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.

Well, here's something I've been working on for the last few days. It's a re-write of some stuff I did almost 3 years ago at the end of 4E. You will find the following paragraph on the first page of the document but I want to post it here just to be sure people read it.

Primarily this is simply intended for discussion, controversy, and to provoke critical thinking from players about the game, I don't expect that this will actually be used by almost anyone, but if you want to give the army list an actual try and post feedback, please do by all means! I've tried to limit the potential for abusiveness, but one person writing a fandex cannot (or will not) see all things at all times, so if you see something or try something out on a table that's just far too silly, please say so, but keep an open mind and read through the entire thing and work out the costs on anything you see as rather powerful and compare it so similar equivalents. I also realize that the game isn't exactly in need of more Spehse Mahreen army lists, I've been a rather vocal proponent of this myself. Again, this is primarily for discussion and building excitement for the game, for people to see what they like and don't like, for what we all hope to see when C:CSM is redone again, and maybe someone of some importance will eventually hear something generated by said discussion and find that they like it.

After a couple revisions I'd like to get it into a PDF and throw in some pictures and fluff and edit it like an actual codex. I remember there being a PDF template somewhere for codex background but I don't remember where.

Note that the first few pages are my initial, incomplete, and mostly unedited thoughts jotted down as I wrote this list, so that should help inform people as to my train of thought and the process that went into this, and why I did what I did.

Note: Office 2007 file, for Office 2003 file go to http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5249807#post5249807

EDIT: Please note any typo's or what appear to be obvious errors. I just realized I copy/pasted a section wrong and the Rhino's armor should be 11/11/10, not 14/13/11. Will be fixed in next draft.

Oh boy there is a lot of stuff. A couple of general thoughts after a cursory reading of the text:

1) I think it has too many and too complex special rules (Expendables & Honsou etc.). Some of them are not in their right places (I think Siege Armour was used once, so there’s no need for general special rule).
2) All entries in the Codex seem to get free upgrades – Daemon Prince, Terminators etc. get “Iron Within, Iron Without” and “Siege Specialists” for no points cost (if the current Codex:CSM is taken as a baseline) or cost less.
3) Rules like “Siege Specialists”, “Tank Dugouts”, “Combat Engineers” and the Bunker upgrade etc. could work better in special scenarios rather than in regular WH40k games. If Iron Warriors always have time to dig bunkers etc., the other side should have time to prepare for an assault: e.g. get several free Orbital Bombardments against them on beginning of turn 1 or something. Based on your Codex sketch it seems a bit that all battles with IW are fought on IW terms – why does the other side not get a chance to attack elsewhere or go around fortified position (like, a chance of 50 % auto-loss for IW)?
4) I don't like the character FOC stuff (especially Cyborgs as troops).

…And a couple of specific observations:

- “Adamantium Wall” on Torvalon seems a bit unfair/abusable as worded. Oh your 30 Shoota Boyz/Firewarriors/Double-tapping Tacticals try to fire my CSM footsloggers… look AV 13!
- Logistical Mastery (Warsmith) is not good from game balance perspective, especially with these rules. “You deployed your AT there, but sorry now my bunker is here”!
- Iron Reaper is possibly too good for the points. I understand the desire to give characters good shooting weapons, but I’m not sure if it is a good thing.
- Bunkers are too good – by your rules Havocs etc. can fire all their heavy weapons through the six fire points and have AV 14 in addition to their power armor protecting them for mere 50 points. Also, it’s a no-brainer to put heavy weapons of a by-your-rule-split CSM squad in the bunker and the other half into Landraider with Servo-arm Champ/reserve etc.
- Are IW renowned as psykers (e.g. Warsmith getting 3 powers…)?
- Cyborgs are undercosted/OP. I’d suggest something like 40 points (they have slightly worse basic save than terminators, but have more attacks on average, rending, combi-weapons etc.).
- Squad of six Iron Warriors costs 100 points. Six CSM with Champion cost 105 in current codex and they don’t have special rules, option to “combat squad”, take third special…
- Slaves are rather cheap and I don't think the non-scoring part balances the no kill point part: they’re so cheap you can basically meatshield everything. Also, I find it unreasonable (fluffwise) that IW would go around the galaxy with massive logistics required to support enormous amount of slaves that would probably be put to better use in home world(s) factories rather than deliberately wasting them on the battlefield (as by your rules). I’d use them in a similar manner as I suggested for Siege rules & Bunkers – special scenarios only.
- Infiltrators are too cheap & versatile.
- Obliterators are defined as a cult like Raptors, so why the former get IW special rules but the latter don’t?
- Hammerfist has Power of the Machine Spirit, but there is no entry for POTMS in the Codex. Loyalist stench is strong here and extra capacity + Hammerfist launchers are too good IMO.

