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 wrote:

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.

The Post i am talking about did not state the type.
And excuse my military training but if someone complains about field artillery (tfc) and then says that he does not have to field IG ones now I am kinda confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.

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

Actually 5% is massive for 40k! Even things like mono GK are only at a bit over 5% below the 50% mark. 5% above Ynnari, a win-rate already ridiculously high win rate that I feel largely hinged off a small-but-skilled playerbase and mostly heavily piloted by Nick Nanavati, is just insane for Iron Hands to be reaching that level of success. Stats only tell so much, but something being this successful statistically is most definitely unprecedented as of yet.

However, one small disclaimer to sunny Side Up's statement - the meta not being ironed out is something that can go both ways. For example, I think Drukhari's win rate was at it's peak right after release, the longer it went on the more players adapted.

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

That is disingenuous; he detailed more than that and phrasing it as 'a 5% difference' makes it seem smaller than it is. If one army wins 3/4 times and another wins 4/5 that's a pretty big difference.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

That is disingenuous; he detailed more than that and phrasing it as 'a 5% difference' makes it seem smaller than it is. If one army wins 3/4 times and another wins 4/5 that's a pretty big difference.

If we compare subjectively, the difference between 75% and 80% is 6%. I prefer objective numbers, but even subjective comparisons aren't that different.

I can't compare his other data without looking into the source. Is being new actually a disadvantage, or do new powerful builds sometimes benefit from nobody having a counterpick?

Sure. Things will likely change a little once people get the hang of it. Also, as more people pile into the faction, it'll have more people that will lose with them (though it will also make up more of the meta).

The 2017-saison LVO (in January 2018?) had only 8 or so Ynnari players, but their win rates were insane. the 2018-saison LVO had 5-6 times as many, but their win rate dropped (still good).

I would expect this one-year-trend of Ynnari to play out with Iron Hands in a month max. People now see the success of Iron Hands (and/or experience the frustration of being tabled by them playing something else) and jump on the bandwagon, decreasing their win-rates but (perhaps actually more problematic) increasing the frequency you run into them at events.

Also thus far the main-counter to Iron Hands appear to be other Marines, whether it's White Scars builds as those of John Lennon or Innes Wilson, or the Raven Guard thing by Andrew Gonyo. This IMO creates a bit of the Castellan/Smash Captain problem, where (one of) the best counter to the Castellan/Smash Captain was a Castellan and some Smash/Captains.

Thus we might get a 2-3 built Marine meta, where you'll see an increasingly optimized Iron Hands build emerging, along with one or two counter-builds, but if those counter-builds are also Marines, it'll only hasten the sprint into faction-monotony.


Overall, I actually think super-high win-rates are less problematic than ubiquity for the overall health of the game. Ynnari were super-good, but it was never more than 5-10% of people playing them (and far fewer at their height). It was individually frustrating if you got tabled by them, but overall people still had diverse tournaments.

Knights were more problematic (in my humble opinion) as they were just so much more common. Even if you beat them once or twice, chances were you'd still play more Knights afterwards. It wasn't uncommon in the late summer of 2018 to play 3-4 rounds against Knights in a 5-round tournament, which definitely felt like echos of 7th Ed. monotony. Marines are gonna be that phenomenon dialed up to 11. It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.

Spoletta wrote:


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.

you're right, I sometimes forget which forum this is

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Overall, I actually think super-high win-rates are less problematic than ubiquity for the overall health of the game. Ynnari were super-good, but it was never more than 5-10% of people playing them (and far fewer at their height). It was individually frustrating if you got tabled by them, but overall people still had diverse tournaments.

Knights were more problematic (in my humble opinion) as they were just so much more common. Even if you beat them once or twice, chances were you'd still play more Knights afterwards. It wasn't uncommon in the late summer of 2018 to play 3-4 rounds against Knights in a 5-round tournament, which definitely felt like echos of 7th Ed. monotony. Marines are gonna be that phenomenon dialed up to 11. It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.

I'm agree with this. And it basically boils down to "the strongest armies should be the hardest to play" I think.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
...It'll just be boring and stale playing 3-4 Iron Hands in a row, even if you beat them, thus people will look for more varied and fun games that aren't 40K.

That's a good point. Part of what has me worried about IH is that, in addition to having a high maximum strength, they're also incredibly simple to run for inexperienced players looking for an easy army to play around with. Without some kind of patch, (Change it to "Move without negatives OR get reroll 1s" would do a lot all by itself) it's very easy to see the meta being completely dominated by marines until other armies get tools to catch up.

 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.

