The Iron Hands beating thread

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.

Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.

Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.

The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.

Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.

Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.

In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?

**Togusa**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.

Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.

Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.

The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.

Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.

Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.

I have a friend with a Catachan artillery list I'd like you to meet. It's absolutely brutal to face, I've yet to be able to beat it.

**fraser1191**

I think part of the problem with super doctrines is that there are some that start turn one. I think for the most part everything should have been in the tactical doctrine. That or Rearrange each factions doctrine table so maybe IH/IF don't get theirs till turn 2

**Continuity**

Togusa wrote:
So I have to ask.

Why is everyone losing their minds about Iron Hands?

I played two games over the weekend, one against Iron Hands and one against Ultramarines. Personally, I found the ultramarines to be a lot harder.

Abaddon made quick work of that iron father character without taking a single wound. My Obliterators and Plasma Marines made quick work of the rest of the army.

I found the "fall back and shoot hellblasters at full Ballistic Skill" to be a lot more scary than the iron hands being super durable.

IH took up half of the top placings in multiple tournaments, in the same week, across the world, as soon as the book became tournament legal. I have yet to see a faction become so dominant so fast in the whole of 8th edition, so yeah that's probably why people are freaking out.

Ultramarine's doctrine explicitly excludes when they fall back so they are definitely getting a -1 to hit after they fall back, so those hellblasters aren't as scary as you think

**Togusa**

Continuity wrote:
Togusa wrote:
So I have to ask.

Why is everyone losing their minds about Iron Hands?

I played two games over the weekend, one against Iron Hands and one against Ultramarines. Personally, I found the ultramarines to be a lot harder.

Abaddon made quick work of that iron father character without taking a single wound. My Obliterators and Plasma Marines made quick work of the rest of the army.

I found the "fall back and shoot hellblasters at full Ballistic Skill" to be a lot more scary than the iron hands being super durable.

IH took up half of the top placings in multiple tournaments, in the same week, across the world, as soon as the book became tournament legal. I have yet to see a faction become so dominant so fast in the whole of 8th edition, so yeah that's probably why people are freaking out.

Ultramarine's doctrine explicitly excludes when they fall back so they are definitely getting a -1 to hit after they fall back, so those hellblasters aren't as scary as you think

Five hellblasters falling back, popping strat that says no -1 to hit outright killed three obliterators from one of my units. In addition, when I returned fire upon them with my oblit squad #2, they all got to roll to shoot when they died thanks to the 9" banner guy, and killed 1 more obliterator and put 2 dmg on a second one. It drastically reduced my effectiveness, though because I had built in redundancy, I was able to recover. It seems pretty powerful to me.

**Nitro Zeus**

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Here’s some real results. Iron Hands SLAUGHTERED this week at events, and the Repulsor saw plenty of play. So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.

Anyway, this is too far past to be outliers or popular models anymore. With numbers like this up here, I’ll unhappily say that it definitely seems like Iron Hands are too much
For the game right now and it’s not healthy, and a nerf can’t come soon enough.

**Crimson**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.

I mean some of us actually understand how this game works and thus knew this would happen.

**Nitro Zeus**

Crimson wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.

I mean some of us actually understand how this game works and thus knew this would happen.

By their own admission, the best players in the game aren’t capable of looking at a dex and knowing for certain what will happen. You thought you knew but your lack of understanding of the game is so deeply fundamental that you aren’t capable of distinguishing what you were right about from what you knew. This forum rages back and forth with a bunch of low level analysis based off theory hammer at every now release, there’s a reason the good players say wait and see

**Crimson**

Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.

**Nitro Zeus**

Crimson wrote:
Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.

That's the theorycraft speaking. There's no formula that can tell you how negative the impact of a 3" anchor is going to be on an elite-style faction in an objective based game. You can't accurately math out board control.

