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.
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
Your lagging a stage behind.
People saw the 2 pt stormshields, wondered 'this looks broken, is it?' And discovered Deathwatch misses several other things for it to be completely broken.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/15 18:07:21
Martel732 wrote: 3++ is bad enough on gak like Wulfen and Wraiths.
I wasn't being serious but if it did...there would be 50% of people coming out of the woodworks to suggest we wait and see how broken it is....
You mean like...Deathwatch & SS. How broken are those guys again? I seem to recall people going a little apeshit over it.
2 point storm shield is too cheap but it was more to make up for the fact they were overcosted to begin with. If they could kill tanks they would have been top tier auto win but they cant...
So waiting to see how broken a 2 point stormshield was....was a good idea?
I'm not saying IH are good to go, but there's a ton of nuance to be gained on these issues.
That wasn't hard to figure out...they can really only deal with infantry and monsters (there aren't really a lot of monsters in the game ether that aren't screenable characters) Theres already a billion options in the game that can kill infantry well. They are really monster killers without a monster to kill. Being durable while being 1 dimensional is a unit that can do well but not dominate. The outrage about them was really just a result of them being the only playable marine infantry.
Just imagine how OPDW would be if half the armies best models were unscreenable monsters.
A lot of what makes ironhands OP is the fact that D6 damage weapons are unreliable so everyone is forced into the flat low damage or d3 multi shot weapons which typical deal 1 damage to ironhands. Combined with 6 flat healing. On top of all the free mobility and damage buffs they get plus the best overall tactic. You can't just paint at one thing like was said before. They just get way too many free rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/15 18:16:29
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well. That they can do very well with multiple builds just makes them sound like even more of a problem?
That wasn't hard to figure out...they can really only deal with infantry and monsters (there aren't really a lot of monsters in the game ether that aren't screenable characters) Theres already a billion options in the game that can kill infantry well. They are really monster killers without a monster to kill. Being durable while being 1 dimensional is a unit that can do well but not dominate. The outrage about them was really just a result of them being the only playable marine infantry.
Just imagine how OPDW would be if half the armies best models were unscreenable monsters.
Right, but as those discussions went -- soup.
A lot of what makes ironhands OP is the fact that D6 damage weapons are unreliable so everyone is forced into the flat low damage or d3 multi shot weapons which typical deal 1 damage to ironhands. Combined with 6 flat healing. On top of all the free mobility and damage buffs they get plus the best overall tactic. You can't just paint at one thing like was said before. They just get way too many free rules.
I don't disagree entirely. I just disagree that focusing on certain aspects over others is going to miss out on other pieces. Did Rose use the Ironstone or not? Was his list castled or not (otherwise why the Techmarine on bike)? Why did he have the Captain on bike? What spells were being used? What other stratagems were used? How big of a role did sniping play?
How is it that he beat this list? If, as you say, D6 weapons are useless (he has some) and flat low damage weapons are also useless (he has some). If it was purely by skilled play on the mission are you going to concede the value of ITC?
There are lots of questions. Few people are asking while others are stonewalling on 'nothing to see, overpowered, move along'.
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well. That they can do very well with multiple builds just makes them sound like even more of a problem?
I'm not disputing the problem -- like everyone here -- but the analysis of the problem and the factors of it. Repulsors did well at other tournaments -- what were their mirror matches? Repulsors also? Did the BFS lists get lucky on "mirror" matches? How much did ITC play a part as opposed to the other tournaments in Sweden / England?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/15 18:44:59
Interestingly, 2 pt storm shield is about right on VV. I think each datasheet needs its own points costs to even have a chance. A SS is much more valuable for a wulfen than for a VV.
I beg your pardon, that my Cyclops/Hellhound idea still does not let me rest, but after reading some of the durability stuff:
DUTY ETERNAL
Use this Stratagem when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES DREADNOUGHT model from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of the phase, when resolving an attack made against that model, halve the damage inflicted (rounding up).
