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.

Man, back to my whole grumble over IH just seeming better no matter what units I pick, that Battle for Salvation winning IH list looks way more like my RG list than I care for. Basically swap my assault cents for a set of typhoon speeders and I’m there. I was soooo close to avoiding the allure of IH because I don’t want to go buy triple executioners or 6 flyers before the (hopeful) faqing, but his list I can build today...
To think, my fugly rogue trader era tech on a bike I painted when I was 10 could see play for first time in over 20 years (until Legends anyways)

The IH list is a brigade:
Bike cap
Bike techmarine
Lib
Phobos lib
10 incursors
10 intercessors
2x 5 sniper Scouts
2x 5 bolter Scouts
3x Invictor
3x landspeeder typhoon
2x eliminator
2x thunderfire

If your list is that with cents instead and access to RG strats etc I like your list better.

I mean I feel like if you drop the typhoons and switch the chars that army works better as RG. But I havent won any tournaments since 5th ed so I could be wrong

I really wonder why they just gave IH so much stuff. Their trait gives the most bonuses at 3 and the doctrine also gives 2 bonuses while also being online right at the start. Cant help but feel the designers didnt take a moment to look at the big picture. It's like you look at everything they get and then it's like, "Oh, AND they overwatch on 5+." Or, "Oh, AND they reroll 1s for heavy weapons." Just a pile of bonuses that never seems to end.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to jump on the IH hate bandwagon, these are just some thoughts I've had in my head since they came out and haven't bothered putting them to paper (or online forum in this case). This is meant to be more of a look at why the rules people do what they do. It's not like there haven't been super hard to deal with armies in the past. Not that that excuses whenever the pop up again.

I just hope that if GW does adress the apparent.... controversy (I hesitate to say issue or problem just yet) that they dont run into the Bobby G problem where they need to nerf all marines to stop the one broken combo. They dont normally just take special rules away (I dont know if they've ever done so short of edition changes), but I wonder if this is the time to try that out should it end up being warranted.

The interesting thing from the lists this last weekend was like half didn't use the IH traits, they did successor, several didn't use Fierros, and a bunch didn't use Executioners/Flyers/Dreads. Prob too early to settle for sure on the strongest bits, but looks like those players really gravitated to the no -1 to hit and reroll 1s without an aura part the most.
And really, this does seem the worst even without being as blatantly crazy as the Ironstone. Not only does it make IH vehicles and flyers good, which is I assume what they wanted, but it also makes units like snipers better as IH than as say RG, which is silly. Even if you assume you deployed so perfectly that you don't have to move the snipers for -1 (which is obviously not always going to happen), the IH are still getting all those reroll 1s no other infantry chapter gets as all those scouts and eliminators are spread out and lacking auras. Not to mention better speeders and attack bikes than the mobile chapters.

And yeah, if they boost all marine points to try to fix IH or the rumored upcoming chapters, well, there goes anyone playing UM, WS, or RG ever again.

RG players, are there any failings of Assault Centurions that you can see. Any bad match ups where they cant make up for their cost?

If you go first, Master of Ambush them. If you go second Strike from the Shadows (and they get to benefit from tactical doctrines in t2).

Im also bringing Aggressors in my list and to some extent they overlap and have the same issues. I just dont know if committing to Centurion purchase is wise without proper testing or feedback.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My issue with Attack Bikes is the Heavy Bolter being such a dinky weapon on the move for them. You get 1.5 shots on average, which is sometimes 1 shot a turn! The TL Bolter can help make up for it but not by a lot.

The neat thing with the Taratulas is that they're averaging 3 hits a turn, and can't be tied up. You'd be often surprised when even Vet players try to charge them and fail to kill it, and then it spits out more shots again.

Precious few ways for you to get to somewhere you need to go in that list, which was why I suggested the mobility. The biggest issues I have with the Tarantulas are that they're completely immobile and can't shoot at what you want. I'd take a single heavy bolter hitting on 3s and 4 Bolter shots over the twin HB hitting on 4s and never able to target a vehicle.

But that's all just on paper. Are you going to use the list once the supplement is out? I'd love to hear your initial experiences.

