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.

-1 cover and damaging buildings matches their siege specialists expertise. Fearless bubble matches their human-wave philosophy. FnP 6+ matches their techno-fetish (even if it should be 5+ for a CP cost or it should at least be bought before the game begins for 1 CP per unit for the rest of the game). The use of heavy support based detachments can represent their love for havocs and oblits. What IW are missing are CP's from Brigade detachments if they take the HS ones. This can be fixed by giving them havocs/oblits as troops ala cult units in cult detachments. And they're missing actual big guns, easily fixed by adding basilisk's and medusa's to their list.

So add two extra units to the IW army list, throw in a take X and/or Y as troops and then throw in some balancing restriction and IW are now good to go. Easy restriction is restrict marked units to 1 per matched mark HQ. Given how the keywords interact and how buffs work in 8th chaos I don't think you can outright ban marked units as we saw in 7th. But if you restrict them to 1 unit per marked HQ you can add your fluffy IW Zerkers or some other themed unit/HQ combo without excising 3/4 of the chaos strategy combo's entirely from the army.

This is all that's missing from IW. It fills in the fluff gaps that are lacking (I son't think the fluff shows that IW are better shooters than other legions, they just prefer big guns over small ones) and it fills in the table-top gaps in their list.

What else are they missing?

I am seeing a pattern with army factions that have the word "Iron" in the name, with regards to the rules they get. So far they aren't very good.

Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Nonsense. Remember, Emperor's Children are just better Iron Warriors.

Has GW said if there will be any new units or characters in the codex?

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

Chaos players have to get use to the fluid nature of 8th ed chaos. You can mark practically anything. You can mix and match marks. Many stratagems are mark dependent, only a few (maybe 1 or possibly 2 per) are legion specific. If you want more shooting, your'e meant to take MoS on your havocs and spend the CP's on a double round of shooting. That's gonna work wonders for AL that have infiltrated a havoc squad 12" outside enemy lines, or units that have had an unmarked sorcerer cast Prescience on them. It's very clear that chaos is massively dependent on buffs, aura's, spells and the right combination of legion rules, marks and stratagems. Mixing in Daemons, including Heralds should be considered more often now, especially as many Astartes units (Possessed, Warp Talons, Cult of Destruction) get significantly better with Daemon buffs. Gonna have to gt out of the habit of looking at a datasheet and reading all of a units potential from that one source. You need to look at what buffing units and spells can do for it too, and decide how you best want to play it.

I'm currently mulling over which is better for mitigating damage, casting the Tzeentch +1 to invul spell on a unit that already has a 4++ or casting the Slaanesh power on the same unit that gives a 5+++. They both do very similar things, but then I have to consider which mark my sorcerer has, and what other buffs and stratagems I can use off them. It's looking like we can have multiple ways of doing the same things in this edition. EC Possessed with Daemon buff support could well be as good as Zerkers in CC, if you prefer pink perverts over blood red murderer's.Tzeentch units could be as tough as Nurgle if you prefer sparkly blue over vomit green.

I'd really like to see what it is IW can't do with the currently revealed rules that they should be doing, other than taking heavies as troops and having access to artillery tanks. The IW specific rules they have represent different aspects of their fluff, and what isn't IW specific youc an easily do through marks and psychic powers. 8th ed chaos isn't written to appease ultra-pure IW (or NL or AL) fans who will never ever take marks but still want to be able to do the stuff marks can provide. It's designed with the philosophy that you can (and should) take any of these keyword marks to open up the strategies you desire. You don't even need to look at them as worshipping the gods. You can easily write it up to some other advantage, or have troops marked despite openly opposing those gods (what I'm looking at doing with my own army). But from a mechanics point of view, you can do what IW do well throuh the rules we already have. And we only know a handful of them. We can assume chaos will get the predator and vindicator squadron stratagems out oft he loyalist book. They work really well for IW.

We're never gonna have every legion/chapter with a laundry list of awesome abilities than only they can do. You can do that in Horus Heresy, because everybody plays SM's, and there are only 18 factions. Yeah Mechanicus and Solar exist but they're a significant minority in that game and still only add a couple more factions. If GW is true to their stated (or hinted, I can't remember at this point) intention of fleshing out every old faction with multiple chapter tactic equivalents then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

The 6+++ for 1 cp needs to be changed though. That's just not value at all. It should be 5+++, though a better way to do it would be to buy the 6+++ for a squad for the entire game for 1 cp, though I don't even think this is worth 1cp. Actually thinking about it a better way to do it would be to buy a 6" 6+++ aura for Warpsmiths in an IW army. Warmsiths don't have any aura's, it'd be nice to give one to to IW's. The Warpsmiths/Warsmiths ensure their position in the warband by switching off the cybernetics of anyone who pisses them off!

 nintura wrote:
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.