=> the Cyclops demolition vehicle does not choose targets for an attack, but autohits them via an ability. Therefore this stratagem does not apply, the same goes for exploding hellhounds
THE IRONSTONE
When resolving an attack made against an IRON HANDS VEHICLE unit within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic, reduce any damage inflicted by 1, to a minimum of 1
=> Mortal wounds caused by exploding vehicles like hellhounds are not attacks being resolved. The cyclops demolition charge is not an attack made against an Iron Hands Vehicle, but against all units in a given range.
=> This relict does not have an effect on the damage caused
MARCH OF THE ANCIENTS
Use this Stratagem before the battle, after nominating a model to be your Warlord. Select one IRON HANDS DREADNOUGHT model from your army. That model gains the CHARACTER keyword; add 1 to the Attacks and Leadership characteristics of that model.
=> If they are within the range of an exploding Hellhound/Cyclops charge, Dreadnaught characters can still be damaged if they are not the closest model, as they don't have to be targeted
REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE
Use this Stratagem in any phase, when an IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6, adding 1 to the result if that model has the All Flesh is Weakness Warlord Trait. On a 5+ that wound is not lost.
COGITATED MARTYRDOM
Use this Stratagem at the start of the Shooting phase. Select one IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army. Until the end of the phase, when a friendly IRON HANDS CHARACTER model within 3" of that unit would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model, that unit can attempt to intercept that attack. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that model does not lose those wounds and that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each of those wounds. Only one attempt can be made to intercept each attack.
=> as above, neither the Cyclops, nor the exploding Hellhound chooses units for an attack
It might not be much, and it will still be very hard to pull this off, but I find it interesting that a lot of the durability buffs do not apply against suicide charges.
Edit: Briefly going through some of the other factions and their datasheets its interesting that the Iron Hands defensive stuff described above are so often formulated in a way that requires a unit to be attacked/selected for an attack. Contrary to REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE, the "Shield of faith" ability of the Battlesisters as well as the buffs to it provided by Celestine just speak of a general "Invulnerability save" as far as I see it. The same is the case for the invulnerability saves provided by Crusaders Stormshields or Ministorum Priest Rosarius'. On a similar note the bodyguard abilities of Ogryn Bodyguards, Gemini Superia or the Genestealer Locus also just state "when a character loses a wound" instead of COGITATED MARTYRDOMs "loses a wound as result of an attack made against that model".
And Adding to that I just briefly rushed a bit through the Imperial Guard Codex and found that there are quite a number of things causing wounds, that do not "select a model/unit" to attack it. In this specific case the special wording of the abovementioned IH defensive buffs might really have a loophole. To list those I found at a quick glance:
Officer of the Fleet "Air Raid Requested" => ability, no attack
Emperors Fist Tank company, Stratagem "Steel Phalanx" => the same
Deathstrike missile launcher => models around the target loose mortal wounds on a 4+, they are not selected for an attack
Stratagem "Fire on my position", "Preliminary Bombardmend" => no attacks are performed
Any AM flyer with bombs => the bombs cause MWs on specific dice rolls, units are not selected for an attack and no attack rolls are made
That's quite a range of things that (as far as I read it) are not really subject to the IH defensive buffs. And I'm quite sure the other factions have similar options, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/15 21:00:29
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Mate, I love cyclops too. But they're spending at least one turn vrooming up the field. If you expect them to live through the first turn of fire from an IH list, you're kidding yourself. T6 4W 3+ is not an intimidating defensive profile for a 60pt model.
The only way they might work would be through threat saturation, but seeing how a cyclops is a good target for every gun in the game except S3 weaponry, I don't see how that's workable.
Finally, the weapon is only mortal wounds when it explodes, not when you detonate it, so it doesn't bypass IH defences at all, and each wound will probably be 1 damage, saved on a 6+++, if it gets through tougness and armour rolls. Further, it IS an attack, except when it explodes from taking damage.
But you're right, it would mess up their characters if you could get them through to target them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/15 21:35:16
Pyroalchi wrote: I beg your pardon, that my Cyclops/Hellhound idea still does not let me rest, but after reading some of the durability stuff:
Spoiler:
DUTY ETERNAL
Use this Stratagem when an ADEPTUS ASTARTES DREADNOUGHT model from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of the phase, when resolving an attack made against that model, halve the damage inflicted (rounding up).