Overall I appreciate the effort but I'd suggest you to do some streamlining (to make commenting easier, at least). I think some of your fortification rules might be interesting - but they should also cost something, even if they're conditional. I hope you don't find this harsh. Also, I had just a little time to look through your text and there are probably more positive/negative things I didn't see.

Best,

H

Try not to compare it too much with C:CSM and more with C:SM/C:SW/C:BA, where they all get such stuff and don't really pay for it on unit for unit basis.

With the Psyker Upgrade, since there's no dedicated Sorceror entry, I was basically trying to make the Warsmith equivalent to an Epistolary, but I for some reason mis-remembered that it got to choose three powers, I'll change it to two and up the cost.

Do you feel the Iron Reaper is undercosted in all 3 entries or just one or another? Keep in mind there will only be one in an army, either on a DP or Warsmith.

With regards to the basic Iron Warriors Troops, keep in mind they should be compared with newer army books, not directly with C:CSM. That said, to take their "combat squad" option and 3rd weapon, they need to be 12 strong, 205pts before any upgrades and then can't all ride in a Rhino if they don't want to split.

The Cyborgs are an entry in progress, they've been changed many times and are meant to be the IW's equivalent of Possessed. There were a lot of characters that resembled something like these in the Honsou books, so I figured I'd throw something like them in. They already been changed in my next draft to just have 2A each, although I'm also thinking about completely redesigning the unit from scratch. That said, I think the Termi's are still better personally as they come with a powerweapon and a better armor save

I'm thinking I'll drop Logistical Mastery altogether, I was sorta on the fence about it to begin with.

With Torvalon, he can do that once per turn, and basically it means one should try and kill him first before targeting anything near him, though I think its potential applications for shielding Deep Striking units may be a bit much, I think I'll edit it to have a caveat about that.

With regards to the Bunkers, keep in mind that yes, while a havoc squad can make amazing use of them, to get the full benefit of a twelve man squad with a bunker its going to cost alot, 230pts before weapons, 320 with 6 missile launchers. Although that said, it may be a bit too abuseable for minimum sized squads, I'll see about changing them.

Keep in mind that "Iron Within, Iron Without", "Siege Specialists" and "Storm of Iron" and the like is this books equivalent of "ATSKNF, Acute Senses, and Counterattack" for SW's or "ATSKNF, Descent of Angels, Red Thirst" for DE. IWIW only works if within 3" or assaulting an enemy unit within 3" of an objective, and has no effect in a KP game, Siege Specialists (for most games) lets them upgrade a couple pieces of cover at the beginning of the game. Storm of Iron is the really good one, based around effective/timely use of Deep Striking units.


The Slave Horde I actually got the idea from the Storm of Iron and Dead Sky Black Sun books where they do either import them en-masse to the battlefield (they are used to build fortification then driven onto the IG's guns or simply expended in huge numbers to build trenches under fire) , although yes they look a bit cheap looking at them again. I think I'll up the base unit cost to 80pts.

Infiltrators should be fairly similar to basic CSM chosen except being able to take an extra shooting special weapon and almost no CC upgrades, being in FA instead of Elite. I think I'll just change it back to 4 weapons.

With regards to the LR: Hammerfist, basicallly CSM LR's need the loyalist PotMS upgrades. There's a reason the loyalist ones have those. You very rarely see CSM land raiders in comparison because quite frankly, they aren't great. Any suggestions on how to change it to be more Chaos-y but still sorta fit?

Havoc Autocannons should be 15pts, not 10.

Trying to do some streamlining with every pass. I removed about a third of what I originally had in there. It's a *very* initial draft.

