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.
bananathug wrote: Yeah, invluns and a compressed S v T range have killed the viability of entire swaths of weapons. The ironstone just kills the last "effective" multi-target tank guns.
Now you choose whether you want to be able to kill a -1 damage 5++ tank or a -1 to hit 4++ magnus/morty or eldar flyers or drone/3++ riptide.
The iron stone is pulling out the crutch that a lot of players have been using (the reasonably good against everything gun). High ROF, medium AP (-1 to -2) and consistent damage (2-3). It is a lot harder for the dice to fail you if you are rolling 12 shots that do 2 damage each vs 4 that can potentially do d6 (too may fail points and with invluns that gets even worse).
I think IF will be the sauce to combat IH but depending on one faction to reduce the proliferation of one OP faction seems about the worst game design since the old lady who swallowed the fly...
How is it pulling out a crutch when they are still more efficient, even with -1 to damage?
The answer to all the things you mention is still the same.
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
3 Dreads following an ironstone techmarine are perfectly fine in a casual environment. If the other guy has 2 or 3 lascannons, those dreads are not in a good situation.
D6 damage weapons lose only 25% damage from ironstone, they go from 3,5 to 2,66 damage. Only one dread can halve damage.
It's easier than facing 3 dreadnaught of old RG, the -1 to hit is actually scarier in many cases, except that they don't need an HQ and a relic for it.
Not saying that IH are not going to be a though opponent in casual games, but that specific example doesn't seem really scary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 11:00:12
Spoletta wrote: 3 Dreads following an ironstone techmarine are perfectly fine in a casual environment. If the other guy has 2 or 3 lascannons, those dreads are not in a good situation.
D6 damage weapons lose only 25% damage from ironstone, they go from 3,5 to 2,66 damage. Only one dread can halve damage.
It's easier than facing 3 dreadnaught of old RG, the -1 to hit is actually scarier in many cases, except that they don't need an HQ and a relic for it.
Not saying that IH are not going to be a though opponent in casual games, but that specific example doesn't seem really scary.
Except it's not 2.66 per turn
You hit on 3+ so 66% wound on a 3+ so 66% even before saves it's 43% wound rate ok with reroll hits and wound rolls that can become better but add in a 5++ and your down to a .29% chance of a wound per shot .29x 2.66 damage is .77 wounds per turn for 25 points that's pretty poor.
A heavy bolter does .43 wounds per turn against the same targets and is only 10 points. D6 weapons still look bonkers. When 20 points of heavy bolters out damages a 25 points lascannon.
People use multi shot D2 Dd3 weapons because they work Dd6 weapons are unreliable and overcosted.
Spoletta wrote: 3 Dreads following an ironstone techmarine are perfectly fine in a casual environment. If the other guy has 2 or 3 lascannons, those dreads are not in a good situation.
D6 damage weapons lose only 25% damage from ironstone, they go from 3,5 to 2,66 damage. Only one dread can halve damage.
It's easier than facing 3 dreadnaught of old RG, the -1 to hit is actually scarier in many cases, except that they don't need an HQ and a relic for it.
Not saying that IH are not going to be a though opponent in casual games, but that specific example doesn't seem really scary.
Except it's not 2.66 per turn
You hit on 3+ so 66% wound on a 3+ so 66% even before saves it's 43% wound rate ok with reroll hits and wound rolls that can become better but add in a 5++ and your down to a .29% chance of a wound per shot .29x 2.66 damage is .77 wounds per turn for 25 points that's pretty poor.
A heavy bolter does .43 wounds per turn against the same targets and is only 10 points. D6 weapons still look bonkers. When 20 points of heavy bolters out damages a 25 points lascannon.
People use multi shot D2 Dd3 weapons because they work Dd6 weapons are unreliable and overcosted.
You know darn well what he meant comparing 3.5 to 2.66, the rest of the math that gets down to .77 wounds average per shot is irrelevant since it applies to the shot either way.
Heavy Bolters being better for the points against an IH target is relevant though, and that just means that instead of a 5-shot D2 weapon you want a 10-shot D1 weapon that the Iron Stone and the 1/2 damage strat have no effect on whatsoever. ...which is annoying since anti-heavy-infantry guns being the best thing for killing tanks was silly and now the best thing for killing IF armor is anti-light-infantry guns.
