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.

Your legion rule is good. Your legion rule reflects what they are about. If you don't want to play the sort of games that your legion is about then paint your models the color of a legion that are supposed to be good at the sort of game you do want to play.

Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

You must have read the book where the Iron Warriors bravely besieged and open field, thus earning their reputation as experts at such tactic.

I personally think the Legion rule is ok, and the relic is ok. I think the major problem people have is that it's just....bland. Along with being a copypaste of the IF rules, it's just not very inspired. I think that's why the EC rule looks so tantalizing in comparison; there's so many different ways you can use that (either as a defensive gunline, as a backup for when you're charging up, so forth) and that it's something new (before 8th edition, I think the only ones who always struck first were banshees).

Not at all helped by the fact that the Iron Warriors are one of the more popular Chaos Legions for not being mustache twirling crazy most of the time and not being that hard to give them a fluffy yet useful legion rules (someone pointed out +1 AP?).

Again, not saying it's bad. Just saying it's bland. That's probably why it feels disappointing. This combined with the Obliterator change (not nerf, I still think they're pretty useful, just not auto-include like before) makes it look like Iron Warriors (along with the Word Bearers and the Summoning change) getting the short stick of the edition.

hobojebus wrote:

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...

Cities of Death is the best incarnation of 8th. At least the advanced rules about grenades, flamers, cover, etc..., you can ignore the special stratagems if you like.

Building are no joke. Stick a pack of Devastators in your bunker or bastion or Vortex Missile Aquila Strongpoint and you might just find you have a hard to kill squad of anti-tank stuff.

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

It's a good rule for siege specialists but I think the issue for many players is two-fold. Firstly, some people are never satisfied and will still find issue if they have the best rules in the game. The second issue is that IW are much more than siege masters. sure they started off that way in the early days of the Great Crusade,, as did the IF's. But whilst the IF's largely stayed that way due to their prominence in being chosen to defend Terra and later on the splitting of the legion to ensure that elements that didn't conform to that stereotype (the BT's for example) left to form new chapters to focus on other aspects of battle, the IW's evolved differently. They became not just siege masters. They were also true enthusiasts of high strength heavy weaponry, in the same regard as Salamanders (though perhaps a little more focused on heavy weaponry instead of all wargear) and they also became every bit the technophiles the IH's are. You could argue the IW's could have had any of the new abilities from any of those three chapters, and in fact they did get two of them. The FnP stratagem they get is weak sauce, it needs to be 5+ to be worth a damn but this represents their cyber-enthusiasm. The heavy guns fetish may well be itched by other stratagems such as mirrors of the loyalist trip vindicator/trip Predator stratagems, or something that allows Daemon Engines to get a boost to firing. But there's no reason to restrict these to IW only, other legions might want to use them too. It's just that IW players choosing to play their legion fluffy will likely pick those units over others such as Raptors and so will play those stratagems more often to represent their legion specialities. ~This just leaves the siege craft and mirroring the IF tactic is the ibvious go-to choice. There's no real point in forcing something actually unique if what you ant (from a design perspective) is already there in front of you.

What I would like to see, as a non-IW player but an enjoyer of their character is for them to have access to IG artillery tanks like the old days. Precedence has been set with the R&H list straight up giving R&H access to IG units with their keywords swapped out. I'm sure IW player would enjoy having Heretic Astattes Basilisks and Medusa's in their lists. We already have those gorgeous FW models to represent them (that if I remember correctly are even painted in IW colours on FW's site!) I'm sure that more than arguing about whether or not they should get a re-roll on heavy weapons or just how good ignores cover is, that IW players would rather just have actual big guns to fire at their enemies.

Oh and about that Tzeentch power and it's efficacy in an IW list, IW should get themselves a LR Achililes. A frickin LR with a serious artillery cannon on it and two whopping big steaming guns on the side. Toss that Tzeentch power on it and you now have a LR with 3++ tjhat can regenerate wounds in combat with it's -3 AP spikey treads. It was already a beast but now with a 3++? And with Presience you cabn counter it's lack of PotMS when it moves and/or you can Warp time it right into your opponents face with it's melta batteries. And the ting is made to carry Chosen or Havoc's. That ting is made for IW's!

Between the Iron Warriors getting janky rules that go against being Iron Warriors, as well as the 8e changes to Obliterators, the is real.

Currently I'm not salty about the IW just yet (I have 4 full havoc squads, 9 obliterators 1 IW daemon prince, a Warsmith, a Warpsmith, copious amount of tanks, and a lone terminator for some reason). But if the codex drops and there's nothing about giving me my oblits as troops (or letting havocs as troops) then I'm gonna be a bit salty.

I mean it wont kill the game for me (I can always use the spearhead detachment) but it would make me feel like I'm just playing "Metal hazard marines" instead of a true legion.

