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.

I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?

sturgeondtd wrote:
@SB I guess I am still a little confused in your stance. I am a semi new player, and have played a dozen games or less. My reason for wanting to switch is purely to be able to field a large number of marines without resorting to demons or marks. IW refuse to worship the pantheon of Chaos, and have been known to use loyalist gear/geneseed as well as having their own forge world's and a good chunk of dark mechanicists from the HH setting. In my Grand Battalion fluff, my army relies heavily on plasma weapons, and attrition to win battles. I had never considered using SM codex until it was suggested by my opponent in my last game, as apparently several chapter tactics fit this theme. I had no idea these rules existed until recently, so is it wrong for me to want to try to be more fluffy by using a more fitting codex?

What exactly would make chapter tactics more fluffy for your iron warriors? No chapter tactic gives bonuses to plasma or attrition.

And iron warriors can still fall to chaos. In the Honsou books doesn't kreuger have khorne berzerkers in everything but name as a vanguard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sturgeondtd wrote:
I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?

Iron Warriors aren't extra durable, their normal space marines. Iron Hands get it because of their implants and the extra resilience replacing flesh with metal.

Since when are IW known for good bolter training? They are more artillery based.

One of the disadvantages of of the IW is that they only know one tactic. The meat grinder one.

sturgeondtd wrote:
I've been told IH or IF, as IH are durable, which is what the fluff of IW is. IF as they are both siege centric armies. And yes, they are supposed to be more proficient with ranged weapons such as bolters. They also have tactical flexibility as they were the emporers work horse during the heresy (the reason they fell to chaos was due to always being assigned campaigns that would be long, arduous and lacking glory, but needed to be done). So how does this not fit several of the above mentioned chapters?

Ah, you're doing Iron Warriors then. Must have glossed over that part and focused on the plasma and loyalist armour themes, which IW don't embody.

Tactical flexibility is not an IW trait - at least, not as you describe it. If it was described that way, practically every legion would have that. They didn't have that many deployments, but were just assigned to long sieges instead of the rapid strikes other Legions got. They fought in mainly two theatres - breaking sieges, and holding them. That's not really a prerequisite for "tactical flexibility".

IW aren't THAT durable. They're just tenacious. Death Guard are the best analogue to durability, so would benefit far more than IW.

Their proficiency with bolters is not explored in any IW lore AFAIK. However, the additional tank hunter rules the IF get would suit the IW well. I'd choose this if you had to.

Again, the HH rules are your best basis on which Legion had which traits. As such, UM would suit AL well, RG would suit NL well, IH or Sallies would suit DG well, WS would suit EC well, and IF suiting IW.

 Talizvar wrote:

Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut.
I hate the stuff for no good reason.

Convince SB? Two debaters rarely ever convince each other of a different opinion. The purpose of an argument is to educate the audience, and possibly to entertain the debaters.

I'm continuing for the latter purpose, and hoping for the former.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Emphasis on "not my main gripe". Still a gripe.

So let's tackle the "using a better codex" gripe. Temporarily as separate from the models =/= codex argument;

Let's say a new player buys a rhino transport.
He then wants to play the game, so he researches the available codexes, and learns the strengths and weaknesses of each SM codex.
Which codex is the non-waac choice:

BA?
DA?
SW?
C:SM?
GK?

Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.

In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present. Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.

Selym wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

Trying to convince #1ShieldBrother3++ he is "wrong" on not liking the CSM miniatures used with SM codex's is like convincing me to like sauerkraut.
I hate the stuff for no good reason.

Convince SB? Two debaters rarely ever convince each other of a different opinion. The purpose of an argument is to educate the audience, and possibly to entertain the debaters.

I'm continuing for the latter purpose, and hoping for the former.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:
Emphasis on "not my main gripe". Still a gripe.

So let's tackle the "using a better codex" gripe. Temporarily as separate from the models =/= codex argument;

Let's say a new player buys a rhino transport.
He then wants to play the game, so he researches the available codexes, and learns the strengths and weaknesses of each SM codex.
Which codex is the non-waac choice:

BA?
DA?
SW?
C:SM?
GK?

None of them would be WAAC, the rhino kit is designed for all codices and power doesn't always have a say in codex choice. (As many in this thread would agree)

sturgeondtd wrote:Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.

In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.

How is extra proficiency in shooting attrition? That's skill.

The FNP is the only thing that would make sort of sense for the IW because they could take a lot of beatings. Even then, their legion took a lot of heavy losses and they were known for how many of their men died because of the reckless tactics, so it's not like they could do these long sieges because of their individual marines toughness, but more because they had so many bodies.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.

