Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I saw the author of this thread and instantly knew what it was going to be.

That's about 50+% of Dakka to me at the moment--bittervets beating the same drum they've been beating for years with no signs of fatigue. Right now, if I had access to everyone's accounts, I could perfectly reproduce a lot of these threads, such that nobody would be able to tell it was me posting.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Who else thinks that in 12 months time when several new codexes are released marines will just be another mild mid tier footnote at the local tourney scene?

Enjoy the power creep now is all I can say, because it never lasts for marines

In a way we are back at 7th.

Member folks, new Gw is the old gw +marketing team it seems.

SeanDrake wrote:
So far the common theme of battle reports I have seen fall mostly into the category that most games IH won were ITC house rule games, most games IH lost were 40k games.

So basicly if you play the minatures equivalent of fortnight then IH are likely at an advantage if you play the actual game properly then IH are not much of a challange.

So as normal the issue is less the codex and more the house rules that people use. I don't believe anything should be changed just yet and I also don't think GW should be "balancing" there game based on a 3rd parties implementation of it. GW lack the competence to do balance when they wrote the rules never mind someone else.

This is so absurdly incorrect it borders on comedy.

Isn't ITC los blocknig terrain actually detrimental to IH?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Isn't ITC los blocknig terrain actually detrimental to IH?

Yes...LOS blocking is really bad when you outgun your opponents and also outlast them from shooting.

What they are claiming with this anti ITC nonsense is that the Ironhands player can win just by destroying your army. So basically...like any other game of 40k. Honestly guys...how hard is it to sit a few intercessor squads on objectives with 36" range guns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Did GW really just give Imperial fists +1 damage to all heavy weapons while in dev doctrine? LOL. Like...seriously? Is anyone going to play this game anymore?

This is the beginning of 8th Edition Wave 2 - in which they give seriously good rewards for playing pure faction and subfaction armies. Which to be fair a lot of players were asking for. They are not nerfing soup armies, they are rewarding pure armies and the purer they are the bigger the reward.

Now maybe as a Crimson Fists player I am not unbiased but this is limited to working against vehicles and buildings. I see vehicles across the table from me in about half my games and buildings almost never, so it is really powerful about half the time.

While other factions wait for their purity rewards those factions upgraded to Wave 2 are going to have an advantage, this is going to be especially the case for factions that do not soup well. It is a shift in game design that needs to be worked through the whole game over time, we are only in about the 2nd month of this so there is a long way to go. I know there is a lot of salt from Eldar players about their new stuff but honestly when they work through what the new Exarch abilities do they will see a significant uptick in their capability on the table. I expect similar stop-gaps for other factions as they roll out the new Psychic Awakening stuff and then a much slower roll out of codex upgrades.

They aren't as bad as Ironhands IMO but I haven't seen relics or strats yet. +1 damage against vehicles just means you load up on heavy bolters and high ROF weapons and basically have a TAC list that specializes against everything. It's basically a guilliman buffed list without paying 400 points for guilliman. +1 damage against vehicles is basically the same as reroll wounds with much higher potential damage. Vs infantry you are usually wounding on 3's so reroll 1's from a lt is more than enough. Very little thinking going on with this rules team. I seem to be doing a lot more thinking than these guys.

Not Online!!! wrote:


My csm on the otherhand just get outdone by numarines.
And that even though we are supposedly a v2.0 dex allready.

Makes you wonder.

I am actually pretty disgusted by the treatment of CSM 2.0, we're left in the dirt with a very poor effort book, then the other main Marine army comes out bells whistles and each bell and whistle was given a stubber or whatever the hell Cawl has a raging hard on for on Primaris vehicles.

I love the look of my CSM, especially with a sleek new unit kit but now they're 13 ppm vs loyalist 12ppm tactical, weaker traits and no super doctrine equiv to speak of. I don't want to need to soup my Chaos Daemons and CSM to compete on even a semi casual level. Most likely what will happen is a new PA book will reprint the traits from Vigilus burns and that's it, I want to be hopeful but I have pretty much given up Chaos Space Marines being a decent pure army.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


My csm on the otherhand just get outdone by numarines.
And that even though we are supposedly a v2.0 dex allready.

Makes you wonder.

I am actually pretty disgusted by the treatment of CSM 2.0, we're left in the dirt with a very poor effort book, then the other main Marine army comes out bells whistles and each bell and whistle was given a stubber or whatever the hell Cawl has a raging hard on for on Primaris vehicles.

I love the look of my CSM, especially with a sleek new unit kit but now they're 13 ppm vs loyalist 12ppm tactical, weaker traits and no super doctrine equiv to speak of. I don't want to need to soup my Chaos Daemons and CSM to compete on even a semi casual level. Most likely what will happen is a new PA book will reprint the traits from Vigilus burns and that's it, I want to be hopeful but I have pretty much given up Chaos Space Marines being a decent pure army.

I started using against nu marines my R&H more.
Normally i nowadays field a battalion with 155 models for 740 pts to just suffocate them in bodies.

