Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Iron Hands v1.1

 Post subject: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:09 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
Hello, I’m going to be helping to shepherd the Iron Hands list to developmental. Having just been through the previous thread again, and gone over the fluff, here are my thoughts/suggestions at present.
(got an IH bat rep I haven’t written up yet, but it was with the old list structure anyway)


context
To start, the core features of the Iron Hands list should be:
• Increased use of dreadnaughts
• Dreadnaughts in leadership/character roles
• Greatly reduced terminators, now employed as squad leaders
• Mechanised Infantry
• Strong ties to ad-mech, but dogmatic and isolated from other allies

Any objections/additions to this, on a thematic level?

This list does not follow the new Clan Raukaan 40k codex, as that invalidates the IH’s distinct structure and unique terminator situation.
Further, this list is not meant to represent every possible mode of combat or force organisation employed by the IH, but rather focus on their iconic features (see above).


list
The iterations of the IH list so far have developed a good ‘flavour’, but the list structure drifted a bit. I agree strongly with this by Modoten, from the last thread:
Quote:
Great to see this moving along! As Uvenlord stated maybe it's good to "clean" up the list a little. Base it off Codex Marines and the add/take away some units.


As such I’ve attached a revised list structure (v1.1) here, based on codex Marines .
Attachment:
iron_hands_v1_1_1upgrade corrected.pdf [90.06 KiB]
Downloaded 204 times

Note: this looks very different in structural terms compared to 1.0, see the reasoning above and a few direct points below for further explanation.

All stats and special rules are, at present, as in V1.0, see here: http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... p?id=12913


comments and questions
It is now easier to buy thawks than in IH v1.0 (but harder than codex). Since the choice codex air assault cargos are stripped from the list I’m not sure air assault needs penalising further.

Where have the Morlocks gone? They are in a broken heap on the fields of Isstvan 10,000 years ago. Terminators are back to being veteran sargeant upgrades.

Where is the mobile fortress? Removed for now – it’s not a key part of the list structure for competitive play. In any case, it would need to be 20+DC to represent the monastery.

In v1.0 it was possible to add multiple inspiring upgrades to a formation (up to 3!). I have removed the possibility for now.

Special rules are as they were in 1.0. However, I would like to consider if ‘Cult of the Machine’ is really needed. The list should incentivise people to take ven dreads, not penalise. If ven dreads are found to be over powered then it could be used, otherwise I think it should be considered for suspension.

At present there is no special structure/mechanic for razorbacks, other than offering a 4-for-3 price discount. This could be revisited if people reallly want it once the core list structure is stable.

Titan weapon options/patterns will be tweaked to allow more flexibility at a later point.

Proposed stats from Jimmy for the Iron Hands Iron Clad:
Ironclad Dreadnought
AV 15cm, A: 4+RA, F: 4+ C: 3+
Walker, RA,
Hurricane Bolter (small arms), EA+1
Seige Drill (assault weapons), EA+1 MW


—————————


I think nailing down the core structure of the list should be the main priority at the moment.

What are people’s thoughts on the attached structure, and on the above in general?

Attachment:
iron_hands_v1_1_1upgrade corrected.pdf [90.06 KiB]
Downloaded 204 times


(this pdf is the same as the one in the post body above, just added it here again for people who are gonna ignore my waffle above and scroll to the end for the file!)

old versions:


Attachments:
iron_hands_v1_1_1upgrade.pdf [89.83 KiB]
Downloaded 419 times
iron_hands_v1_1_1.pdf [87.95 KiB]
Downloaded 319 times
iron_hands_v1_1d.pdf [85.11 KiB]
Downloaded 275 times

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8035
Location: Manalapan, FL
I like it! Do you intend to keep the inclusion of the third razorback type from prior incarnations considering the IH propensity to use them in battle and also to reflect their technical acumen? (it seems as so, just confirming as you know... I've got otterware razorbacks here with plasma guns I'd like to glue on :D)

Also to note, the stats in pre 1.1 documents for titans are based on the newest AMTL baseline (which you're referencing) but the prices are the OG versions for the lower powered versions.

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:17 am
Posts: 160
Location: Newcastle Australia
I understand the reasoning behind removing the morlocks, but perhaps it's a little too far down the "you can't have that" path.
What if you still allowed a max of 1 morlock det (4 stands), but removed the ability to add more stands of morlocks to any formation, so max an army can ever have was 4?

_________________

My Epic Army threads;
* Ad Mech (Skitarii, Cataphractii, Titan, IG Cadian)
* Marine (Xth Legion Iron Hands) TBA - soon!
* Necron (Scarab Conflict)
Batrep thread;
* Batreps (My armies being slaughtered by whomever & other battles.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:48 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
atcho wrote:
I understand the reasoning behind removing the morlocks, but perhaps it's a little too far down the "you can't have that" path.

Yep, no terminators is a alarming in a marine army, and i'm in a bit of an awkward situation here! It looks like i've taken a key part of the list away, but, in my opinion, it was only ever included by mistake (and also not present at all in early versions of the list).