Hello,

I reckon you’re right about the costs of C:CSM when compared to C:SM etc. to a certain extent. I do feel, however, that most costs in C:CSM only require slight fine-tuning (whatever issues there are, they're elsewhere IMO).

The main problems with your special rules I see are that a) “Iron Within, Iron Without” gives a huge boost only in objective missions – this is hard to balance in tournaments, for example and b) “Siege Specialists” is rather dependent on available terrain (big forest/rock area vs. small barn) and also makes “shoot from the back of the board” –style armies a no-brainer choice. When combined with choices like Slaves... “Storm of Iron” might be too good when combined with small squads of Termies/Oblits, but dunno.

I understand you’d like something extra for IW, but I think you’ve added a lot of improvements in almost all areas in your Codex – unit costs, weapons, special rules etc. I do like the idea about giving them something special, though. Could one of these rule be enough – I suggest “Siege Specialists” as it’s perhaps not that huge after all?

The issue with “Iron Reaper” as I see it is that it’s too versatile. To illustrate: would you equip a Warsmith with any other weapons instead of it and a Servo-arm?

With regards to the basic Iron Warriors Troops, keep in mind they should be compared with newer army books, not directly with C:CSM. That said, to take their "combat squad" option and 3rd weapon, they need to be 12 strong, 205pts before any upgrades and then can't all ride in a Rhino if they don't want to split.

While there are restrictions, you’ve also given benefits you ignored here: 12-man squad can take 3rd special/heavy. This is a huge benefit. It might also make Havocs redundant and thus perhaps illustrates the point I made about the Bunkers (e.g. splitting special stuff and putting it into bunker).

I am not going argue about the Slave horde fluff in GW fiction as I don’t read GW fiction. I just find it a bit iffy that siege specialists waste resources, no matter how specialized they’re in logistics. If one starts to really think about it, the idea of teleporting terminators kind of makes the whole idea of siege warfare a bit redundant… as do space ships, but this is WH40k after all

As an alternative to PotMS I would suggest a) price reduction, b) making specialized LR’s one-dimensional instead of multipurpose vehicles (either emphasizing the APC role or the fire support role). The reason Chaos Land Raider is not so good is IMO more linked to the Codex options as a whole than the lack of PotMS – C:CSM does not have a no-brainer killer CC unit to be delivered (Kharn and Berzerkers perhaps come close) and long-range combat options where LR could act as fire support are limited. Your Codex now has Bunkers (can be placed to obscure the LR) and Slaves (to protect it from deepstriking melta etc.), which makes the firebase option very viable IMO.

So, I think this is basically your work and you do whatever you like. My main issue is the one mentioned earlier, namely the fact that you’ve basically improved everything. There are a lot of ideas, I compliment that. Cybernetics might be good when reworked and I’d also suggest you’d think about the possibility of devising something special “chaosy”, like daemon engines (Fast or Heavy), to make this more distinctively “Chaos”.

Best,

H

Updated list in first post.

Pahvivalmiste wrote:Hello

Hi! thanks for the feedback in advance!

The main problems with your special rules I see are that a) “Iron Within, Iron Without” gives a huge boost only in objective missions – this is hard to balance in tournaments, for example

Only when within actual scoring distance however and an assault is involved, and then it really only makes them roughly equivalent to Grey Hunters (who get Counterattack all the time and have the "better than Fearless" ATSKNF), and the IW's are still more expensive and have to pay for weapon upgrades and the like.

and b) “Siege Specialists” is rather dependent on available terrain (big forest/rock area vs. small barn)

True, but then not every special rule need be applicable in every situation. The Iron Warriors don't always fight their chosen fights.

and also makes “shoot from the back of the board” –style armies a no-brainer choice.

Not entirely, but moreso when compared with a typical MEQ army, but considering the IW's style of combat I feel it is appropriate. If any CSM army is going to play as a gunline, it is the Iron Warriors. I know many people *hate* this style of play, but many people also like it. I don't want to make this a MEQ version of IG, but I also don't want it to be another "all rhino rush, all the time" MEQ army if that makes sense?

When combined with choices like Slaves...

I'm adjusting them in the updated version. They are more expensive, their "meatshield" ability applies only to Infantry and not any IW unit, and lost their fast running ability.

