be the easiest fix ever: Just Reprint the point-cost table from the Marine book in CA or as an online pdf or something with a flat 20% or whatever point increase on everything.
You don’t need to figure out some unexpected obscure rules-interaction, you don’t need to worry about broader game mechanics like the allies system or so making things difficult. You keep all the cool internal balance and flavor. You simply lower Marines by a level to be on even keel with everyone else with all their new coolness, variety and flavor unharmed.
Nitro Zeus wrote: The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)
it's more fun to panic today then make an informed decision next week.
*waves hands in air* IRON HANDS ARE RUINING THE GAME! THE END OF WARHAMMER 40K IS NIGH PANIC PANIC PANIC
See how fun that was
In all seriousness I admit that Ironhands looks pretty damn powerful. as I've said before, even with just the codex Ironhands get 3 good traits. Overwatch on 5-6. 6 up FNP, And the "vehicles do not degrade" ability. All of these are ones I would consider to be easily as powerful so I'm just not sure what GW was thinking. Perhaps they where thinking the vehicles thing would not always apply to an army so they needed a third trait? forgiveable if one of their traits only applied to infantry, but if so why is that trait on the sucessors table?
I mean I don't mind game design issues where it's a matter of "well we think a 6 up feel no pain is as good as a re-roll all failed armor saves" and it turns out one is massivly better then the other. But when it's clear that one faction is CLEARLY better to the point where it gets more traits "just because" yeah that annoys me. I mean get ridda Iron hands vehicular bonus and TBH they'd be good but not insane. I mean the Iron hands super doctrine isn't even all that great (the Ultramarines one is, arguably better) it's just that Iron hands have so many things that all boost vehicle toughness.
Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
Nitro Zeus wrote: The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)
What amaze me more is that YOU(not plural btw) continue to use plurals to summarize different and sometimes totally opposite opinions on the some topic.
For instance:
What community are you referring about ? Dakka, some facebook group/groups. twitter, the moon green mans ?
How is the community making decision when half of the people disagree on most things or have other opinion ?
What are those top players you are referring about ? When they sad their opinion?
Maybe they are waiting to express their view, after they see the new FAQ, CA 2019, erratas, test atleast 1-2 times things or to work on army build in secret and go and win tournament.
What it starting to annoy me is that people hear something from certain players for instance Reece and start repeating it non-stop like broken record.
These exact same words have been said multiple times with slightly different variations for every change to the game since i have memory.
Hard data shows that when people say so, they are wrong 50% of the time and right 50% of the time. Which is another way to say that they have actually no idea.
The "I don't need data, i can read" approach has been demonstrated a failing one multiple times, let it rest.
Maybe that iron hands will indeed turn out to be the next meta thing, and the first data coming seems to confirm that (still, i saw that data and is ITC only, so not fully applicable to 40K).
In any case, i'm witholding my judgement until a couple of months have passed. I want to see the FAQ, the evolution of the meta and most importantly the CA19.
What is probably going to happen, and i do like this, is that the game will become Power Armor centric. Now that the codex compliant chapters are fully fledged factions, 16 factions of the game are marines of some flavour, which is a huge percentage (half the factions of the game? And i'm not counting FW or minor marine factions like Blood Ravens). Marines will become the most common enemy.
As the theme of 40K already was in the narrative, it is now marines vs everyone else also on the table. For some reason, i like it.
I have to agree on what you are saying. What i don`t agree is to use the some logic for this release, because it`s really hard not to think that combining multiple rules that are already proven to be super good on their own, combined with units with decent statistics than you can get bad results.
CA and other releases can change that, but currently my personal opinion(no the plural community) is that IH are totally broken.
Nitro Zeus wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Here’s some real results. Iron Hands SLAUGHTERED this week at events, and the Repulsor saw plenty of play. So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.
Anyway, this is too far past to be outliers or popular models anymore. With numbers like this up here, I’ll unhappily say that it definitely seems like Iron Hands are too much
For the game right now and it’s not healthy, and a nerf can’t come soon enough.
That's interesting.
What are the commonly units and models (with armament) taken by the top lists?
Sorry, dont have enough time to browse though these sites.
Maybe they are waiting to express their view, after they see the new FAQ, CA 2019, erratas, test atleast 1-2 times things or to work on army build in secret and go and win tournament.