"Rcc VotLW havocs, for when you need to drown your local ih deathblobber in lead like the meta chaser he Is!"
Warning, this comment does not include sufficient Rcc to equip a squad.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Spoletta wrote: 3 Dreads following an ironstone techmarine are perfectly fine in a casual environment. If the other guy has 2 or 3 lascannons, those dreads are not in a good situation.
D6 damage weapons lose only 25% damage from ironstone, they go from 3,5 to 2,66 damage. Only one dread can halve damage.
It's easier than facing 3 dreadnaught of old RG, the -1 to hit is actually scarier in many cases, except that they don't need an HQ and a relic for it.
Not saying that IH are not going to be a though opponent in casual games, but that specific example doesn't seem really scary.
Except it's not 2.66 per turn
You hit on 3+ so 66% wound on a 3+ so 66% even before saves it's 43% wound rate ok with reroll hits and wound rolls that can become better but add in a 5++ and your down to a .29% chance of a wound per shot .29x 2.66 damage is .77 wounds per turn for 25 points that's pretty poor.
A heavy bolter does .43 wounds per turn against the same targets and is only 10 points. D6 weapons still look bonkers. When 20 points of heavy bolters out damages a 25 points lascannon.
People use multi shot D2 Dd3 weapons because they work Dd6 weapons are unreliable and overcosted.
You know darn well what he meant comparing 3.5 to 2.66, the rest of the math that gets down to .77 wounds average per shot is irrelevant since it applies to the shot either way.
Heavy Bolters being better for the points against an IH target is relevant though, and that just means that instead of a 5-shot D2 weapon you want a 10-shot D1 weapon that the Iron Stone and the 1/2 damage strat have no effect on whatsoever. ...which is annoying since anti-heavy-infantry guns being the best thing for killing tanks was silly and now the best thing for killing IF armor is anti-light-infantry guns.
D6 weapons suck even implying IH arn't broken because they effect the worst way to kill tanks the least is GW level logic at best.
You want people to take lascannons etc at 25 points each how about you make them worthwhile and stop just trying to build an army to countrr the meta you see and understand why units do or don't work in 8th edition.
I think other table top games optimise just as much as 40k. Its just some of them are designed with that assumption in mind.
Whereas GW are only just starting to get over the idea that the average player acts as if they are in a highlander tournament, has one or at most two of every unit, and so will have "good", "average" and "bad" units in their army, which gives a sort of balanced tier level. A bit like most of the armies you typically see in White Dwarf going back through the decades.
Whereas yes, someone who plays even semi-regularly will tend to go "this is good, this is bad, I'll take 3 of that good unit pls, you can keep those bad units on the shelf."
This isn't really surprising. I mean I am slowly putting together a Word Bearers army - because new chaos kits and I always wanted one. I am really trying to escape the "play to win" mentality and just go for aesthetic choices - partly because I know the rules for most of these units are objectively terrible, so "playing to win" is just irrational. But its still a hard habit to break.
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
How easy something is to do rarely invalidates whether it's worth doing.
Spoletta wrote: 3 Dreads following an ironstone techmarine are perfectly fine in a casual environment. If the other guy has 2 or 3 lascannons, those dreads are not in a good situation.
D6 damage weapons lose only 25% damage from ironstone, they go from 3,5 to 2,66 damage. Only one dread can halve damage.
It's easier than facing 3 dreadnaught of old RG, the -1 to hit is actually scarier in many cases, except that they don't need an HQ and a relic for it.
Not saying that IH are not going to be a though opponent in casual games, but that specific example doesn't seem really scary.
Except it's not 2.66 per turn
You hit on 3+ so 66% wound on a 3+ so 66% even before saves it's 43% wound rate ok with reroll hits and wound rolls that can become better but add in a 5++ and your down to a .29% chance of a wound per shot .29x 2.66 damage is .77 wounds per turn for 25 points that's pretty poor.
