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.

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

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

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

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

Voss wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

That relic is awesome on a Daemon Prince.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IronNerd wrote:

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

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

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

hobojebus wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Iron Warriors with Marks? Eww.

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

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

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

Still allowed.

IronNerd wrote:

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

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Eldarain wrote:

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

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

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

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

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

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

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

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

BrianDavion wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

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

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

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

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

One would hope so.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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

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

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

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

It's a second save.

BrianDavion wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

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

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

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

maybe their relic will make it worth while?

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

IronNerd wrote:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IronNerd wrote:

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

Plus the Warlord trait is pretty good too.

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

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

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

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

Seems a good trait for the siege specialists.

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

Seems a good trait for the siege specialists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I don't know which is which anymore

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