I remember back in 3rd when I started collecting Iron Warriors there was some bit of fluff about some Iron Warriors being really ground down mentally by the constant siege warfare and getting to the point of absolutely living for the moments where they would go over the top of a trench or through a breach in the walls and begin slaughtering their enemies at close quarters. These somewhat unhinged Iron Warriors were represented by being allowed to take a unit of Khorne Berserkers in the Iron Warriors list. I think this was in a White Dwarf issue that came out after the first 3rd edition codex but before the 3.5 codex, but that was a long time ago and I could have it all wrong.

When I start rebuilding my Iron Warriors I was thinking about having a small force with marks of Khorne and Khornate daemon engines, as well as a small Nurgle themed force with Nurgle daemon engines, but they would be their own separate detachments and my fluff would be that they're somewhat shunned by the main part of my Iron Warriors. I like the daemon engines, and am going to start picking some up, but I'm going to hold off until new infantry models come out before I really start collecting Iron Warriors again in earnest.

I think that the way people make tables is going to make a big difference as to whether or not the Legion ability is any good. I'm wondering if we're going to see ruins, trees, etc. put on larger bases kind of like the old area terrain with felt. Sometimes fortifications are used as part of the terrain as well, rather than being purchased by a player. I guess it will vary a lot depending on location, unless GW or the ITC puts out some more specific recommendations.

I'm not sure about the Stratagem. Maybe it would be good on vehicles and Obliterators?

I do hope that they bring back Chaos Undivided.

Demantiae wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

<snip>

Yeah, yeah. But, see, the point of having Legion rules at all, is to better represent a particular Legion. Not just throw a mishmash of random crap together to exploit the best unit/mark/power/stratagem combinations. Going by the warhammer community articles so far, all terminators should be tzeentchian and accompanied by a tzeentch sorcerer (or be world eaters for more hitting power, because obviously all khorne does is face punch), all havocs should be slaanesh marked to exploit the shooting strat, and so on and so forth (and obviously every legion should bring world eater's berserkers specifically).

But none of that makes for a functional representation of Iron Warriors or any other legion, which negates the point of having legion rules in the first place.

then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

Nope. We're going to have a mishmash of completely indistinct subfactions that exploit the shared detachment keyword rules. Any <whatever> that gives close combat bonuses is going provide the close combat units, the shooting <whatever> will provide devastators and so on and so forth, the limitation will just be how many characters you can fit around each group so they can operate most efficiently. There isn't any reason game-wise to bring non-WE berserkers and accompanying support character, backed up by slaanesh lascannon havocs and their reroll guy. Fluff wise there are a lot of reasons, but its the exact opposite of what these rules (and you) are advocating.

How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

Nah its bs 8th cover rules being what they are makes ignore cover highly situational.

I'm not gonna bother unpacking my chaos army this edition.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

Bending the fluff over and having Tzeentchian Night Lord Warp Talons tag-teaming with Magnus and Changeling. You know, the opposite of how Night Lords work.

It's the same way that you can have Azrael and Cypher play a buddy cop comedy in 8th ("Nice gat, homie") while Sammael is off hosting Pimp My Landspeeder.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How did I miss this?

I'm not sure what the complaining is about, these seem rather solid to me. They're not the most wtfbbqmayopowerful, but it's not at all bad either. It may be a copy-pasta of the Imperial Fists, but that's also kinda what they're supposed to be anyway in the grand scheme of things. As a player who has long been butthurt about what has been done to the Legions and functional stuff for Iron Warriors for a couple of editions now, I think this looks fine, we'll have to see what the actual full codex ends up looking like however.

I feel like it used to be "OMG CSM AREN'T GETTING ANYTHING, SM ARE GETTING EVERYTHING!" and now it's "OMG WE'RE GETTING THE SAME THING AS SM!" and I'm just not sure why that's a bad thing.