What are you going to playtest now, IH got a bunch of rules that are proven good for 2-3 years of the game:
Ignore penalty with moving with havy weapons-super strong most armies still dream of having such rule.
-1 damage - wave serpent proved how good it 2-3 years
overwatch on 5++ - Tao
full rerolls - Gulliman
rerolls on wounds, extra shoots in death - proven by so many armies
FNP 6+++, degrading harder and having easy way to regain wounds- having 2 of those is fantastic, having 3 is fething OP.

The only way combining such rules together and not be broken is that the army units are super bad and unscientific. SM units can hardly be called like that, so it was obvios by most people that IH are broken.
When the IH get nerfed it will be obvious that the codex is broken.

It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.

Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

80% from the get go is damn impressive.
Altough o stated as much in the if thread.

Incidentally, can you point me to where those numbers are from? I want to compare.

The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)

May I recommend you stop wasting your energy? There is a small group of users who produce an obscene amount of content on this forum, mostly negative and mostly not worthwhile. Your experience will change drastically and for the better if you simply ignore their posts or don't involve yourself in the back-and-forth. I guess you might feel differently and get something out of the exchange, but what are you hoping to accomplish here?

Marin wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.

Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.

Well explaining doesn't often explain stuff. How questions maybe, but why almost never. Most of the anwsers to why questions I have to take on faith, because I find no logic in the explanations.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)

The irony is that I was one of the early people to post the leviathan maths, and unfortunately it was only supposed to be a way to show how much potential for broken IronHands Supliment contained but certain people got fixated on it as being the be all end all as they weren't interested in the flyers or multiple repulsor builds.

Marin wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
It's an incredible and exciting time that we live in when someone could read that post, and somehow think it was saying that Iron Hands aren't broken.

Hardly the point of the post, it was against the repeated non-stop opinion that you need to experience and test everything to know something.
After all we are not kids and you don`t need to be burnt 3 times to understand something so obvious.

These exact same words have been said multiple times with slightly different variations for every change to the game since i have memory.

Hard data shows that when people say so, they are wrong 50% of the time and right 50% of the time. Which is another way to say that they have actually no idea.


The "I don't need data, i can read" approach has been demonstrated a failing one multiple times, let it rest.

Maybe that iron hands will indeed turn out to be the next meta thing, and the first data coming seems to confirm that (still, i saw that data and is ITC only, so not fully applicable to 40K).

In any case, i'm witholding my judgement until a couple of months have passed. I want to see the FAQ, the evolution of the meta and most importantly the CA19.

What is probably going to happen, and i do like this, is that the game will become Power Armor centric. Now that the codex compliant chapters are fully fledged factions, 16 factions of the game are marines of some flavour, which is a huge percentage (half the factions of the game? And i'm not counting FW or minor marine factions like Blood Ravens). Marines will become the most common enemy.

As the theme of 40K already was in the narrative, it is now marines vs everyone else also on the table. For some reason, i like it.

okey but if marines suddenly become super proficient at killing other marines, and the meta also shifts to counter marines. Every marine army that has not yet been given their doctrines, relics and new stratagems is going to be very unfun to play, while at the same technicly having access to the same units.

Looking at my own 'chaos knight' army I think I should go full thermal cannons and moirax lightning locks. Either go big on the d6 damage output and/or cheap 1 wound shooting (lightning lock). Also dreadblade 'no -1 ap' pact could also help against various space marine shooting. One knight rampager with as much movement bonuses could go in for the kill or be a giant bullet magnet.

So one could face a IH dreadnought/repulsor/hawks castle combi, most likely, right?

Well, if all the Marine Supplements are well-balanced against each other as well as internally, and even Iron Hands produce a variety of unique and interesting lists, and the only issue is Marines vs. non-Marines, it’ll be the easiest fix ever: Just Reprint the point-cost table from the Marine book in CA or as an online pdf or something with a flat 20% or whatever point increase on everything.

You don’t need to figure out some unexpected obscure rules-interaction, you don’t need to worry about broader game mechanics like the allies system or so making things difficult. You keep all the cool internal balance and flavor. You simply lower Marines by a level to be on even keel with everyone else with all their new coolness, variety and flavor unharmed.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)

it's more fun to panic today then make an informed decision next week.

*waves hands in air* IRON HANDS ARE RUINING THE GAME! THE END OF WARHAMMER 40K IS NIGH PANIC PANIC PANIC


See how fun that was

In all seriousness I admit that Ironhands looks pretty damn powerful. as I've said before, even with just the codex Ironhands get 3 good traits. Overwatch on 5-6. 6 up FNP, And the "vehicles do not degrade" ability. All of these are ones I would consider to be easily as powerful so I'm just not sure what GW was thinking. Perhaps they where thinking the vehicles thing would not always apply to an army so they needed a third trait? forgiveable if one of their traits only applied to infantry, but if so why is that trait on the sucessors table?