A heavy bolter does .43 wounds per turn against the same targets and is only 10 points. D6 weapons still look bonkers. When 20 points of heavy bolters out damages a 25 points lascannon.
People use multi shot D2 Dd3 weapons because they work Dd6 weapons are unreliable and overcosted.
You know darn well what he meant comparing 3.5 to 2.66, the rest of the math that gets down to .77 wounds average per shot is irrelevant since it applies to the shot either way.
Heavy Bolters being better for the points against an IH target is relevant though, and that just means that instead of a 5-shot D2 weapon you want a 10-shot D1 weapon that the Iron Stone and the 1/2 damage strat have no effect on whatsoever. ...which is annoying since anti-heavy-infantry guns being the best thing for killing tanks was silly and now the best thing for killing IF armor is anti-light-infantry guns.
D6 weapons suck. Even implying IH aren't broken because they have the smallest impact on the worst weapons for killing tanks is GW level logic at best.
You want people to take lascannons etc at 25 points each, how about you make them worthwhile and stop just trying to build an army to counter the meta you see. You don't seem to understand why units do or don't work in 8th edition.
1) Sorry, grammar is a pet peeve of mine. I edited your post for clarity so I could better think through responding to it, if I got something wrong please say so.
2) I specifically called out that even though I do think the meta has room to adjust to IH, I don't think that means IH aren't a problem. They clearly are. I just think it's going to take a little time to see exactly how big of a problem.
3) I'm not really sure who you're talking to in the second paragraph. The first part seems to be aimed at GW (it's not like I can do anything about the problems with the Lascannon profile), the second part seems to be aimed at me. For what it's worth I'm not reacting to my local meta this time*, I'm the only person to have fielded an IH army locally so far. I'm commenting on what types of weapons I'm worried about seeing on the other side of the table.
* - It's not an unfair assumption considering my posting history and I don't blame you for making it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Eye of Hypnoth is just a general IF relic now instead of Vigilus only.
They really are getting +1 damage for Heavy weapons in Devastator Doctrine, but it's only vs VEHICLES and BUILDINGS so no bets on whether that gets FAQed.
The Geokenisis power they previewed has the potential to spike to stupid levels.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 15:10:24
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
How easy something is to do rarely invalidates whether it's worth doing.
Oh please. A NEW player could easily have done that.
Blame GW, not the player.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
How easy something is to do rarely invalidates whether it's worth doing.
Oh please. A NEW player could easily have done that.
Blame GW, not the player.
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that how easy it is decides whether you should do it, specifically because of how easy it is?
Most circular arguments have at least one term in the loop before the cycle...
I won't excuse people from doing things they shouldn't just because it isn't too hard to do things they shouldn't.
Nym wrote: Quick question to Space Marine players : do the Super Doctrines replace the regular benefit (-1 AP) or not ?
I've just realised that IF Intercessors with Stalker Bolt Rifles could be S4 AP-3 D3, and I think I'm about to throw up...
This edition is getting out of whack too fast for me.
It doesn't replace, no. However Stalkers won't be doing a lot to vehicles.
I don't know about that, they wound anything lighter than T8 on a 5+ and there aren't really that many T8s outside of Guard and IK. And Ap3 D3 is pretty good once you do have a successful wound roll. ...and we're talking about IF here where a 6 to-hit generates an auto-hit with a bolt weapon and there are a lot of rerolls available and they could be getting the +1 to-wound from a Chaplain.
I wouldn't want to build a list around that but the option to catch someone off-guard is there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 16:17:09
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
How easy something is to do rarely invalidates whether it's worth doing.
Oh please. A NEW player could easily have done that.
Blame GW, not the player.
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that how easy it is decides whether you should do it, specifically because of how easy it is?
Most circular arguments have at least one term in the loop before the cycle...
I won't excuse people from doing things they shouldn't just because it isn't too hard to do things they shouldn't.
My post was incredibly easy to follow. You're just overthinking it.
You say just because something is easily done doesn't mean it should be done. I'm saying a new player could easily have done that same setup with little research because it looks cool and Iron Hands = Dreads. Same way a new player buying a bunch of Guard Infantry having no idea they're broken, just that they're the primary troop choice.