Voss wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
Honestly with WE being able to attack 3 times in the fight phase, I was really hoping IW would have a rule that would allow Havocs or chosen to shoot twice or something that would make taking infantry units with special/heavy weapons more potent.

Make your havoc squads mark of Slaanesh. Now you can take the Slaanesh stratagem to fire a unit twice. The stratagem is Slaanesh keyword, not EC so anyone with the Slaanesh mark can use it. This is why IW didn't get anything resembling that, because every chaos legion (bar WE) can just take mark of Slaanesh and get it anyway.

<snip>

Yeah, yeah. But, see, the point of having Legion rules at all, is to better represent a particular Legion. Not just throw a mishmash of random crap together to exploit the best unit/mark/power/stratagem combinations. Going by the warhammer community articles so far, all terminators should be tzeentchian and accompanied by a tzeentch sorcerer (or be world eaters for more hitting power, because obviously all khorne does is face punch), all havocs should be slaanesh marked to exploit the shooting strat, and so on and so forth (and obviously every legion should bring world eater's berserkers specifically).

But none of that makes for a functional representation of Iron Warriors or any other legion, which negates the point of having legion rules in the first place.

then by the time we;re done we're gonna have something like 60 (probably more than that) distinct factions in the game. We're gonna see a lot of overlap. And not every advantage of every faction is gonna be super strong. But if the rules reflect the faction to a fair degree I think the job is done.

Nope. We're going to have a mishmash of completely indistinct subfactions that exploit the shared detachment keyword rules. Any <whatever> that gives close combat bonuses is going provide the close combat units, the shooting <whatever> will provide devastators and so on and so forth, the limitation will just be how many characters you can fit around each group so they can operate most efficiently. There isn't any reason game-wise to bring non-WE berserkers and accompanying support character, backed up by slaanesh lascannon havocs and their reroll guy. Fluff wise there are a lot of reasons, but its the exact opposite of what these rules (and you) are advocating.

I get what you're saying but you're living in vain hope. I play AL. I want AL Scouts and I want my cultists to be more than crap chaff (I'd like the old 3.5 choice of skillsets for my cultists, like R&H Marauders get) but it's not gonna happen. At least not yet. I don't really want to take cult troops or even marked units, but I'm a pragmatist (one of the reasons I like AL I guess). The faction in 8th is built from the ground up for these keyword interactions and buffs. The moment we say buff aura's on HQ's it was clear how 8th was shaping up. Instead of the end-era 7th concept of tightly controlled detachments dictating what you could take to get the advantages out of them we now have a more fluid system of interactions. And this means we have to suck up some things we don't necessarily like in order to play the faction how it's been written to play.

GW are never gonna release codex IW or codex AL. so we're never gonna be anything other a different flavour of CSM. They'll make TS and DG different for sure, with all their extra units and much grater restrictions but never the Undivided legions. We're just regular chaos with different flavours. So accepting that you're never getting codex IW (that would be a 90% carbon copy of codex CSM anyway) you have to look at what you can do with the tools you have. And chaos has a LOT of tools now. Whatever strategy you take, there's something in chaos to buff it. You can focus on shooty or choppy armies and be damned good at either. Or you can go for a bit of both and still be good. Somebody said something about marks that was spot on - you don't have to follow a god to become marked. And you don't even have to like it. You just need to be good at what you do. It makes sense to add MoN to Raptors who are really good at terror tactics, even if they hate Nurgle. I'm writing into my own warband fluff (an AL force who eradicated Nurgles presence from a world so they cold take it themselves) Nurgle marked Raptors that have recieved his blessing not because they follow them, but because they were really good at crushing him. Their reward for stopping him was to receive his blessing. Hence they now offer a -2 to Ld instead of 1. Given this is a core mechanic of Raptors it makes sense to make the most out of it.

For IW imagine taking one of the FW dreads that can take double Butcher Canons. Toss out MoS and first turn issue the double-fire stratagem. You're now clearing out all the chaff/bubblewrap from your opponent in one round of shooting with one unit. And nothing gets cover. Buff the same dread with a Lord for re-roll 1's and it's gonna very well first turn. That's very potent for IW and the only thing you have to do is accept that you have to throw out a MoS and come up with a justification scenario in your head. Other players will just see this is an option and go for it anyway.