=> the Cyclops demolition vehicle does not choose targets for an attack, but autohits them via an ability. Therefore this stratagem does not apply, the same goes for exploding hellhounds
THE IRONSTONE
When resolving an attack made against an IRON HANDS VEHICLE unit within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic, reduce any damage inflicted by 1, to a minimum of 1
=> Mortal wounds caused by exploding vehicles like hellhounds are not attacks being resolved. The cyclops demolition charge is not an attack made against an Iron Hands Vehicle, but against all units in a given range.
=> This relict does not have an effect on the damage caused
MARCH OF THE ANCIENTS
Use this Stratagem before the battle, after nominating a model to be your Warlord. Select one IRON HANDS DREADNOUGHT model from your army. That model gains the CHARACTER keyword; add 1 to the Attacks and Leadership characteristics of that model.
=> If they are within the range of an exploding Hellhound/Cyclops charge, Dreadnaught characters can still be damaged if they are not the closest model, as they don't have to be targeted
REJECT THE FLESH, EMBRACE THE MACHINE
Use this Stratagem in any phase, when an IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army is chosen as the target for an attack. Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6, adding 1 to the result if that model has the All Flesh is Weakness Warlord Trait. On a 5+ that wound is not lost.
COGITATED MARTYRDOM
Use this Stratagem at the start of the Shooting phase. Select one IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army. Until the end of the phase, when a friendly IRON HANDS CHARACTER model within 3" of that unit would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model, that unit can attempt to intercept that attack. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that model does not lose those wounds and that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each of those wounds. Only one attempt can be made to intercept each attack.
=> as above, neither the Cyclops, nor the exploding Hellhound chooses units for an attack
It might not be much, and it will still be very hard to pull this off, but I find it interesting that a lot of the durability buffs do not apply against suicide charges.
As much as I love the reasoning here, and I see a good valid argument as to why it can be read that way - it would be a huge point of contention in a game if it wasn't clearly discussed previously, especially in a tournament setting. It would be up to the TO to make a call and then move on.
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well.
Not a SINGLE event of the many that were won by Iron Hands over the weekend, were won by a list with a Leviathan in.
24 Adeptus Astartes lists placed highly over the weekend. That's 72 possible slots for Leviathans. Out of those 72 slots, ONE list took ONE single dread - and placed at the very bottom of recorded lists for it's event.
So no, it wasn't just BFS and no the theorycraft did not measure up. Repulsors were played, yes, but also in less than half the lists so they didn't match the hype, but if we are going to base our opinion on the results then the theoryhammer was definitely wrong about Leviathans.
Stop propagating misinformation. This stuff is so easy to look up before you speak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 00:34:00
And has anyone tried buying 3 executioners online lately? I was googling prices to sell one and found those and cents are selling out everywhere.
I'd bet people brought what they had access to.
"Leviathan's are hard to get so people just brought what they had access to"
lol
No.
Repulsors borderline sold out yet still in about half of these lists.
Leviathan still in stock and even cheaper than the Repulsor, but basically unseen.
Why do you think it is that the Repulsor is sold out?
If we're going to wave the stats around as some sort of proof, lets make sure they actually support the claims we're making. You can't just pick and choose what part of the stats to count because they support your hypothesis and ignore the parts that don't. That's called being wrong.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 00:55:45
And leviathans are hard to come by QUICKLY. FW takes time so do recasters. That was an observation not a stat. And I did say executioners too. As you've shown.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 01:03:27
Change iron hands super combat doctrine to be re-roll 1s to hit in devestator (no if pre penalties for heavy weapons)and make it so ironstone doesn't stack with other damage reduction (duty eternal)
Easy fixes for ironstone without nerfing it into oblivion and is possible with FAQ
either
a) one use per battle if remains as aura
b) start of your turn, pick one vehicle within 6" and -1 damage for that vehicle against all attacks until start of your next turn
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
Spoletta wrote: A change to the super doctrine will make it so they are no longer the most mobile of chapters, which is weird.
blaktoof wrote: Change iron hands super combat doctrine to be re-roll 1s to hit in devestator (no if pre penalties for heavy weapons)and make it so ironstone doesn't stack with other damage reduction (duty eternal)
Problem solved.