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My issue with Attack Bikes is the Heavy Bolter being such a dinky weapon on the move for them. You get 1.5 shots on average, which is sometimes 1 shot a turn! The TL Bolter can help make up for it but not by a lot.

The neat thing with the Taratulas is that they're averaging 3 hits a turn, and can't be tied up. You'd be often surprised when even Vet players try to charge them and fail to kill it, and then it spits out more shots again.

Precious few ways for you to get to somewhere you need to go in that list, which was why I suggested the mobility. The biggest issues I have with the Tarantulas are that they're completely immobile and can't shoot at what you want. I'd take a single heavy bolter hitting on 3s and 4 Bolter shots over the twin HB hitting on 4s and never able to target a vehicle.

But that's all just on paper. Are you going to use the list once the supplement is out? I'd love to hear your initial experiences.

I've did a couple of test games testing out mostly the Super Doctrine as I haven't really done much with the Relics in there, and I do want to experiment with the Warlord traits. That bonus against Characters? I didn't feel as much a need for a terrible amount of anti-tank as the best tanks are, well, Knights. I might have to change my tune with Iron Hands though as some of us correctly called Repulsors becoming a problem.

 Smirrors wrote:
RG players, are there any failings of Assault Centurions that you can see. Any bad match ups where they cant make up for their cost?

If you go first, Master of Ambush them. If you go second Strike from the Shadows (and they get to benefit from tactical doctrines in t2).

Im also bringing Aggressors in my list and to some extent they overlap and have the same issues. I just dont know if committing to Centurion purchase is wise without proper testing or feedback.

They are fairly slow. I think they will suffer somewhat in mirror matches where neither side wants to set up a traditional force and whoever sets their units on the table first loses. I also think that they need a chaplain babysitter for the 6 inch consolidate. As tough as they are, they will attract huge amounts of firepower if they can't wrap a unit. They could very well be vulnerable to beatstick characters hiding behind the screen. I haven't tested very extensively yet.

 Smirrors wrote:
RG players, are there any failings of Assault Centurions that you can see. Any bad match ups where they cant make up for their cost?

If you go first, Master of Ambush them. If you go second Strike from the Shadows (and they get to benefit from tactical doctrines in t2).

Im also bringing Aggressors in my list and to some extent they overlap and have the same issues. I just dont know if committing to Centurion purchase is wise without proper testing or feedback.

I'd wait to draw conclusions until a month or so after the Infiltrator/Incursor box sets come out. I think that Infiltrator Omni-scramblers are going to change the deepstrike meta.

Omni-scramblers won't affect Master of Ambush, but Strike from the Shadows won't be able to get models in flamer range--even with the successor +3".

Just checking, but you know that Chaplain's +2 charge doesn't stack with anything right? Otherwise, I haven't seen a way to get +3 charge and would be interested!

 Ordana wrote:

bmsattler wrote:
So hypothetical question for Iron Hands types. How are you planning on dealing with Genestealer lists? Nasty units that show up out of nowhere and whollop you hard enough to guarantee they can kill one or two units when they do.

5+ overwatch with full re-rolls. 4+ if needed. Omni-scramblers pushing back deepstrike and fly to move out of combat and shoot more.

The key is in having enough shots to deal with things as they come down without diluting your other matchups to much.

This strategy assumes the Genestealer player isn't able to charge from behind buildings, launch characters who ignore overwatch at you, or charge nonthreatening targets and then consolidate into threatening ones to neutralize your shooting for a turn.

You can't rely on just omni-scramblers and overwatch. Make sure you have screens, and make sure those screens stay far, far away from your actual valuable units so that they can't be consolidated out of in a way that hurts you.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
RG players, are there any failings of Assault Centurions that you can see. Any bad match ups where they cant make up for their cost?

If you go first, Master of Ambush them. If you go second Strike from the Shadows (and they get to benefit from tactical doctrines in t2).

Im also bringing Aggressors in my list and to some extent they overlap and have the same issues. I just dont know if committing to Centurion purchase is wise without proper testing or feedback.