Yeah yeah wait for FAQ, CA19, then spring faq, autumn faq, CA20...
Or maybe actually look at the evidence already present rather than keep pushing "one more step to wait" forever?
wuestenfux wrote: What are the commonly units and models (with armament) taken by the top lists?
Sorry, dont have enough time to browse though these sites.
The most common ones seem to be storm talons, invictor suit, repulsor exectutioner and a thunderfire cannon, alongside with the vast majority of troops being scouts.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
I think more than most honestly. There was a WS player the week before beat out 2 or 3 IH players (I can't remember if it was 2 or 3), and i saw a SW player beat out 2 IH players as well (I follow some SW as i'm thinking of picking them up for a side project and i think they are actually kinda good/viable, mostly cool marines)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
Considering that most lists needed to be able to deal with knights in theory that shouldn't have been an issue.
In theory mind you.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
As marines have beenmostly low end of competitive builds for a year previous to the new codex marines being top table is new.
However T8 3+sv 5++ is knight profile and people have been blowing those off the board for a year now, so repulsors shouldn't be an issue.
Flyers with -2 to hit has been an alitoc staple for a while and also should have an answer, combining the two along with some of the new primaris infiltration shenanigans units though is new.
The issue seems to be other new marines have 1 or 2 rounds of insane damage output then wither as they don't have the model count to keep up the pressure turn 3 onwards while ironhands can bring that same damage potential more mobile and keep it alive to just keep bringing that pain for the whole game.
Considering that CA goes to print months in advance, and if GW being suprised by IH is true, the chance of there being fixs to IH in the 2019 CA seem rather small. Unless GW is not suprised, did it all to get a quick boost to sells in second quarter, to do what ever with the models rules in the CA.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
I think more than most honestly. There was a WS player the week before beat out 2 or 3 IH players (I can't remember if it was 2 or 3), and i saw a SW player beat out 2 IH players as well (I follow some SW as i'm thinking of picking them up for a side project and i think they are actually kinda good/viable, mostly cool marines)
I think it's quite the opposite.
As said, everybody who expects to win even a single tournament game needs to tech against triple Krast/Taranis Cursaders, take down Mech Tau, Mech Eldar, Tank Commanders, etc...
Most people already run lists hyper-optimized to kill mech. There's no more room to adapt. The anti-tank of most Codexes has just been out-mathhammered at this point. There's nothing more to adapt.
Also, yes, Innes Wilson won a 29 people tournament going 4-0-1 with White Scars, but he's also a long-time ETC scottish player and high-level player of reasonable renown, struggling by his own admission (and only managing a tie in one game) against random dudes that haven't played in a year or more and simply dropped 3 Repulsors for funsies. And that is him saying he went straight into Marines as soon as he saw the book, because his GSC are dead and buried and wouldn't even have managed that much (and GSC are a premiere anti-big-scary-things army).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
IMO, from a pure wound/toughnss view, they aren't bringing anymore mech than an eldar flyer list or a AM/Knight/X soup army.
However, the layered defensive buffs neuter many commonly used anti-tank weapons, any army that relies on high RoF d3 or flat 2 damage weapons has no chance of taking out an ironstone'd executioner.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
Considering that most lists needed to be able to deal with knights in theory that shouldn't have been an issue.
In theory mind you.
Different level of dealing with tho, when people relay on 2D and 3D and now its not 2/3D anymore its different
Find the debate about what the forum got right and got wrong a bit dubious. There have been moments of madness (the collective cross-internet freakout over index Necrons has to be the biggest one) but these days its fairly accurate. Mainly because maths doesn't lie - and if something is mathematically good, you need a very clear reason for why it won't be good on the table. And vice versa.
If anything the forum would seem to have good collective wisdom. Orks were meant to be really hot, border on meta defining according to "the experts" a year ago, and tbh the result has been a bit of a damp squib. Turns out they are less reliable GSC and a whole bunch of bad options. Its not clear they are any better served than the index.
Back on IH - as people have said - the meta will evolve, but its not immediately obvious how it can do so in a way that will help. If you are tooled up to crack knights - and you have to be - you probably can't go much further in that direction to crack IH vehicles.