It is my understanding that Morlocks as a fighting force are a 30k concept. They represented an elite bodyguard that were almost totally destroyed in 30k and never replaced. I'm not sure why they then appeared at one point in this 40k list. (Even in 'current' clan Raukaan 40k GW codex which we are not using here, the word 'morlock' appears exactly zero time in the 179 page digital codex.)

Ok, morlock is just a name, we both get that (above restatement just for clarity of argument overall) as for the core of your point on terminators:

atcho wrote:
What if you still allowed a max of 1 morlock det (4 stands), but removed the ability to add more stands of morlocks to any formation, so max an army can ever have was 4?

v1.0 had a 0–1 formation, except you had to take an SC with them.
However, the reason to disallow this is it is pretty much the exact oposite of how Iron Hands employ terminators.
They do not have a veteran 1st company (until clan Raukaan retconned their fluff …).
They have a very very limited number of terminator suits and rarely use them en masse.
They are directly stated as using the few they have as veteran sergeants as squad leaders.

So, where IH do have terminators it is as squad leaders, not as formations.

This is not to say that IH *never* deploy terminators as a full formation, but it is extremely rare – this list attempts to capture the key 'stereotypic' mode of Iron Hands combat, not those rare cases where they break their own rules!

Additionally (and i appreciate this is not a point from your quote, but does relate to it) in v1.0 the only way to get SC was via morlocks. However, the IH background is clear that many of the IH top commanders are inside dreadnoughts and that iron hands actively aspire to be entombed in dreadnoughts. So having the SC locked to morlock only was a bit odd!


The above (to me) shows a couple of clear reasons not to have morlocks as a formation:
• It is a direct opposite to how IH use terminators. IH use of terminators as squad leaders not formations is one of the most important features of IH organisation as applicable on the tabletop scale.
• They are a 30k unit not a 40k unit so their use here is strange to start with,
• Finally from a list perspective, given the justification above, removing terminators clearly sets the list apart from other marine lists and justifies it being a (sub) list at all.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:17 am
Posts: 160
Location: Newcastle Australia
Fair enough. Like I said - understand the reasoning and they are solid well thought through points. Just offering an alternate suggestion / opinion as a forum allows and encourages.

Shouldn't IH marine get some little boost then in CC perhaps to represent squad leaders in terminator armour.

Other question I have is if the IH are to be seen as a more dreadnought / Armour reliant style, why the removal of the ability to buy armour support upgrade (2x preds etc)?
Pretty sure in SM threads there is a push to make the pred destructor more attractive to SM players as its the unloved second cousin. One of the suggestions running was to allow pred dest as an upgrade to more formations. Seems weird that regular SM lists are pushing to have more pred dest available, but IH have removed the option all together.

_________________

My Epic Army threads;
* Ad Mech (Skitarii, Cataphractii, Titan, IG Cadian)
* Marine (Xth Legion Iron Hands) TBA - soon!
* Necron (Scarab Conflict)
Batrep thread;
* Batreps (My armies being slaughtered by whomever & other battles.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:01 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
Quote:
Other question I have is if the IH are to be seen as a more dreadnought / Armour reliant style, why the removal of the ability to buy armour support upgrade (2x preds etc)?

This is an oversight on my part, sorry! lost that in the transfer between new structures, yes they should be able to add preds etc.

thanks for catching that, ill put out a revised pdf at the start of next week with any other changes in (i've got a few formatting mistakes to correct as well).


atcho wrote:
Shouldn't IH marine get some little boost then in CC perhaps to represent squad leaders in terminator armour.

They do, the vet sergeant adds +1MW CC attack, representing the single terminator.
Note that it is only the veteran sergeants in terminator armour, not every squad will be led by one. You get one per tactical formation by default, and can add a second for 25 pts.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:17 am
Posts: 160
Location: Newcastle Australia
Apocolocyntosis wrote:
They do, the vet sergeant adds +1MW CC attack, representing the single terminator.
Note that it is only the veteran sergeants in terminator armour, not every squad will be led by one. You get one per tactical formation by default, and can add a second for 25 pts.


And that was my oversight. Didn't even think about the vet SGT stat.
Im in the process of building the 10th so probably should have paid a little more attention to what I read.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Cheers.

_________________

My Epic Army threads;
* Ad Mech (Skitarii, Cataphractii, Titan, IG Cadian)
* Marine (Xth Legion Iron Hands) TBA - soon!
* Necron (Scarab Conflict)
Batrep thread;
* Batreps (My armies being slaughtered by whomever & other battles.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:19 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
OP updated with revised pdf.




titans
Iron hands have very strong ties with the ad mech. This is represented in-list by giving them a wider range of titan weapon load-outs. At present the list has two different warhounds, a regular and a support with inferno/vmb.

Any thoughts on changing the weapons on support warhound to a pair of 0–1 options? this gives you as much freedom, but in one unit entry (current regular warhound entry would be removed, as it can be duplicated with weapon combos):

armed with two weapons
0–1 VMB
0–1 PBG
0–1 Inf


*ideally* you would also have 0–1 choice on turbo-laser destructor. However, NetEA has this at +25pt compared to the other weapons. Could a scout TLD (note, different name) be added into the IH support warhound entry with 45cm range, or does this violate something inviolable in netea?