Attrition is NOT durability. If it was, Guardsmen would be the most durable army in the game.
Attrition is just throwing bodies at a problem until it goes away. Neither tactic is hallmark of attrition - hell, the fluff of the SM tactics don't even support that notion.
Now, the Tank Hunters rule granted to IF units and the tank Squadrons would fit and suit IW tactics, but at that point - why not 30k? That's generally my advice to anyone wanting to play a Legion-accurate army - use the 30k rules for them.

In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.

To be honest, that's not because he's a aligned to Khorne, but rather that he IS incapable of command by being so bloodthirsty. An IW commander can still dedicate themselves to a God (a Nurglite or Tzeentchian Warsmith would fit in well), but in Kroeger's case, he was just too mad to do it.

In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed.

Citation needed on the last part. All SM do that as per lore. Hardly unusual.
Mechanical parts are only added to IW to replace Daemonic tainted limbs. Not out of will. Again - where is the rule evidence (30k as a best source) for IW being more durable?

And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present.

In a perfect world, yes. We're not in that situation, evidenced by this thread.

Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.

CSM has a single renegade unit (Cultists) and a few Daemonic units who are just mutated CSM. It's still more focused on portraying Chaos Space Marines than the SM book is.

Now, what you COULD argue is that the CSM book should have more options and fairness in portraying a playable or Legion playstyle. And you'd be right. It SHOULD let you have Legion traits, and fair options, and a competitive codex. But you can't claim that the SM book was designed to support Chaos Space Marine warbands.

"Reckless tactics" sounds like something a loyalist would say

Perturabo was and still is a brilliant tactician that's why he was in charge of laying seige to some of the most inhospitable and dangerous system campaigns that would have demolished lesser legions. Some legions resorted to hit and run tactics as opposed to world wide attacks because they lacked the ability to plan and carry out such wars (having one of the larger legions did help).

Bolter tactics reflect their ideal combat, which is sitting back and shooting to soften up the enemy. More shots=increased ability to weaken defensive position and erode the enemy=attrition

sturgeondtd wrote:
Perturabo was and still is a brilliant tactician that's why he was in charge of laying seige to some of the most inhospitable and dangerous system campaigns that would have demolished lesser legions. Some legions resorted to hit and run tactics as opposed to world wide attacks because they lacked the ability to plan and carry out such wars (having one of the larger legions did help).

He was a brilliant SIEGE tactician. Not in hit and run tactics or alpha strikes. Siege. His skills were limited.

Bolter tactics reflect their ideal combat, which is sitting back and shooting to soften up the enemy. More shots=increased ability to weaken defensive position and erode the enemy=attrition

Except they didn't use bolters to do it.

They used artillery, Quad Mortars, Basilisks, Medusas - not bolters. Bolters, funnily enough, will not help erode a curtain wall.

Not to mention their *ideal combat* was either blasting with artillery, or advancing into close range to deny the enemy of their fortifications to use various tools like power fists, thunder hammers etc etc.

Yes, I worded it wrong. Rather it was a reckless use of troops with no concern of their lives.

The IF tactic doesn't give more shots, it makes them more accurate, you know that right? And bolters don't hurt fortresses, massive artillery batteries do, hence why they were so popular for the IW.

Addendum

Another example for tactical prowess, IF basically challenged the heresy legions by saying the Imperial palace was unbreakable which the IW responded "challenge accepted" or in the book Storm of Iron, the citadel was also considered to be unassailable, however due to tactical ability the IW made quick work of it, with acceptable losses


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clarification: I didn't mean it as in me shots akin to rapid fire, but more shots that can hit their target

sturgeondtd wrote:
Addendum

Another example for tactical prowess, IF basically challenged the heresy legions by saying the Imperial palace was unbreakable which the IW responded "challenge accepted" or in the book Storm of Iron, the citadel was also considered to be unassailable, however due to tactical ability the IW made quick work of it, with acceptable losses

Okay, so it was their SIEGE prowess, represented by the IF siege wrecker rules, not the flexible UM ones.

The IW are not Tactics experts, they are Siege Tactics experts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clarification: I didn't mean it as in me shots akin to rapid fire, but more shots that can hit their target

Still doesn't matter when your bolter is trying to knock down a curtain wall. Siege weaponry is needed - Vindicators, Basilisks and Medusas. All of which can be found in the 30k books.

Sounds like you are making more of a fuss regarding the wording of tactics than necessary, as tactics in general is a vague term to refer to many different sub types.