If Marines as Marines came back that could be different - but this is T6-T8 hulls, possibly with a 5++, definitely with a 6+++, with stupidly buffed up shooting stats for units that can freely gallop around the table.
Tyel wrote: If anything the forum would seem to have good collective wisdom. Orks were meant to be really hot, border on meta defining according to "the experts" a year ago, and tbh the result has been a bit of a damp squib. Turns out they are less reliable GSC and a whole bunch of bad options. Its not clear they are any better served than the index.
Orks still have more GT wins and top 4 placements than GSC since the last big FAQ. Also note that a pretty powerful combo was taken out by nerfing mob up.
Looking at the facts, there is no reason to doubt ork competitivelness.
Yeah. Orks are a really, really good army, and have performed stronger than GSC by and far.
Also, I find Orks are a pretty good (if singular) case study on how GW's game designers at times seem to undervalue the shooty parts compared to the close combat buffs, as Orks have moved more and more towards a gun-line army the more time people had to optimize, and most serious cc-threats outside of ObSec-Objective grabbers and distraction have largely been purged from top Ork lists. No Ork player these days is taking out the big alpha threats with close combat.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?
Considering that most lists needed to be able to deal with knights in theory that shouldn't have been an issue.
In theory mind you.
Different level of dealing with tho, when people relay on 2D and 3D and now its not 2/3D anymore its different
Fair point, especially if you look at the mid tier gatekeeper castles.
Eldarain wrote: But some people were wrong about what the exact build would be so... It's ok?
That's not really the point. Its that internet rage is a misguided tool to judge issues. The list that won BFS is mobile and durable due to healing. I imagine he was zipping wounded land speeders around to get tagged by heals and with them capable of ignoring move penalties he lost no efficiency in doing so. I'd wager his list was a lot more static overall than we might envision.
He was also capable of beating the Repulsor / IFF / Ironstone list. A list that has been claimed to be nearly impossible to beat. So, how exactly did he do so with minimal S8 shooting and no S9 or strong melee?
Getting caught up in the internet bs harms our ability to think through the problems even IF the netlist is still an issue.
Nitro Zeus wrote: It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.
Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.
Clearly there are lists well outside the internet designation of the issue. So, you DO need to experience it to understand the broader issues at hand. Otherwise we're just pissing in the wind and unable to fix the real problem.
If GW fixes IFF, and the Ironstone, and Dread shenanigans we're STILL going to be in deep gak with IH based on these results.
He was also capable of beating the Repulsor / IFF / Ironstone list. A list that has been claimed to be nearly impossible to beat. So, how exactly did he do so with minimal S8 shooting and no S9 or strong melee?
Because the claim itself was bs. As multiple folks have been stating, we just got drowned out by hysterical blathering.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Also, I find Orks are a pretty good (if singular) case study on how GW's game designers at times seem to undervalue the shooty parts compared to the close combat buffs, as Orks have moved more and more towards a gun-line army the more time people had to optimize
True. To be fair, the ork codex has more shooting units than close combat units, even if you count units that could be either towards melee.
, and most serious cc-threats outside of ObSec-Objective grabbers and distraction have largely been purged from top Ork lists. No Ork player these days is taking out the big alpha threats with close combat.
Right now successful ork players are moving back towards bringing evil suns boyz, and the Gorkanaut does occasionally make an appearence. There is also the odd case of an ork player placing third in this IH mess with Goff boyz and nobz.
The issue is that everyone with half a brain knows how to screen valuable units with less valuable units. So the only way to get into combat without FLY is shooting the screen first.
In addition, since orks aren't exactly durable, the only way to survive is taking out threats starting turn one, and close combat simply can't do that.
So without shooting, there is no close combat, but if your shooting is good enough to enable melee, you might as well just keep shooting, because melee has little to no advantage over shooting - you lose models from fighting and overwatch, half the game can just leave combat with no downside, the charge roll itself has a non-trivial chance to fail and you need to get there by casting powers, spending CP or by moving across the board for multiple turns.
Note that I'm not claiming its unbeatable (I would much rather play that list than Repulsors), but it clearly has some strong advantages. Those advantages could potentially be overcome as people adjust their lists to deal with it, but until we get first hand reports of how his opponents think they screwed up fighting it we don't really have the full picture.