I'd wait to draw conclusions until a month or so after the Infiltrator/Incursor box sets come out. I think that Infiltrator Omni-scramblers are going to change the deepstrike meta.

Omni-scramblers won't affect Master of Ambush, but Strike from the Shadows won't be able to get models in flamer range--even with the successor +3".

we've had infiltrators around for awhile now, they're just kinda expensive unless you KNOW you're fighting deep strikers

bmsattler wrote:
Just checking, but you know that Chaplain's +2 charge doesn't stack with anything right? Otherwise, I haven't seen a way to get +3 charge and would be interested!

I think Blood Angels have a way to get +3” to charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[edit]
Blood Angels have a librarian power that adds 3” to charge rolls. They also have a stratagem that allows them to roll 3d6 for charging instead of 2d6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
RG players, are there any failings of Assault Centurions that you can see. Any bad match ups where they cant make up for their cost?

If you go first, Master of Ambush them. If you go second Strike from the Shadows (and they get to benefit from tactical doctrines in t2).

Im also bringing Aggressors in my list and to some extent they overlap and have the same issues. I just dont know if committing to Centurion purchase is wise without proper testing or feedback.

I'd wait to draw conclusions until a month or so after the Infiltrator/Incursor box sets come out. I think that Infiltrator Omni-scramblers are going to change the deepstrike meta.

Omni-scramblers won't affect Master of Ambush, but Strike from the Shadows won't be able to get models in flamer range--even with the successor +3".

we've had infiltrators around for awhile now, they're just kinda expensive unless you KNOW you're fighting deep strikers

I personally don’t have infiltrators, although I’d like to have some, because they’re not available outside of Shadowspear or eBay. Also I personally haven’t seen anybody fielding infiltrators.

But I have been seeing more and more space marine successor netlists that depend on deepstriking within 9” in order to use 11” range flamers. If those lists become prevalent about the time that infiltrators become available as a box, I predict we’ll see a lot more infiltrators. They’re 4-5 points more per model than intercessors, but two units of five can block off your whole deployment zone, not just against GSC, but against anything that wants to drop & charge or drop and flame.

Even those BA 3d6+3 drop-charges will be negated, since you can’t even declare a charge outside of 12”

Didn't the Infiltrator box just get announced as being available for preorder this Sat?

I'm trying to design my RG list on the assumption I'm not charging until turn 2+ no matter what, that even winning first turn I'll be too screened out to build a list around. But the later you plan to charge anyways, the less useful all those infiltrate up RG strats are and the more appealing any other chapter becomes.

bort wrote:
Didn't the Infiltrator box just get announced as being available for preorder this Sat?

I'm trying to design my RG list on the assumption I'm not charging until turn 2+ no matter what, that even winning first turn I'll be too screened out to build a list around. But the later you plan to charge anyways, the less useful all those infiltrate up RG strats are and the more appealing any other chapter becomes.

it did yes. Also rumor has it we'll get a start collecting Space Marien Vanguard Box in december, so supressors may become easier to get

bort wrote:
Didn't the Infiltrator box just get announced as being available for preorder this Sat?

I'm trying to design my RG list on the assumption I'm not charging until turn 2+ no matter what, that even winning first turn I'll be too screened out to build a list around. But the later you plan to charge anyways, the less useful all those infiltrate up RG strats are and the more appealing any other chapter becomes.

If you want to charge T1, you'd have to go White Scars. Although Black Templars can actually do okay out of Deep Strike now so it's an option.

bort wrote:

I'm trying to design my RG list on the assumption I'm not charging until turn 2+ no matter what, that even winning first turn I'll be too screened out to build a list around. But the later you plan to charge anyways, the less useful all those infiltrate up RG strats are and the more appealing any other chapter becomes.

So Infiltrate gets replaced by Strike from the Skies i presume?

Like you said if you aren't going to be in the opponents face you are losing some of RG uniqueness. So much of it will be dependent on terrain I think. RG will want to grab the middle of the battlefield and never let it go.

I’m not sure if infiltrators are the best screening unit we have any more. We’ve got impulsors and stormhawks now.