Trying to blame the player for GW's shoddy balancing is the very definition of Battered Wife Syndrome. How can you NOT see that?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Nym wrote: Quick question to Space Marine players : do the Super Doctrines replace the regular benefit (-1 AP) or not ?
I've just realised that IF Intercessors with Stalker Bolt Rifles could be S4 AP-3 D3, and I think I'm about to throw up...
This edition is getting out of whack too fast for me.
It doesn't replace, no. However Stalkers won't be doing a lot to vehicles.
I don't know about that, they wound anything lighter than T8 on a 5+ and there aren't really that many T8s outside of Guard and IK. And Ap3 D3 is pretty good once you do have a successful wound roll. ...and we're talking about IF here where a 6 to-hit generates an auto-hit with a bolt weapon and there are a lot of rerolls available and they could be getting the +1 to-wound from a Chaplain.
I wouldn't want to build a list around that but the option to catch someone off-guard is there.
indeed. We already saw armies of Intercessors have good results with the new codex and the UM/WS supplement before IH's came and took over. Depending on relics/stratagems you could do the same with IF and have better anti-tank for free.
grouchoben wrote: Well it's funny, because those commenters in this thread saying 'relax, it's not as bad as you think' are ones I usually agre with. But they're dead wrong on this one.
Here's Panda from his excellent weekly rundown thread over at r/comp40k:
9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.
Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.
Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.
Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.
That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%.
There hasn't been anything like this in 40k 8th edition yet. Those saying 'this is fine' don't really seem to be in contact with what's happening with the game, and are rather repeating a well-established (and often, in the past, corect) mantra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the top 4 breakdowns. ...
Into the Hellstorm 4
Mike Porter – Iron Hands
Andrew Wilcock – Chaos
Simon Miller – Space Wolves/AdMech
Simon Priddis – IH Successor
Michigan GT Thomas Ogden – Iron Hands
Aaron Aleong – Guard/White Scars
Elliot Levy – Orks
Brad Chester – IH/RG
Battle for Salvation
Nicholas Rose – Iron Hands
Mark Hertel – Iron Hands
Andrew Gonyo – RG Successor
Sean Nayden – Eldar
Crucible
John Lennon – WS/IH Successor
Ruben Fernandez – White Scars
Cody Saults – Chaos
Daniel Smith – Iron Hands
Midtcon
Thomas Dorner – Iron Hands
Rasmus Olesen – Orks
Kristian Krabsen – Iron Hands
Andreas Drachmann – Orks
Fantasia 36
Sami Keinanen – Iron Hands
Mark Haatio – Ultramarines
Robert Gustafsson – Iron Hands
Tim Nordin – Guard/Iron Hands
Iron Monkey
Doug Sainsbury – Iron Hands
Andrew Bartosh – Raven Guard
James Brown – Knights/BA Pascal Roggen – AdMech/Assassins/Knights
Seeds of Destruction
Jay Maylam – GSC Jay Seebarun – Iron Hands
Feliks Bartkiewicz – Iron Hands
Liam Royle – DE/Harlies
Harbor Heresy
Zachary Nelson – Iron Hands
Ryan Lynn – Iron Hands
Harrison Jewell – Raven Guard
Colin Sherman – Tau
Automatically Appended Next Post: And this is within a few weeks of the rules dropping. Things are going to get a lot worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Well done to Jay Maylam for breaking what would have otherwise been a clean sweep with his GSC!)
I remember sweeps like this happening with the Ynnari or the 7 Flyrants, or even when that short lived unending poxwalker army was about. Castellans, too.
Saying this is unprecedented may not be accurate. The speed at which players took advantage is really the only notable point. It remains to be seen how this army will be countered.
I think it is a problem, but I think (as usual) the hyperbole is ridiculous.
It's funny. Since stepping away from 40k for a while and trying out a more other TT games I just become more ashamed of some 40k players (obviously not all). Yes, in lots of the other games I played there is a meta but players seem a lot less ready to exploit it than they do with 40k. You have to imagine, in the last few months players have bought and repainted thousands for pounds worth of models even in local scenes (I know this because I've seen a few players here do that) just to win a few games for a month while other Table Top games players (even pro) seem to stick to their play style and don't change it even if there is an advantage (Or it can take a while before people are exploiting something).