I mean I don't mind game design issues where it's a matter of "well we think a 6 up feel no pain is as good as a re-roll all failed armor saves" and it turns out one is massivly better then the other. But when it's clear that one faction is CLEARLY better to the point where it gets more traits "just because" yeah that annoys me. I mean get ridda Iron hands vehicular bonus and TBH they'd be good but not insane. I mean the Iron hands super doctrine isn't even all that great (the Ultramarines one is, arguably better) it's just that Iron hands have so many things that all boost vehicle toughness.

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!)

That is from the if thread.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The scorn this community has for the very concept of making an informed decision will never cease to amaze me. Top players said Iron Hands would be strong but that they couldn’t predict how strong exactly for certain - not this godlike community however we knew everything! (excepting all the things we got wrong of course)

What amaze me more is that YOU(not plural btw) continue to use plurals to summarize different and sometimes totally opposite opinions on the some topic.
For instance:
What community are you referring about ? Dakka, some facebook group/groups. twitter, the moon green mans ?
How is the community making decision when half of the people disagree on most things or have other opinion ?

What are those top players you are referring about ? When they sad their opinion?
Maybe they are waiting to express their view, after they see the new FAQ, CA 2019, erratas, test atleast 1-2 times things or to work on army build in secret and go and win tournament.

What it starting to annoy me is that people hear something from certain players for instance Reece and start repeating it non-stop like broken record.

These exact same words have been said multiple times with slightly different variations for every change to the game since i have memory.

Hard data shows that when people say so, they are wrong 50% of the time and right 50% of the time. Which is another way to say that they have actually no idea.


The "I don't need data, i can read" approach has been demonstrated a failing one multiple times, let it rest.

Maybe that iron hands will indeed turn out to be the next meta thing, and the first data coming seems to confirm that (still, i saw that data and is ITC only, so not fully applicable to 40K).

In any case, i'm witholding my judgement until a couple of months have passed. I want to see the FAQ, the evolution of the meta and most importantly the CA19.

What is probably going to happen, and i do like this, is that the game will become Power Armor centric. Now that the codex compliant chapters are fully fledged factions, 16 factions of the game are marines of some flavour, which is a huge percentage (half the factions of the game? And i'm not counting FW or minor marine factions like Blood Ravens). Marines will become the most common enemy.

As the theme of 40K already was in the narrative, it is now marines vs everyone else also on the table. For some reason, i like it.

I have to agree on what you are saying. What i don`t agree is to use the some logic for this release, because it`s really hard not to think that combining multiple rules that are already proven to be super good on their own, combined with units with decent statistics than you can get bad results.
CA and other releases can change that, but currently my personal opinion(no the plural community) is that IH are totally broken.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
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.

That's interesting.

What are the commonly units and models (with armament) taken by the top lists?
Sorry, dont have enough time to browse though these sites.

As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?

Marin wrote:

Maybe they are waiting to express their view, after they see the new FAQ, CA 2019, erratas, test atleast 1-2 times things or to work on army build in secret and go and win tournament.

Yeah yeah wait for FAQ, CA19, then spring faq, autumn faq, CA20...

Or maybe actually look at the evidence already present rather than keep pushing "one more step to wait" forever?

 wuestenfux wrote:
What are the commonly units and models (with armament) taken by the top lists?
Sorry, dont have enough time to browse though these sites.

The most common ones seem to be storm talons, invictor suit, repulsor exectutioner and a thunderfire cannon, alongside with the vast majority of troops being scouts.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?

I think more than most honestly. There was a WS player the week before beat out 2 or 3 IH players (I can't remember if it was 2 or 3), and i saw a SW player beat out 2 IH players as well (I follow some SW as i'm thinking of picking them up for a side project and i think they are actually kinda good/viable, mostly cool marines)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?

Considering that most lists needed to be able to deal with knights in theory that shouldn't have been an issue.
In theory mind you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As a genuine NooB, how much of those admitedly impressive results might be down to lists that haven't previously optimised against Mechanised Marines?

As marines have beenmostly low end of competitive builds for a year previous to the new codex marines being top table is new.
However T8 3+sv 5++ is knight profile and people have been blowing those off the board for a year now, so repulsors shouldn't be an issue.

Flyers with -2 to hit has been an alitoc staple for a while and also should have an answer, combining the two along with some of the new primaris infiltration shenanigans units though is new.

The issue seems to be other new marines have 1 or 2 rounds of insane damage output then wither as they don't have the model count to keep up the pressure turn 3 onwards while ironhands can bring that same damage potential more mobile and keep it alive to just keep bringing that pain for the whole game.