Note that I'm not claiming its unbeatable (I would much rather play that list than Repulsors), but it clearly has some strong advantages. Those advantages could potentially be overcome as people adjust their lists to deal with it, but until we get first hand reports of how his opponents think they screwed up fighting it we don't really have the full picture.
The amazing thing is how you go from "WE'RE TOTALLY SCREWED" to "Well...maybe we should see what happened and get more data", while at the same time calling out your own original statement (that 8th is broken due to people facing armies with capabilites they've never faced before). I love it.
Note that I'm not claiming its unbeatable (I would much rather play that list than Repulsors), but it clearly has some strong advantages. Those advantages could potentially be overcome as people adjust their lists to deal with it, but until we get first hand reports of how his opponents think they screwed up fighting it we don't really have the full picture.
The amazing thing is how you go from "WE'RE TOTALLY SCREWED" to "Well...maybe we should see what happened and get more data", while at the same time calling out your own original statement (that 8th is broken due to people facing armies with capabilites they've never faced before). I love it.
Huh? Are you assigning statements from other people to me? I've never been of the opinion that we're screwed or that IH is unbeatable.
Note that I'm not claiming its unbeatable (I would much rather play that list than Repulsors), but it clearly has some strong advantages. Those advantages could potentially be overcome as people adjust their lists to deal with it, but until we get first hand reports of how his opponents think they screwed up fighting it we don't really have the full picture.
The amazing thing is how you go from "WE'RE TOTALLY SCREWED" to "Well...maybe we should see what happened and get more data", while at the same time calling out your own original statement (that 8th is broken due to people facing armies with capabilities they've never faced before). I love it.
We are not screwed, the only think screwed is the game balance. What data will show is how much exactly and will players adapting will increase the damage control.
No list is unbeatable, but it`s stupid to put yourself in disadvantage, that is the reason so many players switched so fast to SM.
One list losing couple of games don`t mean it`s not broken, the Castellan list also did not had 100% WR.
Also SM is the army, that probably have the biggest chance to beat other SM, that is real problem for the game.
Huh? Are you assigning statements from other people to me? I've never been of the opinion that we're screwed or that IH is unbeatable.
Daedalus81 wrote:
If GW fixes IFF, and the Ironstone, and Dread shenanigans we're STILL going to be in deep gak with IH based on these results.
Emphasis mine.
Ok, I get why you see it that way. My intention was to state that there is something about IH making them strong. People being flabbergasted about potentially the wrong things makes it hard for us to see the issue and find ways around it.
Looking at my own 'chaos knight' army I think I should go full thermal cannons and moirax lightning locks. Either go big on the d6 damage output and/or cheap 1 wound shooting (lightning lock). Also dreadblade 'no -1 ap' pact could also help against various space marine shooting. One knight rampager with as much movement bonuses could go in for the kill or be a giant bullet magnet.
So one could face a IH dreadnought/repulsor/hawks castle combi, most likely, right?
Spam the melle wardog 1 lighting lock and the vheical killer fist. I think those fists are d6 +2 against vehicals lol. They are also pretty cheap.
Martel732 wrote: GW just added too much to marines too fast. Even 3rd wasn't quite like this. Marines became good because of base rules changes in that case.
It is one of GW's biggest hurdles. They're just not taking enough time to test the updates properly. In some respects they should open it up, but then we'd potentially be testing rules 6 months before the book goes to print, which devastates the hype machine (which I do enjoy).
I'm not sure hurried playtesting can be blamed here. Giving a faction free access to half a dozen powerful always-on abilities, largely pulled from other faction specific traits, shouldnt exactly have required extensive playtesting to recognize balance issues.
I can even make a pseudo smash capt with the base marine book. I haven't even started thinking about the new models. The Impulsor will empower a lot of new tactics, including usage of null zone in a meaningful way.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure hurried playtesting can be blamed here. Giving a faction free access to half a dozen powerful always-on abilities, largely pulled from other faction specific traits, shouldnt exactly have required extensive playtesting to recognize balance issues.
Yep. So freaking obvious.
How more obvious can it get? Every unit has a 3++ save for free? Would we need to test to figure out that is broken?
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure hurried playtesting can be blamed here. Giving a faction free access to half a dozen powerful always-on abilities, largely pulled from other faction specific traits, shouldnt exactly have required extensive playtesting to recognize balance issues.