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Currently I'm not salty about the IW just yet (I have 4 full havoc squads, 9 obliterators 1 IW daemon prince, a Warsmith, a Warpsmith, copious amount of tanks, and a lone terminator for some reason). But if the codex drops and there's nothing about giving me my oblits as troops (or letting havocs as troops) then I'm gonna be a bit salty.

I mean it wont kill the game for me (I can always use the spearhead detachment) but it would make me feel like I'm just playing "Metal hazard marines" instead of a true legion.

The detachment system pretty much makes 'XXX as troops' unlikely for everybody.

Voss wrote:
The detachment system pretty much makes 'XXX as troops' unlikely for everybody.

Depends I guess on how much those troops cost. The +3 battalion only requires 3 troops and 2 HQs making it fairly cheap and spammable for lots of CP. Now I'm not suggesting we all spam Cultists... but troops might have a place for some armies. ... Probably not Iron Warriors. Probably.

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

There could have been giving the Defiler its barrage option back, but AOEs are now extinct anyway.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ah. I apparently missed the glorious strains of iron warrior history where they killed guard heavy weapons teams 16.83% more often when they hid in the trees.

The Glorious Siege of the Copse of Willows.

What trees? *BZZZZRZZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZRZZZZZT* *BOOOOOOM*

I see no trees. Just lots of explosions.

It'd be nice. But CSM don't really have anything that goes boom, let alone lots of booms. So a real IW legion tactic has nothing to act upon. So instead, metallic painted tzeentchian imperial fists take the field, apparently.

the lack of some sort of siege weapon is a problem the IWs have had for awhile now. I'd like to see, ideally some sort of demolisher that replaces the demolisher cannon with some sort of artillary cannon

There could have been giving the Defiler its barrage option back, but AOEs are now extinct anyway.

AOE's live on as stratagems in C:SM. Hopefully we'll see more and more with each codex release.

I wouldn't mind returning to the iron Warriors although I will miss my conversions I sold. It is the only chaos army I like, and the Storm of Iron book was outstanding.

Glad to know that thematic battles that play to certain army strengths are worse than the generic missions that limit play options.

Turns out I've been playing this game all wrong, and shouldn't be taking on fortified central positions or beginning the game with scouting missions hoping for reinforcements to arrive before I am overwhelmed.

Thank goodness I was corrected on the internet, otherwise I would have thought it was a helpful suggestion...

They might be still ok depending on how oblits and muties will work in the codex. IW daemon princes are still decent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Glad to know that thematic battles that play to certain army strengths are worse than the generic missions that limit play options.

Turns out I've been playing this game all wrong, and shouldn't be taking on fortified central positions or beginning the game with scouting missions hoping for reinforcements to arrive before I am overwhelmed.

Thank goodness I was corrected on the internet, otherwise I would have thought it was a helpful suggestion...

one of the big issues with a trait like this is that if you play a game with more cover, but negate it completely you give little reason for players to want to play that sort of game.
Half the fun for big city fight battles is all the infantry, climbing though the city shooting from building to building.
The second half of the trait Seems kinda meh, tack on since the first is super situational.

Are people just forgetting (or not caring) there is more to the game than Matched Play w/Eternal War or Maelstrom missions? These rules are built for all types of games not just the "There is only one style of play" crowd.

A large portion of the community here play (or at least only care about) competitively, which generally only play those type of games so yeah, for this board it might as well only be those.

Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

zerosignal wrote:
Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

If you click 'click here to apply', there's an 'Apply Online' button on the next page.

Probably not, unless you can get to Nottingham and go through the process to work overseas in a short period of time.

beast_gts wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The problem is the EC rules show that they do know how to write good rules...but they just completely dropped the ball on others. As MrEnter once said, to do good sometimes is worse than completely failing, since it means you can be good, and simply choose to be bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Do you know if they accept international applications and via email? I don't think I can get a physical letter to them in the next 4 days (I am actually legit serious about this).

If you click 'click here to apply', there's an 'Apply Online' button on the next page.

Woot. I clicked on the "How to apply" page and it just told me to send the letter with nothing else going forward.

However if they need me to actually move there then it might be an issue. Still though, ain't no skin off my back if I cast this die, so I'm gonna give it a shot.

IronNerd wrote:
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.

Well, the warlord trait is what you'd need if you were wanting to play as pseudo IG with artillery etc. Which is fluffy for IW. So this is one of the situations where it might result in a more fluffy army overall.

The problem is, barring something we haven't seen, IW still don't have much in the way of big guns to screen. Predators, vindicators, and then daemon engines which generally can handle melee fairly well.

MaxT wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
Apparently being masters of siege craft means being really good at shooting up guys hiding behind trees.

IF tactics make no sense anyway.... they're meant to be the ones good at fortifying. Y'know, given they *fortified Terra during the Heresy*...

It's just awful, sloppy, lazy rule writing as per usual. Geederps needs to hire some new development staff. They're not even trying now.

https://jobs.games-workshop.com/2017/07/31/rules-writer-nottingham-uk/

Dang it, my contract doesn't end till next June...