And yup, I know. The only problem is not many people play 30K in my area. I have toyed with the idea of allies to bring these things and might still try and include them

It doesn't really matter who plays 40k and 30k. 30k might as well just be more codices for 40k. They both use the same core rulebook, and they're ridiculously easy to combine.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Sounds like you are making more of a fuss regarding the wording of tactics than necessary, as tactics in general is a vague term to refer to many different sub types.

Well, if we take Tactics to mean generally like you are, then why hasn't everyone got UM tactics then?
The Imperial Fists have the same tactics as the IW. Give them UM tactics!
The Raven Guard have stealth tactics. Give them UM tactics!
The White Scars have fast moving, hit and run tactics. Give them UM tactics!
The Alpha Legion have exceptional infiltration tactics. Give them UM tactics!
And so on, ad infinitum.

IW have SIEGE tactics, and are best represented by the other SIEGE tactic faction, Imperial Fists.

And yup, I know. The only problem is not many people play 30K in my area. I have toyed with the idea of allies to bring these things and might still try and include them

I'm not sure if you bring 40k and 30k SM as an allied force, but if you just want the artillery as allies, bring an Artillery Company from the AM codex. No need to dabble in 30k then.

If you want a FULLY integrated IW force, 30k is best. You don't need to rely on other people to play it, and hell - you won't have a massive strength over them due to the restrictions of 30k armies.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Attrition would be the FNP granted to IH as well as any SM squad with an apothecary. Same with the bolter rules for IF. As attrition is reducing the strength of someone through sustained attack or pressure, which arguably both of these tactics do. As well as granting me the ability to use mechanical formations unheard of in chaos books.

In the book, the berserker are not revered/respected by the other IW. (Spoiler) You can see this as to when the Warsmith literally says kroeger (the captain berzerker) was/is unfit to rule. Also, after 10k years of hate I am sure some will fall to the influences, however the vast majority do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response the durability, IW readily replace their own limbs/organs with mechanical parts similar to iron hands. Plus they will keep on fighting until they are completely destroyed. And tank hunters definitely suit their fighting style. In a perfect world, they would be granted their own legion tactics from GW that would encompass their fluff similar to the loyalist chapters for now I will have to make due with what is present. Also I would like to know what you think gives the CSM codex more fluff towards this legion as opposed to the SM one, as to me, it seems that C:CSM focuses more on demons and renegades as opposed to marines.

If you *really* want a simply 'as close to 100% fluffy as is currently possible' Iron Warriors list, using 'counts as' Imperial rules, then I would highly suggest the following set-up;
1. Use IF chapter tactics.
Iron Warriors are essentially the traitor 'mirror' of the Fists. The only huge difference, is that where the Fists are bolter specialists, the Iron Warriors have grown much better shock assault units through their Khornate cults.
However, the most important aspect - namely the siege specialists, is why you take the trait, since the IW's were superior to even the much more glorified lapdogs of Dorn. (hence their insane bitterness - as they got nothing more than a bare passing mention, while those they viewed as inferior had every single praise imaginable heaped upon them!)

Iron Hands are entirely inappropriate, as the IW's are not religious in any way. Iron Hands however, view their heavy use of bionics as a religious act, eschewing the weakness of mortal flesh for the perfection of the machine, and in a sense, bringing them closer to their Primarch & the Machine God. Hell, part of the Chapter's most central initiation right involves a Neophyte ritually having his hand removed and replaced with a bionic one, in imitation of their Primarch, who drowned an 'iron dragon' in a river of molten rock!
As an IH's service continues, he ritually and routinely replaces as much of his mortal body as possible with the machine, to the point that the likes of their Iron Fathers, (re: Chaplain/Captain hybrids), are in many cases perhaps only 25% or so of their 'weak mortal flesh' remaining to them!

IW's on the other hand, simply view bionic replacement & augmentation as a useful tool. Mutated limbs are replaced with bionics, simply because the Iron Warriors look down upon those who give into religion as being inferior. (hence why their Khornate cults, while accepted for their critical use as siege breakers, are less respected than the rest of their company brethren).


2. The 'Khornate' aspects can be best represented by allying in a very small number of Blood Angels or Carcharadons. (rules wise, they're the closest thing thanks to rules like Furious Charge/Death Co., etc...)