If rumors are to be believed there was mis-communication between testers and GW. Not sure how valid that may be, but when you have the crazy schedule like GW does right now everything gets rushed.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm not sure hurried playtesting can be blamed here. Giving a faction free access to half a dozen powerful always-on abilities, largely pulled from other faction specific traits, shouldnt exactly have required extensive playtesting to recognize balance issues.
If rumors are to be believed there was mis-communication between testers and GW. Not sure how valid that may be, but when you have the crazy schedule like GW does right now everything gets rushed.
How exactly is it possible to have a miscommunication with your rules team and play testesters? "These Ironhands rules are broken to a level we have never seen before"...."Gotcha"..."Print the rules they are well balanced"..."WTF"..."Sorry I thought you said not broken to totally broken"...
Oh I thought IH were getting the 3++ somehow. I'm a bit out of the loop on the IH supplement. I've been busy for a couple of months. I've played a few games with fake BA from the marine codex and it went much better than with BA codex. Good enough for me.
Martel732 wrote: Oh I thought IH were getting the 3++ somehow. I'm a bit out of the loop on the IH supplement. I've been busy for a couple of months. I've played a few games with fake BA from the marine codex and it went much better than with BA codex. Good enough for me.
To be honest they have worse. They have a -1 damage aura (relic) and a 5++ cheap aura (special character who autro heals 3(6 with stratagem)). Overall its ass effective as a 3++ and its guaranteed mitigation of multi damage. You can fail saves.
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
Your lagging a stage behind.
People saw the 2 pt stormshields, wondered 'this looks broken, is it?' And discovered Deathwatch misses several other things for it to be completely broken.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
That wasn't hard to figure out...they can really only deal with infantry and monsters (there aren't really a lot of monsters in the game ether that aren't screenable characters) Theres already a billion options in the game that can kill infantry well. They are really monster killers without a monster to kill. Being durable while being 1 dimensional is a unit that can do well but not dominate. The outrage about them was really just a result of them being the only playable marine infantry.
Just imagine how OPDW would be if half the armies best models were unscreenable monsters.
A lot of what makes ironhands OP is the fact that D6 damage weapons are unreliable so everyone is forced into the flat low damage or d3 multi shot weapons which typical deal 1 damage to ironhands. Combined with 6 flat healing. On top of all the free mobility and damage buffs they get plus the best overall tactic. You can't just paint at one thing like was said before. They just get way too many free rules.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well. That they can do very well with multiple builds just makes them sound like even more of a problem?
That wasn't hard to figure out...they can really only deal with infantry and monsters (there aren't really a lot of monsters in the game ether that aren't screenable characters) Theres already a billion options in the game that can kill infantry well. They are really monster killers without a monster to kill. Being durable while being 1 dimensional is a unit that can do well but not dominate. The outrage about them was really just a result of them being the only playable marine infantry.
Just imagine how OPDW would be if half the armies best models were unscreenable monsters.
Right, but as those discussions went -- soup.
A lot of what makes ironhands OP is the fact that D6 damage weapons are unreliable so everyone is forced into the flat low damage or d3 multi shot weapons which typical deal 1 damage to ironhands. Combined with 6 flat healing. On top of all the free mobility and damage buffs they get plus the best overall tactic. You can't just paint at one thing like was said before. They just get way too many free rules.
I don't disagree entirely. I just disagree that focusing on certain aspects over others is going to miss out on other pieces. Did Rose use the Ironstone or not? Was his list castled or not (otherwise why the Techmarine on bike)? Why did he have the Captain on bike? What spells were being used? What other stratagems were used? How big of a role did sniping play?
How is it that he beat this list? If, as you say, D6 weapons are useless (he has some) and flat low damage weapons are also useless (he has some). If it was purely by skilled play on the mission are you going to concede the value of ITC?
There are lots of questions. Few people are asking while others are stonewalling on 'nothing to see, overpowered, move along'.
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well. That they can do very well with multiple builds just makes them sound like even more of a problem?
I'm not disputing the problem -- like everyone here -- but the analysis of the problem and the factors of it. Repulsors did well at other tournaments -- what were their mirror matches? Repulsors also? Did the BFS lists get lucky on "mirror" matches? How much did ITC play a part as opposed to the other tournaments in Sweden / England?