It's looking like you can pick any legion you like the fluff/style of and be able to play them properly to their theme without being gimped as in previous editions. There were a lot of AL players who actually played RG because they had nothing that came close to representing them on the table until Traitor Legions. Now, apart not having access to Scouts AL using the same RG rules are probably gonna be better than RG. RG can't infiltrate a devastator squad right in your face and double fire it. nor can their assault squads throw out the number of attacks that Slaanesh Raptors can. And they certainly can't buff their CC dreads with +2 S and +1 A. And Prescience and Warp Time are a thing for chaos. First time in a long time AL are probably gonna be stronger than RG and AL players don't need to proxy their whole army.

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.

First off, you can be marked by a God even if you don't worship that God actively. Ahriman never worshipped Tzeentch and doesn't think of him as a patron. Taking actions which are pleasing to a God is more than enough to earn their praise. Siege warfare exhibits all of the traits of the Gods of Chaos (Khorne is obvious, Nurgle in terms of its grinding nature, Tzeentch in the insidiously designed defenses, and Slaanesh in the excessive toll of life, expenditure of resources and preparation required to actually perform a siege as either defender or destroyer).

Second, a Mark of Chaos is different from a mutation. It's a change to the very soul of the marine, and a change that they can't replace with an augmentic. A marked squad is easy to justify in the context of like-minded warriors congregating together.

Finally, the Iron Warriors are not anti-mutation. Obliterators are one of their most iconic units. And while some sects of Iron Warriors are pragmatically against mutation and daemons, it is not hard to believe that with the Cicatrix Maledictum that things have changed.

In terms of the OP, I think we can all agree that the Legions are not made equal. The Night Lords, Emperor's Children and World Eaters are miles ahead. Black Legion and Iron Warriors are lagging behind. Their power level is tellingly low. The fact that the Black Legion at least have Abaddon sadly puts the Iron Warriors at a major disadvantage.

assuming an entire legion all have the same views on the gods is proably a pretty bad assumption, I suspect there are entire warbands of iron warriors and night lords both who are basicly cults to certain gods.

 Kraytirous wrote:
In terms of the OP, I think we can all agree that the Legions are not made equal. The Night Lords, Emperor's Children and World Eaters are miles ahead. Black Legion and Iron Warriors are lagging behind. Their power level is tellingly low. The fact that the Black Legion at least have Abaddon sadly puts the Iron Warriors at a major disadvantage.

Did you mean alpha legion instead of night lords? Cause night lords are trash. WE extra attack puts the NL debuff to shame in melee, and it's so short ranged that's pretty much the only place it'll matter. That's without pointing out the NL chapter tactic is literally worthless against many armies.

If you think BL and IW are lagging behind overall, you aren't paying attention. IW have the best unique warlord trait, a middling chapter tactic, and one of the better relics. The stratagem is garbage but most of the unique stratagems are garbage. They are towards the upper middle, not WB or NL garbage for sure, certainly better than BL if you ignore Abby.

A lot of the previewed stratagems seem like they would work really well with Iron Warriors armies that used lots of daemon engines, Vindicators, Cultists, Obliterators and/or Havocs.

They also doubled the number of shots Obliterators get to make, although I didn't see if they changed the points on them.

No Chaos Undivided, which is a little bit of a bummer.

That is pretty meaningless, as they're available to all armies. So legions with real benefits gain just as much from said stratagems.



Chaos undivided is a sad but expected loss. It may be a trademark issue (where they can claim K, S, N and T), but it's made chaos armies far less varied and interesting, especially since their interpretations of the Big 4 have also become much more static and limited. Basically just a stat bonus now, with the exception of Slaanesh, who is a random variable every edition.

Chaos undivided isn't a thing? What do you think the icon for non marked CSM is? Or the generic chaos keyword with no marks? It is the default from which others diverge.

Also, there aren't any stat bonuses for god affiliation. Just icons.

SilverAlien wrote:
Chaos undivided isn't a thing? What do you think the icon for non marked CSM is? Or the generic chaos keyword with no marks? It is the default from which others diverge.

Also, there aren't any stat bonuses for god affiliation. Just icons.

The chaos keyword is the faction tag, same as imperium, tau or eldar.

The icon of vengeance, assuming it hasn't changed from the index version, really doesn't have anything to do with chaos. 'You can pay to waste points on leadership if you want to' is... nothing really. It doesn't have much to do with the old rich fluff of undivided worship.

Voss wrote:
The chaos keyword is the faction tag, same as imperium, tau or eldar.

