Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)

 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:31 pm
Posts: 71
Well, no reaction from the AC.
That´s a pity, so close to Approved status.

In my opinion, the main obstacle to A-status seems to be the Basilisk formation.
325p for 4 Basilisks at SR 4 is hard to swallow.
How about 300p for 3 Basilisks?

_________________
The gamer formerly known as beelzemetz.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:56 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8580
Location: Worcester, MA
This has been played extensively in New England for at least the five years since the version in this thread came out. The Basilisks are fine at 325 for 4. I never felt that more than two formations worth were useful.

The UK group wouldn't agree with you either, they have them at 275 for 4.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Boston, MA
Got a battle report in, Iron Warriors vs. Tau (tournament pack) at 3000 points. We took it to points after three turns of blasting away at each other, and the Iron Warriors came out on top 1375 to 885.

I had a lot of fun with the list as always, and honestly I think it's at a pretty good, balanced point. You get a lot of firepower, but most of it requires you to get up close & personal with your opponent. Most of your units are stuck ground-pounding, and you don't get ablative wounds from demons like the Black Legion list, but I like the list's ability to punch hard in a firefight, and don't underestimate fearless dreadnoughts charging out of drop pods :)

The forum battle report can be found here: http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=33851&p=632213#p632213

And the prettier version with photos can be found on my blog here: https://armiger84.blogspot.com/2019/02/20190209-battle-report-iron-warriors.html

I'm going to see if I can't get another five battle reports out of the New England & Mid-Atlantic chapters of the Adeptus Ineptus and walk the list a little closer toward approval if possible ;)

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Last edited by Armiger84 on Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Boston, MA
And another one for the road to approval, this time Iron Warriors vs. Knight World (3000)

We took it through four turns, and the Iron Warriors won on points, 1298 to 823.

Consistently winning initiative and driving assaults onto the Knights, rather than the other way around, really helped keep the Knight banners on their back foot. The exception were the Errants. I see why Tim opts for melta cannon over battle cannon; if you're playing an opponent who has to get within engagement range, you can engage, firefight, or just flat-out shoot the heck out of your opponent. My problem was probably in spreading the artillery and air strikes around. I wound up using them to try to make it harder for my opponent to activate, and to *maybe* try to get a couple of solid hits in, but beyond the initial concentrated strikes on the broken Paladins, they really didn't do much. The emplacements were clutch for the artillery company though. bouncing repeated Thunderbolt strikes like that really made a difference, even if they still took some suppressing blast markers. Drop-heavy Iron Warriors are definitely viable, especially with Fearless Dreadnoughts coming out of Dreadclaws.

The forum battle report can be found here: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=33862

And the prettier version with more photos can be found on my blog, here: https://armiger84.blogspot.com/2019/02/20190216-battle-report-iron-warriors-vs.html

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 236
Location: Germany
Nice reports! Thanks for sharing.

One thought though. Vs Tau you were engaging crisis suits on overwatch with dropped scouts and dreads and didn't make it into the assault due to being blasted to pieces. Which was to expected ;) in the thoughts after you stated that dropping and going on overwatch would have denied the broadsides their overwatch. Which is incorrect. Emerging from drop pods even on overwatch is considered as disembarkation move and triggers hostile overwatch if your opponent decides to.

I had to learn that the hard way while playing IW last December going in with two dropped squads of dread assault packs. Also once vs Tau and the other time vs grey knights.

Both wins for IW. But my opponent was new to playing Tau and grey knights. So we did not consider it worthy of reports as it would give the wrong impression. I still can post my list if of interest.

My thoughts on the list also from earlier battles.
It is a nice and balanced one. On top it has the right flair. Which for some reason is also important to me at least. It lacks the nasty demon surprises from all other chaos lists and the super annoying Deathwheels of Black Legion. Still a formation of 4 basilisks at strategy 4 autoactivating is no joke and somehow compensates for it. Still I would favour using an Ordinatus over paying for two. Having Defilers as core formation is also a thing to behold. The dlvindicator companies are nice but the failed to do anything useful for me each and every game as the are such a soft target when treated with appropriatly. I use them as unlock and activation burner only. Fun unit Chaos dreads from drops. Scare the shit out of opponents. But can get expensive if you want to use them for more then one turn. Never tried assault companies as the other options are more favourable in the light of tournament gaming, imho.

In it's current state and viewed vs the other approved chaos lists I would have no objections of moving them up to improved.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Boston, MA
Yeah, I had to go back to the Overwatch section, and you’re right - sustained fire, a “0cm move” should still trigger Overwatch first. I feel a little less bad about pulling a “Light Brigade” there.

Graf Spee, if you and Sauerkopf are willing to log a few more 3000 point battle reports, I think putting the list approval is definitely in reach :)


On units & tactics, I’m still on the fence about the Ordinatus. I was using it pretty regularly for a year or two there, and while it did some great work, more often than not it was a volcano cannon/deathstrike/ground attack sponge. 4 DC & 4 Void Shields aren’t as hard to get through as they sound, and effectively guarding it from long range flankers or deep strikes necessitates sinking even more points into garrison duty instead of pushing for objectives.