Interestingly, 2 pt storm shield is about right on VV. I think each datasheet needs its own points costs to even have a chance. A SS is much more valuable for a wulfen than for a VV.
I beg your pardon, that my Cyclops/Hellhound idea still does not let me rest, but after reading some of the durability stuff:
DUTY ETERNAL
Use this Stratagem when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES DREADNOUGHT model from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of the phase, when resolving an attack made against that model, halve the damage inflicted (rounding up).
=> the Cyclops demolition vehicle does not choose targets for an attack, but autohits them via an ability. Therefore this stratagem does not apply, the same goes for exploding hellhounds
THE IRONSTONE
When resolving an attack made against an IRON HANDS VEHICLE unit within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic, reduce any damage inflicted by 1, to a minimum of 1
=> Mortal wounds caused by exploding vehicles like hellhounds are not attacks being resolved. The cyclops demolition charge is not an attack made against an Iron Hands Vehicle, but against all units in a given range.
=> This relict does not have an effect on the damage caused
MARCH OF THE ANCIENTS
Use this Stratagem before the battle, after nominating a model to be your Warlord. Select one IRON HANDS DREADNOUGHT model from your army. That model gains the CHARACTER keyword; add 1 to the Attacks and Leadership characteristics of that model.
=> If they are within the range of an exploding Hellhound/Cyclops charge, Dreadnaught characters can still be damaged if they are not the closest model, as they don't have to be targeted
REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE
Use this Stratagem in any phase, when an IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6, adding 1 to the result if that model has the All Flesh is Weakness Warlord Trait. On a 5+ that wound is not lost.
COGITATED MARTYRDOM
Use this Stratagem at the start of the Shooting phase. Select one IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army. Until the end of the phase, when a friendly IRON HANDS CHARACTER model within 3" of that unit would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model, that unit can attempt to intercept that attack. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that model does not lose those wounds and that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each of those wounds. Only one attempt can be made to intercept each attack.
=> as above, neither the Cyclops, nor the exploding Hellhound chooses units for an attack
It might not be much, and it will still be very hard to pull this off, but I find it interesting that a lot of the durability buffs do not apply against suicide charges.
Edit: Briefly going through some of the other factions and their datasheets its interesting that the Iron Hands defensive stuff described above are so often formulated in a way that requires a unit to be attacked/selected for an attack. Contrary to REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE, the "Shield of faith" ability of the Battlesisters as well as the buffs to it provided by Celestine just speak of a general "Invulnerability save" as far as I see it. The same is the case for the invulnerability saves provided by Crusaders Stormshields or Ministorum Priest Rosarius'. On a similar note the bodyguard abilities of Ogryn Bodyguards, Gemini Superia or the Genestealer Locus also just state "when a character loses a wound" instead of COGITATED MARTYRDOMs "loses a wound as result of an attack made against that model".
And Adding to that I just briefly rushed a bit through the Imperial Guard Codex and found that there are quite a number of things causing wounds, that do not "select a model/unit" to attack it. In this specific case the special wording of the abovementioned IH defensive buffs might really have a loophole. To list those I found at a quick glance:
Officer of the Fleet "Air Raid Requested" => ability, no attack
Emperors Fist Tank company, Stratagem "Steel Phalanx" => the same
Deathstrike missile launcher => models around the target loose mortal wounds on a 4+, they are not selected for an attack
Stratagem "Fire on my position", "Preliminary Bombardmend" => no attacks are performed
Any AM flyer with bombs => the bombs cause MWs on specific dice rolls, units are not selected for an attack and no attack rolls are made
That's quite a range of things that (as far as I read it) are not really subject to the IH defensive buffs. And I'm quite sure the other factions have similar options, right?
Mate, I love cyclops too. But they're spending at least one turn vrooming up the field. If you expect them to live through the first turn of fire from an IH list, you're kidding yourself. T6 4W 3+ is not an intimidating defensive profile for a 60pt model.
The only way they might work would be through threat saturation, but seeing how a cyclops is a good target for every gun in the game except S3 weaponry, I don't see how that's workable.