The icon of vengeance, assuming it hasn't changed from the index version, really doesn't have anything to do with chaos. 'You can pay to waste points on leadership if you want to' is... nothing really. It doesn't have much to do with the old rich fluff of undivided worship.

Are you wanting mechanics or fluff here I'm confused. Mechanically being affiliated with chaos but not with a specific god is rather the definition of chaos undivided. You are chaos not tied to a patron god. Do you want a specific keyword for it?

Mark of vengeance is bad but it's not even the worst one (probably excess or flame).

As for fluff... have we had a breakdown of the fluff in book yet? Who knows what it'll have.

so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I have a land raider sitting around so that will get a combi-melta and transport 10 IW themed khorne bezerkers. Also have a sicaran tank. Plan to lead the army with a demon prince with fleshmetal exoskeleton and a sqd of warriors in a rhino. Havocs with ML or las, a few Oblits to DS and maybe a maulerfiend. Not sure on points yet, but this will be a start.

 bullyboy wrote:
so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I love spam, in my mind the word means "redundancy" and as such I am considering:

Auxiliary Support Detachment of Renegades and Heretics (-1 cp)
Earthshaker Battery - 240p
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform

Brigade Detachment of Iron Warriors Heretic Astartes (+9 cp)
Chaos Lord, combi-bolter, power sword - 80p
Daemon Prince - approximately 180p in new book
Warpsmith or something - about 76p

Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, power scourge - 165p

Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p

10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p

3 Obliterators - 195p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p

If I've done my math right which I probably haven't, this totals out to 1774 points, which leaves me wiggle room to add more units I think are cool or fun. I want to incorporate more Iron Warriors Marines so might swap out a troops squad or increase the Havocs.

Wanting to play CSM without any marks or God specific units and expecting to be rewarded for it is to me like playing Loyalist Marines, refusing to use any unit with a save of 3+ or better and expecting the codex to cater to your decision by giving you buffs and the like. I mean, why even bother playing with that codex. It's not as if there's some fluff at stake- there is not a single traitor legion that unanimously rejected the Chaos Gods; even fething Perturabo ultimately accepted Daemonhood, putting himself at the mercy of the Gods forever. So if it's a matter of wanting Your Dudes to be special snowflakes why not just play a loyalist marine faction with counts-as Chaos models?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Wanting to play CSM without any marks or God specific units and expecting to be rewarded for it is to me like playing Loyalist Marines, refusing to use any unit with a save of 3+ or better and expecting the codex to cater to your decision by giving you buffs and the like. I mean, why even bother playing with that codex. It's not as if there's some fluff at stake- there is not a single traitor legion that unanimously rejected the Chaos Gods; even fething Perturabo ultimately accepted Daemonhood, putting himself at the mercy of the Gods forever. So if it's a matter of wanting Your Dudes to be special snowflakes why not just play a loyalist marine faction with counts-as Chaos models?

It's not that weird to want to play CSM without marks or god-specific units. It's been pretty normal for a couple legions (Night Lords, Iron Warriors, maybe Alpha Legion but I'm not sure about them) to make little use of god-specific marks or units. Sometimes, like in the Traitor Legions book last edition, the Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Alpha Legion were prohibited by the rules from taking any units with marks or upgrading any unit to have a mark.

There are fluff justifications for Iron Warriors units taking marks, it's just not the norm. I don't think most Iron Warriors players would look down on someone else for playing an Iron Warriors army that had the occasional mark, but at the same time I think most Iron Warriors would feel resistant to throwing marks around willy-nilly and taking tons of god-specific units. It's really not a big deal for the most part, as Iron Warriors players aren't being forced to take any marks. It's more that there's big tempting rewards in throwing all of the established norms out the window, putting marks on everything and taking all sorts of god-specific stuff.

I don't think your example of wanting to play Loyalist Marines and refusing to play anything with a 3+ save is a good one. Chaos Undivided used to be a pretty normal thing for about half the Traitor Legions, and god-specific marks and units have never as ubiquitous as power armor. Iron Warriors and marks of one god aren't as weird as, say, Black Templars taking Librarians. I'd say it is about as unusual as White Scars and Dreadnoughts. My understanding of the White Scars fluff is that they do have Dreadnoughts, just not nearly as many as most chapters as they feel that a warrior's soul should be free and not trapped in a Dreadnought or something like that. A White Scars player could totally come up with a fluffy explanation for having a Dreadnought in their army. If a Space Marine Codex came out that made Dreadnoughts a really big deal and was partly built with the assumption that everyone would be taking several in their Space Marine armies, and then in they preview they said something like "Hey White Scars players you have this stuff that works really well with Dreanoughts!" I think it would be understandable that many White Scars players would feel kind of weird about it.