3. Iron Warriors make heavy, heavy use of both artillery & daemon engines, AND, hordes of cultists.
Hence, make sure you bring some allied IG and their toys! (namely, Basilisks/Medusas/Wyverns, Hydras for AA, and if looking at FW options, the artillery guns) Lots of generic grunts in the form of Infantry Platoons + some Heavy Weapon Squads. Conscripts are a brilliant way to portray the use of slave soldiers - either captured Imperials, or else just the thousands of random unfortunates that the IW's will take as prisoners and use as force labour when constructing their siege lines.

This is where the 'winning through attrition' aspect of the 'modern' Iron Warriors comes into play!!
Iron Warriors themselves, are extremely embittered and 'lazy' in a sense. They will not conduct work themselves that they perceive as being unworthy of their true talents... digging the siege lines, days to weeks long sustained bombardments, probing attacks - these are things that remind them only of how abused they were by the Emperor and his pet lapdog Dorn.
Instead, the IW's will use their massive slave labour & indentured soldiery for such tasks.

When it comes to the actual fighting, the IW's will happily send tens of thousands of these slaves & 'cannon fodder' soldiery to soak up the enemy's resources. Many Warsmiths will even view their daemonic engines in a similar vein, seeing them as shock suicide units & terror weapons!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
- why not 30k? That's generally my advice to anyone wanting to play a Legion-accurate army - use the 30k rules for them.
.

Not good idea if one wants to be sure play 40k games...not everywhere you can mix them. 40k codex meanwhile is always legal in 40k.

IH tactics seem to fit IW just fine. The 6+++ is due to bionics, which IW also use extensively. They also have a focus on war machines like IH (Warsmiths, anyone?).

Sgt smudge, I don't know why your post seems to be so redundant. Those are all specialized tactics and fit under the general tactics of smurfs. As such UM can be used to generalize any chapter or for this case legion, as all chapters use a mulatitude of tactics in addition to the ones the excel at. Though you can continue down this path of stating additional chapters and tactics, I won't and cannot stop you.

Cheers

sturgeondtd wrote:
Sgt smudge, I don't know why your post seems to be so redundant. Those are all specialized tactics and fit under the general tactics of smurfs. As such UM can be used to generalize any chapter or for this case legion, as all chapters use a mulatitude of tactics in addition to the ones the excel at. Though you can continue down this path of stating additional chapters and tactics, I won't and cannot stop you.

Cheers

Could you rephrase this better, I'm afraid I don't understand.

If what I can gather is true, you've just said that everyone's grasp of tactics can be represented Ultramarine tactics.
My reply to you - if that IS the case, then why don't the other Chapters have Ultramarine tactics in the rules? Why don't I see IF having UM tactics alongside their own? Why bother with the Chapter Tactic system if everyone is just a derivative of the UM? What would even make the UM unique in that regard?

Go for it! I'd allow it if we played, although I would wag my finger at you if your army actually looked like a full-on Chaos army...

Although if you were playing Khorne Marines as Black Templars, I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference.

Don't even trip dog, I got you, although I am doing this from my phone so bare with me.

UM chapter tactics are combat doctrines, so in our example they are the main do whatever, not so specialized army. As each doctrine gives several units a great boost and a not so bad boost.

Now lets go to other chapter tactics. Most chapters can take thier own detachment, from this chapters CAN take a demi company and have the tactical doctrine, or they can just take the formation. So in essence you can use theirs, while drilling down a level and using a more specific chapter. UM are and will always be the generalists for the space marines.

And the whole tactic system was introduced so people could use their favorite chapters and get some fun fluffy rules with it.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Don't even trip dog, I got you, although I am doing this from my phone so bare with me.

UM chapter tactics are combat doctrines, so in our example they are the main do whatever, not so specialized army. As each doctrine gives several units a great boost and a not so bad boost.

Now lets go to other chapter tactics. Most chapters can take thier own detachment, from this chapters CAN take a demi company and have the tactical doctrine, or they can just take the formation. So in essence you can use theirs, while drilling down a level and using a more specific chapter. UM are and will always be the generalists for the space marines.

And the whole tactic system was introduced so people could use their favorite chapters and get some fun fluffy rules with it.

Yes, but if so - where are the Ultramarines' unique rules? Surely they should have them?

The Gladius only uses UM-esque traits because they are using Ultramarine Codex tactics - which are POST-heresy. So, no access to UM tactics via Gladius for the IW.

Next - the tactics themselves. They are based around a versatile system, to move around the army and be more competent where necessary. This does not fit with the stoic advancing and siege warfare of the IW.
UM tactics represent flexibility - IW have never expressed this.

And consider this - UM tactics existed before the Gladius allowed them to be taken by all other Chapters. They are considerably more than just combat tactics.