I'm reminded of X-wing (only one of the games I've been playing recently) and how a lot of pro-players have been beat recently while trying to exploit the latest meta by older players who have stuck to the lists they like.
And what's your point? L2P? That's a pretty poor argument.
If something is broken, it is broken. Nobody cares about "oh you can still beat it". Main difference is some of us called it on the Levi not being the issue with Iron Hands as much as the free rerolls on everything important!
Ithink his point is that 40k players make a bad thing worse by obsessivly trying to break the game.
It isn't hard to even break the game accidentally, so that's not a good argument. 3 Dreads being followed by an Ironstone Techmarine already sounds fluffy as is, right?
How easy something is to do rarely invalidates whether it's worth doing.
Oh please. A NEW player could easily have done that.
Blame GW, not the player.
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that how easy it is decides whether you should do it, specifically because of how easy it is?
Most circular arguments have at least one term in the loop before the cycle...
I won't excuse people from doing things they shouldn't just because it isn't too hard to do things they shouldn't.
My post was incredibly easy to follow. You're just overthinking it. You say just because something is easily done doesn't mean it should be done. I'm saying a new player could easily have done that same setup with little research because it looks cool and Iron Hands = Dreads. Same way a new player buying a bunch of Guard Infantry having no idea they're broken, just that they're the primary troop choice.
It's certainly possible that a new player happens to build a tournament list that's identical to a netlist, then builds a new list every few months that just happens to be the new meta hotness. But the odds are... not in their favor. Tracking that closely to meta netlists repeatedly is *very* hard to do "accidentally". Sure, we can say a random new player might have a 1/1000 chance of doing it with their first army, but even if we assume they do new armies every couple months, we're talking one in a *billion* that they do it three times in a row.
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
Trying to blame the player for GW's shoddy balancing is the very definition of Battered Wife Syndrome. How can you NOT see that?
*Please* try to be less vitrolic with your language. Battered Wife Syndrome is a serious condition. If I blame you for stealing Bob's wallet, that's not battered wife syndrome just because Bob left his wallet unattended. "It's easy to steal it" doesn't mean you weren't wrong to steal it. And accusing people who call you out for steeling it to be pro-domestic-abuse is despicable.
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 18:18:47
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
If two people start necron and DA, and two other start IH or old Inari. The IH players is going to have a vastly better army. And am talking here about non tournament lists.
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
That is intersting view of the world, because we have a saying here that you have to steal your first big money here. And another one that says that law is law, but justice has to be on our side.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 20:29:09
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
If two people start necron and DA, and two other start IH or old Inari. The IH players is going to have a vastly better army. And am talking here about non tournament lists.
You'll occasionally see new players who see "trash" armies as OP, or OP armies as "trash" because the exact opposite is true. An "old Ynnari" army built indifferent to balance wasn't notably stronger than another faction's list built indifferent to balance (in large part due to the huge amount of options Ynnari had). "Fight Twice" and buffstacking meant a lot less when you have an MSU list. Or didn't have Spears. Or Farseers. Or whatever. The stronger book tends to be a little stronger, but variance in choices usually eclipse the strength/weakness in the books (when lists aren't built for balance reasons).
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
That is intersting view of the world, because we have a saying here that you have to steal your first big money here.
Not sure what that one is supposed to mean. Is it saying you *should* steal if you can get away with it?
And another one that says that law is law, but justice has to be on our side.
Is this saying that you're justified in whatever you're doing, or is it saying that you must only do what is justified?
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
If two people start necron and DA, and two other start IH or old Inari. The IH players is going to have a vastly better army. And am talking here about non tournament lists.
You'll occasionally see new players who see "trash" armies as OP, or OP armies as "trash" because the exact opposite is true. An "old Ynnari" army built indifferent to balance wasn't notably stronger than another faction's list built indifferent to balance (in large part due to the huge amount of options Ynnari had). "Fight Twice" and buffstacking meant a lot less when you have an MSU list. Or didn't have Spears. Or Farseers. Or whatever. The stronger book tends to be a little stronger, but variance in choices usually eclipse the strength/weakness in the books (when lists aren't built for balance reasons).