I did also try out as stated in the CSM tactica chimera warpflux busses, which generate 2d6 mortals against vehicles, but alas that ain't working.( to no ones surprise really)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes...LOS blocking is really bad when you outgun your opponents and also outlast them from shooting.

What they are claiming with this anti ITC nonsense is that the Ironhands player can win just by destroying your army. So basically...like any other game of 40k. Honestly guys...how hard is it to sit a few intercessor squads on objectives with 36" range guns?

ITC has issues, especially on the focus of killing, but i suppose that the terrain does mitigate shooting quite a bit.
So that is one point i think that should be regarded.

kingheff wrote:


True, che got a buff but that's the only real meta unit that did and chapter masters make the alaitoc flyer lists less viable in return. But little else will see much play in competitive. As others have pointed out, che will almost certainly receive a points increase in chapter approved.
I don't play competitive games so I'm happy with the buffs aspects received, I use them already so I'm glad they're better even if few will be competitive despite the buffs.

The new psychic powers really help warlocks and spiritseers (and the Bonesinger, strangely). One or two nice things there for low warp charge.

Some of the borderline aspects got better. My son still really rates swooping hawks for their anti-horde capability and they got better ways that you could tailor them to some useful roles in a list. Similarly I think there are ways to make Dire Avengers a fair bit more effective on the table if that is what you are after. Quite a lot of the default exarch powers are really meh so having a choice of new and better ones always helps, maybe not enough to make many of them really competitive but at least to give them an interesting niche role in a list.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
So far the common theme of battle reports I have seen fall mostly into the category that most games IH won were ITC house rule games, most games IH lost were 40k games.

So basicly if you play the minatures equivalent of fortnight then IH are likely at an advantage if you play the actual game properly then IH are not much of a challange.

So as normal the issue is less the codex and more the house rules that people use. I don't believe anything should be changed just yet and I also don't think GW should be "balancing" there game based on a 3rd parties implementation of it. GW lack the competence to do balance when they wrote the rules never mind someone else.

This is so absurdly incorrect it borders on comedy.

I wouldn't be so sure. The house rules crowd* tends to get all up in arms over rules written by GW but forgets that their special snowflake missions aren't what GW writes for. It's ludicrous to expect to be catered to that way.

*ITC tournament babies

 Elemental wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I saw the author of this thread and instantly knew what it was going to be.

That's about 50+% of Dakka to me at the moment--bittervets beating the same drum they've been beating for years with no signs of fatigue. Right now, if I had access to everyone's accounts, I could perfectly reproduce a lot of these threads, such that nobody would be able to tell it was me posting.

You could never understand the finesse that goes into each and every comment presented by these beautiful people on every side of the argument. It's a skillful dance that leads to overall positive effects for everyone. Sure, the ideas and words in your posts would be similar but the true message and signature would be missing. It just wouldn't be the same.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
So far the common theme of battle reports I have seen fall mostly into the category that most games IH won were ITC house rule games, most games IH lost were 40k games.

So basicly if you play the minatures equivalent of fortnight then IH are likely at an advantage if you play the actual game properly then IH are not much of a challange.

So as normal the issue is less the codex and more the house rules that people use. I don't believe anything should be changed just yet and I also don't think GW should be "balancing" there game based on a 3rd parties implementation of it. GW lack the competence to do balance when they wrote the rules never mind someone else.

This is so absurdly incorrect it borders on comedy.

I wouldn't be so sure. The house rules crowd* tends to get all up in arms over rules written by GW but forgets that their special snowflake missions aren't what GW writes for. It's ludicrous to expect to be catered to that way.

*ITC tournament babies

And people wonder why politics got closed.

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!)

That looks like it should raise some flags.
Hopefully gw stops twiddling it's thumbs and does take a look.

GSC player's name is Joe Maylam, not Jay Maylam. Just a minor point but Australian players already don't get enough credit as is, so I just want to correct that.

 grouchoben wrote:
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!)

I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.

Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.

I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.

Lemondish wrote:

I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.

Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.

I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.

All of this. Its a major meta shift no question, in no small part because the Papa-stone castle does a number on previously meta defining armaments (high-ROF, mid-damage), and people trying to brute force that were sat down hard. A single datapoint is informative, but not remotely conclusive. Time will tell. It always does.

Sterling191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.

Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.

I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.

All of this. Its a major meta shift no question, in no small part because the Papa-stone castle does a number on previously meta defining armaments (high-ROF, mid-damage), and people trying to brute force that were sat down hard. A single datapoint is informative, but not remotely conclusive. Time will tell. It always does.

The funny part about the castle is that it's the gatekeeping list, not the winning list we'll see more of.

The mobility is key. Iron Hands never have to make the classic 8th edition marine vehicle trade off of mobility or accuracy. They get both for the same cost as everyone else. Those vehicles are already too expensive for most marine forces, but add in essentially +1 to hit and a free captain aura effect and they're criminally undercosted. A true tragedy because I wanted the Interceptors to be viable for everyone because they're cool.

Honestly, that movement penalty rule should have been a universal marine vehicle rule so that we could all pay the right price for vehicles.