At best you can recognise that something is likely going to be a bit too strong, but as you say in your final sentence, the extent of which requires playtesting, and that's all I think too, that we should let these things hit the meta to see. No shots at anyone who suspected Iron Hands were going to be OP, it's certainly was not an outlandish prediction and it was proved right at this point imo, but I just think that speculation does not trump experience. Just remember what this forum said about Drukhari, Orks, and GSC, and Knights in the opening weeks. They were right about Knights, wrong about the rest, and that's my point about being incapable of separating what we knew, from what we were right about.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Math isn't magic. When something is blatantly OP you can tell, even though the exact degree of brokenness would require plytesting.

That's the theorycraft speaking. There's no formula that can tell you how negative the impact of a 3" anchor is going to be on an elite-style faction in an objective based game. You can't accurately math out board control.

At best you can recognise that something is likely going to be a bit too strong, but as you say in your final sentence, the extent of which requires playtesting, and that's all I think too, that we should let these things hit the meta to see. No shots at anyone who suspected Iron Hands were going to be OP, it's certainly was not an outlandish prediction and it was proved right at this point imo, but I just think that speculation does not trump experience. Just remember what this forum said about Drukhari, Orks, and GSC, and Knights in the opening weeks. They were right about Knights, wrong about the rest, and that's my point about being incapable of separating what we knew, from what we were right about.

Well the forum was right about Dark Eldar and to an extent Genestealer Cults, so I don't see how this post helps prove your point.

**Nitro Zeus**

Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.

**w1zard**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay.

People being wrong in predictions about balance issues here on the forums doesn't mean that ALL balance issues are inherently unpredictable by anyone until actual statistics start rolling it. It just means that those specific people were wrong.

Some balance issues in 40k are so blatant as to be absolutely noticeable without having to playtest.

**Xenomancers**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
So here’s the evidence that people should have waited for.

I mean some of us actually understand how this game works and thus knew this would happen.

By their own admission, the best players in the game aren’t capable of looking at a dex and knowing for certain what will happen. You thought you knew but your lack of understanding of the game is so deeply fundamental that you aren’t capable of distinguishing what you were right about from what you knew. This forum rages back and forth with a bunch of low level analysis based off theory hammer at every now release, there’s a reason the good players say wait and see

"The best players in the world"....
This game is about list building and the skill is in list building. Knowing the power of a unit about all it takes to build a list. Can list deal with x/can list deal with y....that is about it man. Sure you actually have to play the list right but that really is not that difficult. ESP when your army is practically indestructible compared to what opponents can field. I'm sure if it wasn't for Ironhands there would be a whole lot of Ultramarines doing well too but not this complete and utter dominance that requires your army be so durable it can't lose. As for your comment about Levithans - perhaps the overall plan is to never get close and just table your opponent from across the table where a 24" ranged unit is more of a liability. I'm sure any one of these winning players could take a 2x executioner+ levi dread and do just as well - they just chose another path.

Also - we didn't need to wait for these results. These results were preordained.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

fraser1191 wrote:
I think part of the problem with super doctrines is that there are some that start turn one. I think for the most part everything should have been in the tactical doctrine. That or Rearrange each factions doctrine table so maybe IH/IF don't get theirs till turn 2

I agree. Turn 1 dsuper doctrines shouldn't be a thing and also the iron hands doctrine should straight up not give you reroll 1's. Ironhands should also not get 5+ overwatch...5+ overwatch in an army that has the ability to reroll all hits is absolute madness.

**Waaaghpower**

Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)

IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.

**NurglesR0T**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.

Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.

Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.

The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.

Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.

Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.

In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?

Yeah there's a reason Basilisks are the staple of every Cadian list I've ever played against...

**Sunny Side Up**

Waaaghpower wrote:
Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)

IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.

Compared to any other army release we ever had, where all those factors apply just the same, it's still unprecedented (at least since we have internetz and social media and easy access to lots of tournament results to compare).

**Waaaghpower**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
Something I'm curious about - Clearly, from the tournament results, IH are good, but how much are those results inflated by the fact that Iron Hands are new, popular, and easy for anyone to pick up?
How many top tier players pivoted to IH because it was a new, viable option, but could have done just as well with one of the other top-tier armies?
(Also, how long will the performance be bouyed by other players not yet knowing how to handle IH?)

IH are clearly powerful, but these numbers seem higher than their performance should dictate.