Finally, the weapon is only mortal wounds when it explodes, not when you detonate it, so it doesn't bypass IH defences at all, and each wound will probably be 1 damage, saved on a 6+++, if it gets through tougness and armour rolls. Further, it IS an attack, except when it explodes from taking damage.
But you're right, it would mess up their characters if you could get them through to target them.
Pyroalchi wrote: I beg your pardon, that my Cyclops/Hellhound idea still does not let me rest, but after reading some of the durability stuff:
Spoiler:
DUTY ETERNAL
Use this Stratagem when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES DREADNOUGHT model from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of the phase, when resolving an attack made against that model, halve the damage inflicted (rounding up).
=> the Cyclops demolition vehicle does not choose targets for an attack, but autohits them via an ability. Therefore this stratagem does not apply, the same goes for exploding hellhounds
THE IRONSTONE
When resolving an attack made against an IRON HANDS VEHICLE unit within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic, reduce any damage inflicted by 1, to a minimum of 1
=> Mortal wounds caused by exploding vehicles like hellhounds are not attacks being resolved. The cyclops demolition charge is not an attack made against an Iron Hands Vehicle, but against all units in a given range.
=> This relict does not have an effect on the damage caused
MARCH OF THE ANCIENTS
Use this Stratagem before the battle, after nominating a model to be your Warlord. Select one IRON HANDS DREADNOUGHT model from your army. That model gains the CHARACTER keyword; add 1 to the Attacks and Leadership characteristics of that model.
=> If they are within the range of an exploding Hellhound/Cyclops charge, Dreadnaught characters can still be damaged if they are not the closest model, as they don't have to be targeted
REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE
Use this Stratagem in any phase, when an IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6, adding 1 to the result if that model has the All Flesh is Weakness Warlord Trait. On a 5+ that wound is not lost.
COGITATED MARTYRDOM
Use this Stratagem at the start of the Shooting phase. Select one IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army. Until the end of the phase, when a friendly IRON HANDS CHARACTER model within 3" of that unit would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model, that unit can attempt to intercept that attack. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that model does not lose those wounds and that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each of those wounds. Only one attempt can be made to intercept each attack.
=> as above, neither the Cyclops, nor the exploding Hellhound chooses units for an attack
It might not be much, and it will still be very hard to pull this off, but I find it interesting that a lot of the durability buffs do not apply against suicide charges.
As much as I love the reasoning here, and I see a good valid argument as to why it can be read that way - it would be a huge point of contention in a game if it wasn't clearly discussed previously, especially in a tournament setting. It would be up to the TO to make a call and then move on.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well.
Not a SINGLE event of the many that were won by Iron Hands over the weekend, were won by a list with a Leviathan in.
24 Adeptus Astartes lists placed highly over the weekend. That's 72 possible slots for Leviathans. Out of those 72 slots, ONE list took ONE single dread - and placed at the very bottom of recorded lists for it's event.
So no, it wasn't just BFS and no the theorycraft did not measure up. Repulsors were played, yes, but also in less than half the lists so they didn't match the hype, but if we are going to base our opinion on the results then the theoryhammer was definitely wrong about Leviathans.
Stop propagating misinformation. This stuff is so easy to look up before you speak.
And has anyone tried buying 3 executioners online lately? I was googling prices to sell one and found those and cents are selling out everywhere.
I'd bet people brought what they had access to.
"Leviathan's are hard to get so people just brought what they had access to"
lol
No.
Repulsors borderline sold out yet still in about half of these lists.
Leviathan still in stock and even cheaper than the Repulsor, but basically unseen.
Why do you think it is that the Repulsor is sold out?
If we're going to wave the stats around as some sort of proof, lets make sure they actually support the claims we're making. You can't just pick and choose what part of the stats to count because they support your hypothesis and ignore the parts that don't. That's called being wrong.
And leviathans are hard to come by QUICKLY. FW takes time so do recasters. That was an observation not a stat. And I did say executioners too. As you've shown.
Change iron hands super combat doctrine to be re-roll 1s to hit in devestator (no if pre penalties for heavy weapons)and make it so ironstone doesn't stack with other damage reduction (duty eternal)
Easy fixes for ironstone without nerfing it into oblivion and is possible with FAQ
either
a) one use per battle if remains as aura
b) start of your turn, pick one vehicle within 6" and -1 damage for that vehicle against all attacks until start of your next turn
Spoletta wrote: A change to the super doctrine will make it so they are no longer the most mobile of chapters, which is weird.
blaktoof wrote: Change iron hands super combat doctrine to be re-roll 1s to hit in devestator (no if pre penalties for heavy weapons)and make it so ironstone doesn't stack with other damage reduction (duty eternal)
Problem solved.