No, it's very fluffy, they are not a siege chapter. They are direct and to the point and they like to quickly hammer their opponents into dust with heavy firepower, getting their chapter tactic turn 1 and allowing them to move and shoot without penalty is very fluffy.
The Ironstone deserves a REAL nerf, not just removing the ability to make one DREADNOUGHT unkillable, that appears to be the least of it, especially because the halving applies after the -1 in unless it's the Iron Hands player's turn.
Holy gak, I saw people defending the stompa at 700 points earlier on this board that are now somewhat defending the iron fists gak at less than half the points.
You should be ashamed.
Finally, the weapon is only mortal wounds when it explodes, not when you detonate it, so it doesn't bypass IH defences at all, and each wound will probably be 1 damage, saved on a 6+++, if it gets through tougness and armour rolls. Further, it IS an attack, except when it explodes from taking damage.
=> I know, that it is only mortal wounds if it is destroyed. But when you detonate it, you also do NOT "choose any models/units to be attacked" and do neither "perform an attack".
Instead it literally reads:
At the start of any of the models Shooting phases, so long as it has not Advanced, this model can choose to detonate ist Cyclops demolition Charge. When it does so, every unit (both friendly and enemy) within D6'' is automaticaly hit by this weapon using the profile stated above, roll separately for each unit.
It might be a bit pedantic and focussing on rules as written, but as far as I see it, at least "Duty Eternal" and "Reject the Flesh" can not be used against the Charge, since they explicitly require a unit to be chosen as the target for an attack. And the same is the case for all the other stuff I mentioned, that causes MW or similar stuff without "choosing a unit as target" or saying anything about performing an attack.
But as NurglesR0T wrote: this should be discussed before a tournament.
@ Cyclops are just shot off the board before they can do anything: Of course, but I always wondered if you could make it work if you hide them behind line of sight blocking vehicles (I mean, even a Tauros assault vehicle can hide one or two Cyclops behind him) or drop them in as Elysian Cyclopses or via the Tallarn Ambush stratagem.
But I guess it remains just an interesting idea, that's almost impossible to pull off. Yet it is noteworthy, that the awkward wording of the Iron Hands buffs might open some opportunities.
On the same page a word of caution:
Even if it is clearly meant as invulnerability save, the Stratagem "Reject the Flesh, Embrace the Machine" at no point speaks of being an invulnerability save, nor does it write anything about "improving the IH invulnerability save to 5+" only speaking about a bonus for warlords that also have "All Flesh is Wakness". Instead it again writes RAW a new, separate ability suppressing wounds. This might seem trivial, but RAW this means that abilities and weapons that ignore Invulnerability saves do NOT ignore the effect of "Reject the Flesh"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 07:43:38
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Quite a lot of the tournament winning lists from this weekend alone used Repulsors and Leviathans, which were the units everyone was theory crafting to be A Problem. It was really only Battle for Salvation that didn't see them do well.
Not a SINGLE event of the many that were won by Iron Hands over the weekend, were won by a list with a Leviathan in.
24 Adeptus Astartes lists placed highly over the weekend. That's 72 possible slots for Leviathans. Out of those 72 slots, ONE list took ONE single dread - and placed at the very bottom of recorded lists for it's event.
So no, it wasn't just BFS and no the theorycraft did not measure up. Repulsors were played, yes, but also in less than half the lists so they didn't match the hype, but if we are going to base our opinion on the results then the theoryhammer was definitely wrong about Leviathans.
Stop propagating misinformation. This stuff is so easy to look up before you speak.
The first place list in the Michigan GT this weekend had a Leviathan in it? I'll admit they didn't make anywhere near as many appearances as Repulsors and they certainly weren't universal, but they were present.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 08:28:57
We're past that stage with IH's. We looked at the rules, wondered if it was broken and... reasoned that it very likely is. And now we are starting to get real results that back that up.
And yet they're not from the lists that the internet deemed to be, are they?
Because IH are even more broken than we thought they would be.
Everyone lost their mind on the Iron Father and the Ironstone, but the super-doctrine (reroll 1s and move+shoot heavy with no penalty) is what makes them broken. Take that away and then IH would become the static gunline the internet thought they'd be.
And they would still be broken even then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 08:31:47
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