Compared to any other army release we ever had, where all those factors apply just the same, it's still unprecedented (at least since we have internetz and social media and easy access to lots of tournament results to compare).

Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)

**Jidmah**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.

Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.

Edit, just from this week:
First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan
First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners
First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners

Get off your high horse.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/

**Argive**

I find ot it strange how some people are saying:

Well.. how do you know IH are broken? Maybe its just cos they are popular you see them winning?

When the SM book came, i looked at all the rules and saw it was on its own merits, very strong. Because I can read. It doesnt take a genius. Good/useful free Rules on more rules with extra rules.. unless you take cut throat min max list against nu marines you can forget about winning a casual matched game. Its just obvious.

The supplaments layered on top are really pushing that boat out. If you can read, you can tell. There are many different builds that can be competative. Where as other factions are tied to one maybe two one trick pony lists.. so yeah. Still not seeing forest through the trees for some..

**Waaaghpower**

Argive wrote:
I find ot it strange how some people are saying:

Well.. how do you know IH are broken? Maybe its just cos they are popular you see them winning?

Who is saying that?

**Not Online!!!**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.

Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.

Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.

The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.

Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.

Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.

In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?

In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?

Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.

Probably because i see them more, on my shelve

**vict0988**

Not Online!!! wrote:

In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?

Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.

Probably because i see them more, on my shelve

What are mortars? Thunderfire cannons have the same range as Wyverns so I'm not sure why they aren't comparable?

**Not Online!!!**

vict0988 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?

Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.

Probably because i see them more, on my shelve

What are mortars? Thunderfire cannons have the same range as Wyverns so I'm not sure why they aren't comparable?

A lightweight artillery weapon? Normally used by infantery. Or insurgents.

A wyvern or Basilisk is a selfproppeled piece of artillery their equivalent is the Whirlwind.

**Nitro Zeus**

Jidmah wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.

Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.

Edit, just from this week:
First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan
First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners
First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners

Get off your high horse.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/

I didn’t say Executioners, so that’s not in any way a counter to what I said. I said LEVIATHANS. Read it, it’s not a difficult distinction. I have no high horse here, my argument is literally that the results have confirmed Iron Hands are OP. An impartial party may even say that the people with the high horse are the ones trying to sneer at others and rub their face in the fact that “I was right and if you disagreed, or even said to wait and see, then you don’t understand the game” - but it might take some measure self awareness to be able to recognise that.

I don’t think there is any high horse involved in pointing out to the people in here snarking about for malicious vindiciation, that while Executioners were proven good, the louder half of that prediction was the OP'ness of Leviathan dreads, a prediction that was met with a 1/72 hit ratio, for possible inclusions out of placing Adeptus Astartes lists - so it's clear that maybe this forum's "deep understanding of the game" isn't really something that was at all supported by these results, but hey.

Jidmah wrote:
Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.

Nope. One single lone Leviathan in Iron Hands the top placing lists there as well, and it was at the very bottom of that list.

https://www.40kstats.com/middleofnowhere

So, I think the only correct response at this point is - Get off YOUR high horse. You weren’t proved smarter smarter than anyone who said "wait for some results" to get a clearer picture, if anything these results serve as a good example of why.

**Spoletta**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Large portions of the forum were proven very wrong about both, as they painted both to be the OP machines that Iron Hands are showing themselves to be, but okay

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that there was like 1 single lone Leviathan out of the 18 total Iron Hands lists that placed showed that people didn't really know or even properly understand what makes Iron Hands strong either.

Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.

Edit, just from this week:
First place at Michigan GT was running a castle with a IH Leviathan
First place at Mitcon GT was running an IH castle with executioners
First place at Harbour Heresy was running an IH castle with executioners

Get off your high horse.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/

I didn’t say Executioners, so that’s not in any way a counter to what I said. I said LEVIATHANS. Read it, it’s not a difficult distinction. I have no high horse here, my argument is literally that the results do confirm Iron Hands are OP. An impartial party may even say that the people with the high horse are the ones trying to sneer at others and rub their face in the fact that “I was right and if you disagreed you don’t understand the game” - but it might take some measure self awareness to be able to recognise that.