On top of that, they gain a whole bunch of ways to keep them alive through an alpha strike.

I'm not scared of castles. I'm scared of ultra durable fliers and speedy units being pretty much guaranteed to hit hard in the first turn because you can't kill them, bracket them, or chew through the bullet shields to hit the characters hard enough.

Personally, I'm totally down for playing the yellow with a giant fist and sweeping my games.

"You been fisted!"

Lemondish wrote:

The funny part about the castle is that it's the gatekeeping list, not the winning list we'll see more of.

I dont disagree, but its a trap a lot of people chasing the meta are going to fall into.

Lemondish wrote:

I'm not scared of castles. I'm scared of ultra durable fliers and speedy units being pretty much guaranteed to hit hard in the first turn because you can't kill them, bracket them, or chew through the bullet shields to hit the characters hard enough.

They're not particularly durable though, even in the optimal Stealthy successor configuration.

Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands

Haha how wonderfully tedious

It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).

I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.

 lolman1c wrote:

Spoiler:

Lemondish wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
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!)

I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.

Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.

I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.

It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).

I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.

And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.

If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!

I know it's not really on topic but am I the only one annoyed that there are four things to preview this week and they've started with the two that nobody cares about?

(Also, shame on me. I'm one of the people who complained about previewing UM before WS and IH before RG because leading with the good stuff isn't good for the hype train and here I am [expletive]ing because GW listened.)

'Hyperbole' is a bit misleading. As is your claim that this is a regular occurrence.

Panda et all are a nice bunch who are well versed in the comp side of the game - I'm just a spectator who likes to dabble tbh! I'm taking my lead from their analyses.

And I don't think it's true to claim that any other faction has completely and utterly dominated every single GT within 3 weeks of release. This is just the beginning, unless some serious changes are made.

These are just the early lists. Just wait until the optimized lists
come out in a month or so. And if early builds can dominate tournaments like this imagine what they'll be like in casual pick up games. Doesn't sound like my personal definition of fun.

Either builds get better and dominate more or the meta reacts to counter and they drop off.
But the question is in what way can the meta counter? Armies are already well equipped to kill MEQ, Knights and flyers, so can lists reasonably get more anti marine/tank/flyer?

 Ordana wrote:
Either builds get better and dominate more or the meta reacts to counter and they drop off.
But the question is in what way can the meta counter? Armies are already well equipped to kill MEQ, Knights and flyers, so can lists reasonably get more anti marine/tank/flyer?

Maybe.

You know what works better than the current on-meta guns if you need to drive damage past a fixed penalty? Big single-shot high-damage guns, optionally with minimum damage numbers on them like Neutron Lasers and Heavy Laser Destroyers. You know, the kind that GW seems to think an anti-tank gun ought to look like?

I'm not beginning to try to claim that IH aren't overpowered and/or a real problem, but give the meta a chance to catch up. People switch to anti-IH layouts and then other things that the anti-IH layouts don't work so well against startt creeping back in.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

Spoiler:

Lemondish wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
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!)

I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.

Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.

I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.

It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).

I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.

And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.

If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!

Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.

The Newman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Either builds get better and dominate more or the meta reacts to counter and they drop off.
But the question is in what way can the meta counter? Armies are already well equipped to kill MEQ, Knights and flyers, so can lists reasonably get more anti marine/tank/flyer?

Maybe.

You know what works better than the current on-meta guns if you need to drive damage past a fixed penalty? Big single-shot high-damage guns, optionally with minimum damage numbers on them like Neutron Lasers and Heavy Laser Destroyers. You know, the kind that GW seems to think an anti-tank gun ought to look like?

I'm not beginning to try to claim that IH aren't overpowered and/or a real problem, but give the meta a chance to catch up. People switch to anti-IH layouts and then other things that the anti-IH layouts don't work so well against startt creeping back in.

Single shot d6 damage weapons aren't being used because there were not good targets for them, but because they are simply to unreliable for the often premium cost you pay.

A lascannon does less against a standard tank profile (t7 3+sv) then a twin ironhail autocannon (to pick a 2D weapon from the marine codex) with or without the Ironstone relic. While being cheaper.
Accelerator autocannon, same deal. Half the damage, less then half the price.
And minimum damage like the Neutron laser is rare enough that its not really worth accounting for when looking at the bigger Meta picture.

Yeah, invluns and a compressed S v T range have killed the viability of entire swaths of weapons. The ironstone just kills the last "effective" multi-target tank guns.

Now you choose whether you want to be able to kill a -1 damage 5++ tank or a -1 to hit 4++ magnus/morty or eldar flyers or drone/3++ riptide.

The iron stone is pulling out the crutch that a lot of players have been using (the reasonably good against everything gun). High ROF, medium AP (-1 to -2) and consistent damage (2-3). It is a lot harder for the dice to fail you if you are rolling 12 shots that do 2 damage each vs 4 that can potentially do d6 (too may fail points and with invluns that gets even worse).

I think IF will be the sauce to combat IH but depending on one faction to reduce the proliferation of one OP faction seems about the worst game design since the old lady who swallowed the fly...