It's a pretty minor thing overall. I'm also basing this on my understanding of the Iron Warriors fluff, which isn't perfect. I've read a bunch of the Iron Warriors books, but certainly not all of them. GW has been moving away from Chaos Undivided, which I think is a little unfortunate but things change and it's not worth getting worked up over.

I've only read summaries of the Iron Cage Incident that earned Perturabo his ascension to daemonhood. I'm not very versed in the details. Did Perturabo knowingly put himself at the mercy of the Chaos gods forever? That doesn't fit very well with what I know of his character, but I've mostly read Iron Warriors stuff set well after the Heresy and before Perturabo turned traitor, so I'm not that familiar with him at that specific time period.

Iron Warriors could probably be played pretty well as Imperial Fists or maybe Iron Hands. They would be missing out on Obliterators, Mutilators and Daemon Engines, which they use pretty heavily.

 ph34r wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so what are people planning on doing with their lists?

I'm looking at using some exisitng units to convert over and build around that, probably not powerful at all and no spam

I love spam, in my mind the word means "redundancy" and as such I am considering:

Auxiliary Support Detachment of Renegades and Heretics (-1 cp)
Earthshaker Battery - 240p
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform
- earthshaker platform

Brigade Detachment of Iron Warriors Heretic Astartes (+9 cp)
Chaos Lord, combi-bolter, power sword - 80p
Daemon Prince - approximately 180p in new book
Warpsmith or something - about 76p

Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, missile launcher - 147p
Helbrute, twin lascannon, power scourge - 165p

Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p
Chaos Spawn - 33p

10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p
10 Cultists, heavy stubber - 44p

3 Obliterators - 195p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p
5 Havocs, 3 lascannons - 140p

If I've done my math right which I probably haven't, this totals out to 1774 points, which leaves me wiggle room to add more units I think are cool or fun. I want to incorporate more Iron Warriors Marines so might swap out a troops squad or increase the Havocs.

I thought I heard somewhere that Cultists had been removed from the Troop slot?

I think you must be confused, cult units (noise marines and beserkers) may have been removed from the troop slot it still isn't entirely clear, but cultists are still there.

Since the marks are nothing more than keywords and don't actually give any bonus, but merely open up a strategy, I don't really understand the problem. Forge the narrative, and I don't mean that ironically. Yes, according to rules your havocs have the mark of slaanesh to fire twice. But you know better. These are trained warriors from the 31st millenium, their champion was one of the first havocs ever in existance and he trained his squad in siege warfare for 10K years. Accordingly they can fire twice. It's not that hard really. And since marks don't give boni anymore I don't think your opponents will be that mad if you don't show the mark on the model. Think of all the loyalist successor chapters with their different colors, nobody will tell you: "B-b-but your plastic toys aren't green, they can't be salamanders!"

Better to have marks reduced to keywords and open up possibilites for all legions than going back to 4th-7th edition where every list was Nurgle.

SilverAlien wrote:
I think you must be confused, cult units (noise marines and beserkers) may have been removed from the troop slot it still isn't entirely clear, but cultists are still there.

Ahh, that makes sense

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Since the marks are nothing more than keywords and don't actually give any bonus, but merely open up a strategy, I don't really understand the problem. Forge the narrative, and I don't mean that ironically. Yes, according to rules your havocs have the mark of slaanesh to fire twice. But you know better. These are trained warriors from the 31st millenium, their champion was one of the first havocs ever in existance and he trained his squad in siege warfare for 10K years. Accordingly they can fire twice. It's not that hard really. And since marks don't give boni anymore I don't think your opponents will be that mad if you don't show the mark on the model. Think of all the loyalist successor chapters with their different colors, nobody will tell you: "B-b-but your plastic toys aren't green, they can't be salamanders!"

Better to have marks reduced to keywords and open up possibilites for all legions than going back to 4th-7th edition where every list was Nurgle.

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure how I feel 100% about this concept yet but I certainly wouldn't mind my Iron Warrior havocs being able to fire twice.