“Storm of Iron” might be too good when combined with small squads of Termies/Oblits, but dunno.

Perhaps, but I have a feeling not in this case, as the termi's don't have widespread access to "always on" 3++ invuls (they can pay 10pts for a 3++ in CC/5++ for shooting wargear item, but if they want that and a powerfist they end up being 50pts and don't have a shooting weapon) and it's probably not a whole lot different than Loganwing or Deathwing Assault. I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling about it. If one's also taking lots of the termi's/oblits, they aren't taking huge numbers of the big guns, bunkers, tanks or other such units also, and there's no Lash like ability to abuse in there thank god.

I understand you’d like something extra for IW, but I think you’ve added a lot of improvements in almost all areas in your Codex – unit costs, weapons, special rules etc. I do like the idea about giving them something special, though. Could one of these rule be enough – I suggest “Siege Specialists” as it’s perhaps not that huge after all?

Most of the new books have 2-4 army wide special rules (e.g. Mob Rule, WAAAGH, Furious Charge for orks), in addition to new weapons, reduced costs, etc. and most especially the 5E books. SW's for example got humongously cheap, and have army wide Counterattack, Acute Senses, and ATSKNF on almost every unit, while BA's got "Red Thirst, ATSKNF, Descent of Angels" and both got a bunch of special new rules and wargear. These IW's didn't get much cheaper, if at all (reference newest draft here) for the most part, and have "IWIW, SS, and SOI" for army wide special rules, though they generally got more options and some more esoteric, if not always directly combat related, wargear.

I'm basically hoping that this list will be compared with BA and SW's primarily, because those are the two armies I'm looking at for comparison. The pre-2008 books didn't really have the army-wide special rules the way they do now.

The issue with “Iron Reaper” as I see it is that it’s too versatile. To illustrate: would you equip a Warsmith with any other weapons instead of it and a Servo-arm?

Here's my thought process on that weapon. It's meant to be a showpiece, 1 per army weapon to help encourage the view of the army as competent in CC, but thriving on durability and shooting. So in a sense it is sort of mean to be an almost default option, but it's also not so cheap as to *always* be included all the time. As to why one would take different weapons? If one wanted a combi-melta to help combat enemy armor (as a BS5 melta weapon is usually pretty sweet), then an Iron Reaper would be out. Granted a combi-plas or flamer is probably a less optimal choice but its also cheaper. The Servo arm only grants a single I1 S8 powerweapon attack, if you don't take another CC weapon, then the Warsmith's other attacks are no better than that of a basic grunt aside from Init and WS.

Servo Arm, Iron Reaper, and Dual Lightning Claws with Favor of Khorne would probably be the killer non-termi loadout methinks.

While there are restrictions, you’ve also given benefits you ignored here: 12-man squad can take 3rd special/heavy. This is a huge benefit. It might also make Havocs redundant and thus perhaps illustrates the point I made about the Bunkers (e.g. splitting special stuff and putting it into bunker).

It is a big benefit, but it also means that you likely will have easier to kill individual troops squads and they'll cost a lot. For normal 10man squads with current typical equipment, Troop IW's should cost exactly what they do now in the current CSM army. I've also adjusted the cost of the Havocs and their options downward a bit more towards BA/SW level, and made the bunker 50% more expensive now (75pts as opposed to 50pts) making them a bit more attractive in comparison to trying to spam basic Troops units as "lite" Havoc squads.

I am not going argue about the Slave horde fluff in GW fiction as I don’t read GW fiction. I just find it a bit iffy that siege specialists waste resources, no matter how specialized they’re in logistics. If one starts to really think about it, the idea of teleporting terminators kind of makes the whole idea of siege warfare a bit redundant… as do space ships, but this is WH40k after all

40k fluff never makes sense I'm just trying to tie all the interesting elements of the Iron Warriors from their most well known portrayals and stuff it in a Fandex.