Infiltrators are fantastic against stuff like GSC of course. They’re a lot less good against a conventional horde, which is likely to wrap and trap them. But you just can’t do that with an impulsor or a stormhawk - it’ll just fly away. It’ll almost certainly be on it’s top bracket if it’s Iron Hands, or else it’ll be dead and out of the picture. I think only the Slaanesh mirror thing can prevent it from falling back.

In any case I don’t see how RG - or any kind of reserve schenanigans-based list, can make it into a properly constructed IH army.

I didn’t realise how good an IH impulsor is as a combat vehicle. With the stubbers on it has 17 S4 shots. 9 of those are ap-2 and 6 get +1 to hit and wound anything that flies. That’s for 90 points on a dedicated transport with -2” charges against it. It’s a great little vehicle.

well if you just need a forward deployed unit, any unit. you're better off using scouts.

BrianDavion wrote:
well if you just need a forward deployed unit, any unit. you're better off using scouts.

Scouts are an inadequate screening unit vs GSC. They have a strat to let them deploy 3” away, plus another to let them fire in the movement phase. They can combo these to deploy 20 hand flamer guys in a line and kill your entire screen immediately, letting them set up the rest of their units where they want.

Infiltrators in cover, tanks and planes are very difficult to remove with hand flamers, so this approach doesn’t work. In fact infiltrators specifically counter the 3” deployment thing, making hand flamers useless. Against vehicles the flamers need a 6 to wound so they generally aren’t good enough.

Does anyone know if GW ever fixed the goofy issue with 1+ armor saves effectively granting a 2++? If not, RG could build an entire list out of Centurions and Eliminators and Termies that would be insanely durable for the first turn or two.

The Newman wrote:
Does anyone know if GW ever fixed the goofy issue with 1+ armor saves effectively granting a 2++? If not, RG could build an entire list out of Centurions and Eliminators and Termies that would be insanely durable for the first turn or two.

I'm not sure what you mean. A 1+ armour save really only means they get the equivalent of a 2++ against AP-1, right?

1+ armor doesn't give you a 2++. It simply negates the effect of ap-1 weapons, ap-2 would be a 3+ save, and so on and so forth.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

bort wrote:
Didn't the Infiltrator box just get announced as being available for preorder this Sat?

I'm trying to design my RG list on the assumption I'm not charging until turn 2+ no matter what, that even winning first turn I'll be too screened out to build a list around. But the later you plan to charge anyways, the less useful all those infiltrate up RG strats are and the more appealing any other chapter becomes.

If you want to charge T1, you'd have to go White Scars. Although Black Templars can actually do okay out of Deep Strike now so it's an option.

I believe RG can get a charge first turn, at least some of the time, by using the Master of Ambush WL trait, or the Infiltrators strat on units that are already deployed forward, or by using the Swift and Deadly WL trait, especially with bikes that can advance 20" and then assault. Or all of these in combinations. The Raven's Blade strat and Strike from the Skies give them bonuses and rerolls to help get in turn 1.

Lemondish wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Does anyone know if GW ever fixed the goofy issue with 1+ armor saves effectively granting a 2++? If not, RG could build an entire list out of Centurions and Eliminators and Termies that would be insanely durable for the first turn or two.

I'm not sure what you mean. A 1+ armour save really only means they get the equivalent of a 2++ against AP-1, right?

This came up when the Ork codex dropped:

- An armor save roll is "match or beat X"
- A roll may not be modified below 1
- A natural 1 always fails.

A 1+ saving throw cannot be modified to less than the armor value, therefore only a natural 1 fails.

(Of course, that only matters here if cover modifies the Armor Save and not the armor save roll. I'm probably remembering that incorrectly.)

If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....

Iron Hands FAQ got updated.

Ironstone is one target Iron Hands vehicle unit per turn within 3". Rites of Tempering is only on Infantry. Double-healing the same unit went away.

Azuza001 wrote:
If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....

By raw:

You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.

So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...

Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...

Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...

Interesting IH nerfs...definitely hurts the triple castle, but still leaves IH flyers intact. So the vehicle chapter got all it’s tank vehicles nerfed some, but their sniper infantry, speeders, and air power are still the best among marines? Oookay.