I think I prefer two Basilisk batteries with AA and Emplacements over the Ordinatus, but mostly because they’re more flexible. Yes, it’s long range auto-activating artillery, but loyalist marines have access to similar, if not quite the range, so there’s precedent that’s even harder to suppress. The option I really like that Basilisks offer is the direct-fire 120cm 3+/3+ threat on sustained fire orders. That alone will shut down lines of advance on overly conservative opponents.

I haven’t used the Assault Company yet, at all, but that’s because of its competition. There was a point earlier on in list development where Onyx had Land Raiders as a transport option for them - I’d reconsider them then, since that at least would give them a reasonable chance of making it across the board. Otherwise... they’re an assault garrison? Dreadclaws work as a delivery mechanism, but other than the Chaos Lord, I’d probably rather drop Chosen for Zone of Control shenanigans, and yeah, Dreadnought drops are just fun.

The biggest problem I run into is having combat-effective, mobile formations across the midline on Turn 3; attrition really hits this list hard without sacrificial demons to take the hits or bolster their numbers in an assault. It’s rare that I win on objectives, unless I can get a BTS kill in. Typically, my wins come from taking my opponents to points.

The one thing I haven’t been able to do yet is pit the Iron Warriors against the Imperial Fists list. I have a feeling that would be an interesting match-up.

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1146
Location: Devon, UK
Armiger84 wrote:
Yeah, I had to go back to the Overwatch section, and you’re right - sustained fire, a “0cm move” should still trigger Overwatch first. I feel a little less bad about pulling a “Light Brigade” there.

It's the disembarking that triggers the Overwatch.

'Also note that formations on overwatch may only react when a formation moves or unloads troops. They may not to choose to shoot at a formation that does anything else in their line of fire, such as shooting without moving or regrouping.'

Sustained Fire, Overwatch or any other activation that doesn't involve a Move action won't trigger Overwatch. For example if a Marshal activation is Move-Regroup then it will trigger Overwatch even if nobody actually moves, but if the Marshall was Shoot-Regroup there has been no Move and Overwatch won't be triggered.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Boston, MA
IJW Wartrader wrote:
It's the disembarking that triggers the Overwatch.

'Also note that formations on overwatch may only react when a formation moves or unloads troops. They may not to choose to shoot at a formation that does anything else in their line of fire, such as shooting without moving or regrouping.'

Sustained Fire, Overwatch or any other activation that doesn't involve a Move action won't trigger Overwatch. For example if a Marshal activation is Move-Regroup then it will trigger Overwatch even if nobody actually moves, but if the Marshall was Shoot-Regroup there has been no Move and Overwatch won't be triggered.


I can see where my mistake in reading the footnotes from 1.10 might have come from there.

Quote:
Q: A formation carries out an action that involves a move but none of the units
physically move, is it still susceptible to overwatch?
A: Yes. Any action that includes one of more moves (advance, engage, double,
march and possibly marshal, hold and special actions) is considered a move for the purposes of overwatch, even if units moved 0cm.
Note that withdrawals and consolidation moves are optional however, and that a player can choose not to move the formation at all, thus avoiding overwatch.
Q: Do units that enter play via a special rule (landing, planetfall, self planetfall, teleporting, tunneling, being summoned or swarmed) trigger overwatch fire?
A: No, only completing a move or disembarking triggers overwatch.


I see where I got mixed up now, though:

Dreadclaws have Planetfall & Transport; they don’t confer Planetfall onto the formation they’re added to. In other words, “drop pods are a really unique type of vehicle, not a set of special rules that modify the base unit.”

So played correctly, my Tau opponent would have had the opportunity to Overwatch the moment I finished placing units coming in via Dreadclaws. If he elected not to, a Sustained Fire order after that decision wouldn’t itself trigger Overwatch, but a 0cm Advance would have. At least we wound up at effectively the same outcome with my Engage order, then.

Sorry for turning the IW thread into an Overwatch rules explanation thread!

At least I have a better understanding of why I should appreciate Terminators a little more, despite my horrendous luck at picking up Teleport blast markers... ;)

_________________
My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

My Battlefleet Gothic Project Log: http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5318.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Iron Warriors V3.1 (final version)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1146
Location: Devon, UK
Armiger84 wrote:
So played correctly, my Tau opponent would have had the opportunity to Overwatch the moment I finished placing units coming in via Dreadclaws. If he elected not to, a Sustained Fire order after that decision wouldn’t itself trigger Overwatch, but a 0cm Advance would have. At least we wound up at effectively the same outcome with my Engage order, then.

Exactly!

Armiger84 wrote:
At least I have a better understanding of why I should appreciate Terminators a little more, despite my horrendous luck at picking up Teleport blast markers... ;)

Oooooh yeah. :(

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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