No, it's very fluffy, they are not a siege chapter. They are direct and to the point and they like to quickly hammer their opponents into dust with heavy firepower, getting their chapter tactic turn 1 and allowing them to move and shoot without penalty is very fluffy.
The Ironstone deserves a REAL nerf, not just removing the ability to make one DREADNOUGHT unkillable, that appears to be the least of it, especially because the halving applies after the -1 in unless it's the Iron Hands player's turn.
Holy gak, I saw people defending the stompa at 700 points earlier on this board that are now somewhat defending the iron fists gak at less than half the points.
You should be ashamed.
Finally, the weapon is only mortal wounds when it explodes, not when you detonate it, so it doesn't bypass IH defences at all, and each wound will probably be 1 damage, saved on a 6+++, if it gets through tougness and armour rolls. Further, it IS an attack, except when it explodes from taking damage.
=> I know, that it is only mortal wounds if it is destroyed. But when you detonate it, you also do NOT "choose any models/units to be attacked" and do neither "perform an attack".
Instead it literally reads:
At the start of any of the models Shooting phases, so long as it has not Advanced, this model can choose to detonate ist Cyclops demolition Charge. When it does so, every unit (both friendly and enemy) within D6'' is automaticaly hit by this weapon using the profile stated above, roll separately for each unit.
It might be a bit pedantic and focussing on rules as written, but as far as I see it, at least "Duty Eternal" and "Reject the Flesh" can not be used against the Charge, since they explicitly require a unit to be chosen as the target for an attack. And the same is the case for all the other stuff I mentioned, that causes MW or similar stuff without "choosing a unit as target" or saying anything about performing an attack.
But as NurglesR0T wrote: this should be discussed before a tournament.
@ Cyclops are just shot off the board before they can do anything: Of course, but I always wondered if you could make it work if you hide them behind line of sight blocking vehicles (I mean, even a Tauros assault vehicle can hide one or two Cyclops behind him) or drop them in as Elysian Cyclopses or via the Tallarn Ambush stratagem.
But I guess it remains just an interesting idea, that's almost impossible to pull off. Yet it is noteworthy, that the awkward wording of the Iron Hands buffs might open some opportunities.
On the same page a word of caution:
Even if it is clearly meant as invulnerability save, the Stratagem "Reject the Flesh, Embrace the Machine" at no point speaks of being an invulnerability save, nor does it write anything about "improving the IH invulnerability save to 5+" only speaking about a bonus for warlords that also have "All Flesh is Wakness". Instead it again writes RAW a new, separate ability suppressing wounds. This might seem trivial, but RAW this means that abilities and weapons that ignore Invulnerability saves do NOT ignore the effect of "Reject the Flesh"
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well.
Not a SINGLE event of the many that were won by Iron Hands over the weekend, were won by a list with a Leviathan in.
24 Adeptus Astartes lists placed highly over the weekend. That's 72 possible slots for Leviathans. Out of those 72 slots, ONE list took ONE single dread - and placed at the very bottom of recorded lists for it's event.
So no, it wasn't just BFS and no the theorycraft did not measure up. Repulsors were played, yes, but also in less than half the lists so they didn't match the hype, but if we are going to base our opinion on the results then the theoryhammer was definitely wrong about Leviathans.
Stop propagating misinformation. This stuff is so easy to look up before you speak.
The first place list in the Michigan GT this weekend had a Leviathan in it? I'll admit they didn't make anywhere near as many appearances as Repulsors and they certainly weren't universal, but they were present.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Because IH are even more broken than we thought they would be.
Everyone lost their mind on the Iron Father and the Ironstone, but the super-doctrine (reroll 1s and move+shoot heavy with no penalty) is what makes them broken. Take that away and then IH would become the static gunline the internet thought they'd be.
And they would still be broken even then.
It's pretty self explanatory I guess - try not to die while holding objectives, somehow mitigate morale when snipers don't even need 