EDIT - What is it about the UM general tactics that make them more ideal than the SIEGE ORIENTATED Imperial Fist ones?

Haha I think you are too concentrated on UM tactics as an independent entity, almost any chapter can use them based on the UM basically being the parental chapter for subsequent foundings. This can be applied to IW as you can define the fluff any way, including saying that combat doctrine correspond to IW concentrating their efforts on a push during a seige. Speaking of, a seige is not a half hearted meat grinder, rather it is a highly complex and calculated effort. As in order for a seige to be successful, you must be able to react and modify tactics to respond to different threats. (Only people who do not understand warfare throw their troops in unending waves towards their goal, though maybe someone should tell this to the Imperial guard, for IW it is true they win through attrition, however each death is a calculated risk as opposed to a needless death)

Additionally I do not understand the whole post heresy no tactics thing. As I would argue, the tactics can be traced back to each legion and their primarchs.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Haha I think you are too concentrated on UM tactics as an independent entity, almost any chapter can use them based on the UM basically being the parental chapter for subsequent foundings.

That theory can't work because the Iron Warriors were never exposed to the Codex or second founding, and thus the Ultramarine way of war, which is represented via the Doctrines.

This can be applied to IW as you can define the fluff any way, including saying that combat doctrine correspond to IW concentrating their efforts on a push during a seige. Speaking of, a seige is not a half hearted meat grinder, rather it is a highly complex and calculated effort. As in order for a seige to be successful, you must be able to react and modify tactics to respond to different threats. (Only people who do not understand warfare throw their troops in unending waves towards their goal, though maybe someone should tell this to the Imperial guard, for IW it is true they win through attrition, however each death is a calculated risk as opposed to a needless death)

Yes, a siege requires tactics. Guess which Chapter has tactics which are described as made for sieges? Oh, the Imperial Fists.

UM tactics are for general battle. The IW did not often fight in general battle, instead doing sieges, which would be best represented by IF tactics.
If you're just going to say that "sieges require tactics therefore I'll use UM because they had tactics", then UM should apply for every Legion.
Surgical strikes for the Sons of Horus require tactics = UM
Infiltration tactics of the Alpha Legion = UM
Fast moving precision tactics of the Emperor's Children = UM
Unstoppable advance tactics of the Death Guard = UM
Terror tactics of the Night Lords = UM
Tactics GENERALLY are best personified by the UM. However, the Iron Warriors were NOT general tacticians. They were SIEGE tacticians, and SIEGE tactics come from the Imperial Fists.

Additionally I do not understand the whole post heresy no tactics thing. As I would argue, the tactics can be traced back to each legion and their primarchs.

Exactly. So, if we go to the HH rules for the IW and Perty, I don't see anything relating to tactics at all. In fact, they gain bonuses when being in the enemy deployment zone and gain stubborn around him. That would actually fit Carcharodons Chapter Tactics instead. As for their actual Legion stats, there are NO tactical bonuses. Only siege related ones, such as Wrecker.

Again, I ask - Why choose the general tactics of the UM over the actual siege tactics of the Imperial Fists, which are DESCRIBED as Siege Tactics? Do you not want to have fluffy siege tactics?

While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.

My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.

Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.

sturgeondtd wrote:
While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.

My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.

Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.

They were a work horse in that they were sent to the worst possible places to throw bodies at things until they died, or seconded to other Legions so those Legions could use them as they saw fit. That doenst make them tactical masterminds.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
While the IW excelled at siege warfare, they were the emporers work horseand used for almost any campaign that would otherwise result in failure.

My whole "theory" was referris to your questions regrading UM being used for other chapters.

Anywho, it's been fun, but I see that this is a moot point. It's always interesting to see how others interpret things, let's do it again some time when I don't have anything I need to do.

They were a work horse in that they were sent to the worst possible places to throw bodies at things until they died, or seconded to other Legions so those Legions could use them as they saw fit. That doenst make them tactical masterminds.

This.

The IW were not tactical geniuses. They were sent into sieges because they had good siege tactics, were more afraid of Perturabo than the enemy guns, and were generally good at dying in droves. Other legions had a bit of an issue with being sent into sieges with no honour or glory, so the Emperor in all his wisdom gave that duty to Perty.

They were never a lynchpin to do a surgical strike or rid a pesky Legion like the SoH or SW. They were a workhorse in that they advanced and died taking impregnable fortresses. Which the IF tactics would represent flawlessly. The UM ones simply don't support the fluff you claim.