As an alternative to PotMS I would suggest a) price reduction, b) making specialized LR’s one-dimensional instead of multipurpose vehicles (either emphasizing the APC role or the fire support role). The reason Chaos Land Raider is not so good is IMO more linked to the Codex options as a whole than the lack of PotMS – C:CSM does not have a no-brainer killer CC unit to be delivered (Kharn and Berzerkers perhaps come close) and long-range combat options where LR could act as fire support are limited. Your Codex now has Bunkers (can be placed to obscure the LR) and Slaves (to protect it from deepstriking melta etc.), which makes the firebase option very viable IMO.

The slaves have just been changed so they can't take fire for the bunkers, which was silly Thanks for pointing that out BTW, I had been thinking in my head that it only applied to infantry, but I realized I had put "Units". I think you have a good point about CSM's not having a killer CC unit, but at the same time CSM land raiders just aren't very useful as gun platforms either. They have multiple guns covering different arcs that are effective against different targets lose 2/3rds of the firepower when they move. Loyalist Land Raiders get PotMS to basically get rid of this issue (so they can put their weapons to use against the most effective targets and against multiple targets and maintain mobility), but CSM Land Raiders don't really have that option available. I didn't want to just yoink PotMS, but I also haven't thought of a decent alternative.

As a sort of test thing and largely a Placeholder, I came up with a 5+ invulnerable save option ("Impossible Materials") for the normal land raider, predator and vindicator, and replacing PotMS on the LR Hammerfist, not sure if I like it in that manner, or if it should be there at all.

I changed the variant LR into a dedicated gun tank, but it'll probably change again, I don't think I like it much.

So, I think this is basically your work and you do whatever you like. My main issue is the one mentioned earlier, namely the fact that you’ve basically improved everything.

I don't think I did everything, many things are identical, although I do think many things needed improving, both since the day the book came out and in the aftermath of the 5E SM books, particularly Space Wolves (who basically function like a CSM Undivided army, but 10-20% cheaper and with Counterattack and ATSKNF)

There are a lot of ideas, I compliment that. Cybernetics might be good when reworked

I just ended up toning down their abilities and incorporating everything else into their rules and wargear, everything I tried felt like it could be just better done that way. Take a look at the entry now and lemme know what you think.

and I’d also suggest you’d think about the possibility of devising something special “chaosy”, like daemon engines (Fast or Heavy), to make this more distinctively “Chaos”.

I've been trying to think of a Chaos-y Daemon engine that isn't just a wannabe defiler or dread, or that would be better placed in Apocalypse. FW released some, but most are basically dread knock-offs, except the Blight Drones which I just don't feel have a place amongst the IW being fast flittery things.

Hail fellow Iron Warrior, we are Legion, truly! While I am all for a codex specifically for the chaos legions, and an Iron Warriors one especially, I think that yours is a little over the top, bordering on ridiculous. There are many great units in the chaos codex (and some not so great ones too), the biggest problem is the FOC. With just some minor adjustments to the regular chaos FOC, it would be very easy to make a chaos army that any Warsmith would be proud to call his own. In fact, using apocalypse or even planetstrike it is very easy. Apocalypse would go like this: as much heavy support from codex IG as you can buy plus as much heavy support from codex:CSM as you can buy plus as many penal legion/conscripts as you can buy.

But my suggestion would be this:

HQ
0-1 daemon Prince
0-1 chaos lord (war smith)
0-1 chaos corcerer

ELITES
Chosen
Terminators
Khorne Bezerkers
Obliterators
Dreadnought SQUADRON (why not take 1-3)

TROOPS
Chaos space Marines
Chaos Havocs

FAST ATTACK
What would we want any of that for?

HEAVY SUPPORT
Allow up to 4 choices
Obliterator cult (yes, again!)
Chaos predator SQUADRON (yes, each choice would give you 1-3 preds)
0-1 vindicator SQUADRON, reduce pts to 100 each1-3 in squadron
Chaos Defiler
Chaos Land Raider
0-1 Basilisk Squadron (same pts/stats from codex:IG)

SUMMONED DAEMONS
0-1 Greater Daemon

What more do you want? What more do you need?

Iron Warriors aren’t about tricks or special rules. We’re about a cunning battle plan and having plenty of ammo for our big guns. While the emphasis is on artillery and shooting, there’s still plenty to enter the breach and smack the enemy in the face.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
for your daemon enging, how about a dreadnought with 4 heavy weapons!?! look at the back row