I don’t think there is any high horse involved in pointing out to the people in here snarking about for malicious vindiciation, that while Executioners were proven good, the louder half of that prediction was the OP'ness of Leviathan dreads, a prediction that was met with a 1/72 hit ratio, for possible inclusions out of placing Adeptus Astartes lists - so it's clear that maybe this forum's "deep understanding of the game" isn't really something that was at all supported by these results, but hey.

Jidmah wrote:
Or maybe, because of the fact that most of previous week's top placing IH lists at Middle of Nowhere GT and Voidhammer actually did run leviathans and castles.

Nope. One single lone Leviathan in Iron Hands the top placing lists there as well, and it was at the very bottom of that list.

https://www.40kstats.com/middleofnowhere

So, I think the only correct response at this point is - Get off YOUR high horse. Anyone who is saying they KNEW what was too OP and didn't need to wait for results, but was also saying Leviathan's were going to be OP - nope, that's a perfect an excellent of example of why math and overconfidence doesn't trump actual experience.

This forum isn't made for informed opinions, stop projecting your personal delusions of what a forum should look like on our lovely nest of random gibberish.

**Sunny Side Up**

Waaaghpower wrote:

Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)

A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.

B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.

So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Not Online!!! wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The only way you stop allies is not making your units suck. NOW I have incentive to take TFCs for example because they use the BS2+ again.

Most of what a TFC encompasses is irrelevant to IH. It shoots out of LOS so a 6+++ is irrelevant. For mostly the same reason so it a 5+ overwatch. It doesn't move. BS2 is a better buff than reroll 1s (together they're a little silly). An extra AP is about the only buff without strings.

Are people taking them for BS2 AP2 heavy bolter shots? I doubt it. 92 points for 8 HB shots is nothing game breaking. Double shooting with Tremor Shells, however, is quite useful - neither of which require IH.

The BS2+ and the 6+++, which the Gun didn't have before, are 0retty relevant. This means now I can use a piece of artillery besides something from the Guard.

Really, that's how you incentivize something. You make stuff worth taking on their own merit. If I wanted Guard artillery, it should be because I just wanted to take them rather than being forced to because Marine artillery is bad.

Considering guard field artillery sucks anyways i am unsure why you're wanting them in the first place.

In what universe do Basilisks and Wyverns suck?

In what universe are wyverns and basilisks field artillery?

Wyvern and basilisks are fine choices, IG fieldguns are not and the closest thing i compare the tfc.

Probably because i see them more, on my shelve

Why would you assume that someone talking about "Guard artillery" was talking about "Guard field artillery" and not "Guard artillery"? I assumed you were actually responding to the post you quoted.

Sure, Guard field artillery might suck, but they're not what the post you compared to was talking about.

**Eldarain**

But some people were wrong about what the exact build would be so... It's ok?

**Waaaghpower**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:

Do we have data on that?
What % of top-4 places were dominated by Guilliman lots at the start of the edition, or Imperial Guard once their codex came out? (Also keeping in mind that there are far, far fewer players with a full, tank-heavy Imperial Guard army lying around as compared to a Space Marine army.)

A) A lot of tournament players had Guard armies from leafblower days. Nobody had the Invictor, Repulsor, Iron Father armies that dominated the weekend. They are effectively a new army as Custodes bike Spam or so were on release. Old Marine collections weren’t winning anything this weekend.

B) Yes, we have data. Ynnari at their worst sat at about 68% win percentage. Initial Castellan with Smash Captains and infinite CP was at about 74-75% for that specific built. Iron Hands are the first 8th Edition to top 80% and did so without the best mono-built being figured out and in the first week, where even the Castellan took almost a month or so to come through.

So yes, it’s completely unprecedented and far beyond anything we’ve seen in 8th. Maelific Lords, Guilliman, early-8th Alpha Legion Rush, Ynnari, etc... nothing compares. This is new territory of broken we haven’t seen since 7th Ed. if you go strictly by the numbers.

I wouldn't call a 5% difference "Far beyond anything we've seen", but thanks for supplying the hard numbers.