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
That is intersting view of the world, because we have a saying here that you have to steal your first big money here.
Not sure what that one is supposed to mean. Is it saying you *should* steal if you can get away with it?
And another one that says that law is law, but justice has to be on our side.
Is this saying that you're justified in whatever you're doing, or is it saying that you must only do what is justified?
What we are saying is we are playing by the rules laid out for us. If the rules are so poorly written that they can be exploited or not allow a fair game between two basic TAC armies, who is really at fault? The player that isn't toning down an already TAC list, or GW for not making them fair in the first place?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
If two people start necron and DA, and two other start IH or old Inari. The IH players is going to have a vastly better army. And am talking here about non tournament lists.
You'll occasionally see new players who see "trash" armies as OP, or OP armies as "trash" because the exact opposite is true. An "old Ynnari" army built indifferent to balance wasn't notably stronger than another faction's list built indifferent to balance (in large part due to the huge amount of options Ynnari had). "Fight Twice" and buffstacking meant a lot less when you have an MSU list. Or didn't have Spears. Or Farseers. Or whatever. The stronger book tends to be a little stronger, but variance in choices usually eclipse the strength/weakness in the books (when lists aren't built for balance reasons).
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
That is intersting view of the world, because we have a saying here that you have to steal your first big money here.
Not sure what that one is supposed to mean. Is it saying you *should* steal if you can get away with it?
And another one that says that law is law, but justice has to be on our side.
Is this saying that you're justified in whatever you're doing, or is it saying that you must only do what is justified?
What we are saying is we are playing by the rules laid out for us. If the rules are so poorly written that they can be exploited or not allow a fair game between two basic TAC armies, who is really at fault? The player that isn't toning down an already TAC list, or GW for not making them fair in the first place?
Can't it be both?
Who's at fault for Bob's wallet? Bob for leaving it unattended, or you for taking it? Both.
It's fairly probable that if you have two random players build lists independent of balance, one will likely be stronger than the other. But that's not nearly the same as army hopping between netlists. And the balance gap will almost-always be substantially smaller than "Netlist vs average-new-player-list".
If two people start necron and DA, and two other start IH or old Inari. The IH players is going to have a vastly better army. And am talking here about non tournament lists.
You'll occasionally see new players who see "trash" armies as OP, or OP armies as "trash" because the exact opposite is true. An "old Ynnari" army built indifferent to balance wasn't notably stronger than another faction's list built indifferent to balance (in large part due to the huge amount of options Ynnari had). "Fight Twice" and buffstacking meant a lot less when you have an MSU list. Or didn't have Spears. Or Farseers. Or whatever. The stronger book tends to be a little stronger, but variance in choices usually eclipse the strength/weakness in the books (when lists aren't built for balance reasons).
Being able to steal/be a jerk/hurt someone isn't OK just because bob/GW/society/gov't didn't stop you.
That is intersting view of the world, because we have a saying here that you have to steal your first big money here.
Not sure what that one is supposed to mean. Is it saying you *should* steal if you can get away with it?
And another one that says that law is law, but justice has to be on our side.
Is this saying that you're justified in whatever you're doing, or is it saying that you must only do what is justified?
What we are saying is we are playing by the rules laid out for us. If the rules are so poorly written that they can be exploited or not allow a fair game between two basic TAC armies, who is really at fault? The player that isn't toning down an already TAC list, or GW for not making them fair in the first place?
Can't it be both?
Who's at fault for Bob's wallet? Bob for leaving it unattended, or you for taking it? Both.
That's really going out of the way to defending the person that left their wallet unattended. It's already known as naive to just trust leaving such valuables unattended, ergo most of the fault lies on the person leaving it there.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
That's really going out of the way to defending the person that left their wallet unattended. It's already known as naive to just trust leaving such valuables unattended, ergo most of the fault lies on the person leaving it there.
Or, you know, the person who finds the wallet can also turn it in to the lost-and-found, or use the contact information to mail it to the owner.
Deffskullz desert scavengers
Thousand Sons 