Then, for reaver/warlord offer a small sub section of the amtl weapons at 0–2 and 0–1 groupings.

Note: this is not ALL amtl options. this is not admech list structure. this is not trying to shoe-horn amtl list into a marine list for the best of both worlds. Weapon combos would only be allowed in keeping with the current points ranges (see the warhound tld issue). I'm looking for a more elegant way to add some weapon flexibility rather than adding in an extra hard-stated titan at each level (as it is at present from v1.0), as this isn't very flexible – if you don't like the specific 2nd version the list has there's still no reason to warlord or reaver up.

This is pretty much how ork gargant weapons are handled at present in the work warhorde list, but applied to imperial titans for the IH list only.

Always a lot of talk about warhounds as crutches in marine armies, but if any marine army should have a lot of ad-mech support it would be the IH, so getting more reavers and warlords on the table with them is to be encouraged as well, so far as balanced.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:46 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 3918
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
*ideally* you would also have 0–1 choice on turbo-laser destructor. However, NetEA has this at +25pt compared to the other weapons. Could a scout TLD (note, different name) be added into the IH support warhound entry with 45cm range, or does this violate something inviolable in netea?


Well, you can do this without violating anything that I know of. However, I'd just as soon leave it out than to create a new weapon that I'd have to keep explaining why it doesn't exist in the AMTL list :)

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:48 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
fair enough, to be honest it's not as if people need incentivising on warhounds anyway. The flexibility will be more noticed on the big boys (and im still only talking about 4–5 options for a warlord).

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8035
Location: Manalapan, FL
Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
*ideally* you would also have 0–1 choice on turbo-laser destructor. However, NetEA has this at +25pt compared to the other weapons. Could a scout TLD (note, different name) be added into the IH support warhound entry with 45cm range, or does this violate something inviolable in netea?


Well, you can do this without violating anything that I know of. However, I'd just as soon leave it out than to create a new weapon that I'd have to keep explaining why it doesn't exist in the AMTL list :)


The AMTL version of the TLD also has more shots than originally published (hence the pricing). Ideally lists would come into alignment with AMTL over time as approved ones are revised and approved. I'd strongly suggest we try and keep as close to AMTL stats as possible here as why start off requiring eventual revision? (Pretty sure Vaaish is on that tip as well)

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:17 am
Posts: 160
Location: Newcastle Australia
Just had a look at 1.11.

The armoured Support option now appears in the upgrades section, but its not listed as an option against any detachments at the top.
Also, when the Armoured support upgrade is in, the Vindicator specific option could be removed, otherwise will result in "Vindicator spam" once Armoured support added to Dets. ie;

Tactical Det,
+2 Vindicators (Vindicator support option)
+2 Vindicators (Armoured support option)

I like the stubby little fella's, but letting me have 4 could be a little wrong.

Cheers.

_________________

My Epic Army threads;
* Ad Mech (Skitarii, Cataphractii, Titan, IG Cadian)
* Marine (Xth Legion Iron Hands) TBA - soon!
* Necron (Scarab Conflict)
Batrep thread;
* Batreps (My armies being slaughtered by whomever & other battles.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:41 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
oops that was silly, added the upgrade in and removed vindis where they'd double up.

With the armoured support upgrade added properly and in the more traditional list structure this should now be able to represent some of the IH successor chapters well, such as Sons of Medusa (at least when using the old fluff not new badab fluff)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:20 am
Posts: 7
Firstly... THank-you for an Iron Hands development!!

Secondly...I am more than happy to report back any findings in our small playgroup.

Thirdly... While I haven't read all of the 19 pages and back information and development... one thing I picked up on was the talk about the bionics and potential INv save.... it was discussed that is was likely to bee seen as quite powerful....but what about that bionics allow the unit to ignore the first AP wound only of any activation against them?

I'm not experienced by any means... but just a thought?

Keep up the awesome work!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Hands v1.1
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:29 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5500
Location: UK
Great, reports would be excellent :)

Representing bionics is an awkward one. For anyone apart from Iron Hands they'd just be abstracted away at epic scale, but they are such a core part of IH fluff (and indeed, such are core part of IH marines' bodies) that they do need to be represented. So there needs to be a bionics rules for flavour, but pretty weak so as not to unbalance the list/pricing.

Inv is too powerful. Not seen your AP ignoring idea tested, sounds like it would function as a single formation wide AP void shield that regenerates on each activation. That also sounds pretty powerful, possibly more so than inv, although i've not tested it.

The current rule for bionics is very specific (note it does not apply to post-assault hack downs) and at a -1. I'm not certain this is the final stage of the bionics rule, ideally something a bit more elegant would be found, but I don't think it should be any more powerful than this if it changes. (or, if it was more powerful, would need a strong drawback, or you'd need to up prices)

Just realised the bionics rule etc are in the old pdf from jimmy. I'll run up a new full IH army document when I get time, think im probably going to re-do it all in word, having just done the new army list in Indd … ::)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net