Actually, you have a broken artillery formation from 1 casualty.

I get what you mean about the numbers but thats getting to math-hammer again, not actually dealing with the game.
Take one casualty and you have a broken formation. Thats it. No reduced firepower etc until (if) the formation rallies.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Sorry, I was mixing up the  'take 1 bm' for rt, take a casualty for marauders and the effects of ATSKNF on whirlwinds in my head while I wrote it I blame it on 4 hours of sleep over the last two nights

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

No worries. Fair enough mate. Hope you get more sleep tonight!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Emplacements/thunderhawks. [...]
Perhaps, as the desire for thawks seems to be based on scenario play, we could include an appendix/note at the end of the list. Something about how the focus of this list is a siege force but if you want to use a thawk for scenario purposes we suggest not using emplacements etc. and placing artillery formations in the titans/planes allowance.

Just to add I to am very against thunderhawks. Not only do I see them as loyalist gear regardless of anything said by the various novels, air assault, arty and bunkers go very poorly together. How about some better titan load outs first!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

If the IronWarriors could air-assault, droppod the enemy to death they would do it instead of laying siege  
So a big no for Thunderhawk (and Dreadclaw).

And i wouldn't use valuable CSMs to guard artillery pieces. I would use Slaves (with an Overseer of course!) or Cultists to do that.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

How about

Terminators - replace 1 reaper with heavy flamer - same points

Fortifications - remove emplacements as upgrade replace with
Iron warriors Siege Works - 1 bunker, 3 emplacements, trenches, minefields - 100pts 1 per 1500pts

Thunderhawks - leave out - but put appendix at back suggesting if you want to play air assault style in scenario then no fortifications, artillery as part of titans allowance

Basilisks - add upgrade of 0-1 Basilisk at 125pts

I had some titans done for the list before  which I'll compare to the AMTL and get posted.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

How about for Terminators: Chaos Terminator Formation: Choose 4-6 Chaos Terminator or Iron Warriors Terminator units or a mix of them.

An Iron Warriors Terminator unit would have 2 x Heavy Flamer instead of 2 x Reaper Cannon.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Not a fan of that unless we have different models to represent them. From memory we don't so I would prefer just one entry for terminators in Iron Warrior list. Keep it simple- cut down on confusion.

Cheers

James

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

Why not create an Iron Warriors "Attack" list and an Iron Warriors "Defense" list, similar to what I was trying to do with Cadians?

To show that the "same" army can have radically different approaches/setups; either because they are in different theatres or it's different stages of an invasion, etc.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

A discussion a while back on how marines do anti siege assaults came to the conclusion it would be a drop force and teleporters. AA and stuff would preclude surely air transports.

Doing an attack list at a later date with 'stormbirds' would be interesting though.

And I think a thunderhawk list would be interesting with a different chapter that used demons - as of course teh air assaulters would be going in bare making for an interesting choice.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Iron Warriors definately use Dreadclaws (opening chapter of Storm of Iron) but that was during the initial assault. Chroma's idea of 2 list sounds quite interesting as a siege army does have to fight in different styles at various stages of a conflict. I'd like Thunderhawks in too but not in a list with artillery (as TRC has pointed out).

I like the idea of Terminators having a heavy flamer and a reaper. No need to make it complcated. Keep them all the same.

Is one basilisk really worth 125pts?

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Gents,

I too am in favour of no TH, it isnt part of a siege them to air assault something. The mixed Terminator idea is not for me. Where is the benefit of the flamer, if you are taking on another sige army with trenches them they work. If you are laying siege, you want the tools that allow you to maintain cover and engage targets at will.

As to the artillery, regardless of what you do, the small formation would break easily, hence why I went with a varied size at 75ea. Even running 8 stronge formations, the attraction of counterbattery fire usually breaks the formation. If not that then you will draw the attention of some fast moving aircaft ladden with infantry that want to take you down. And no way in hell is a single basilisk worth 125 points.

Well I look forward to further discussion
Aaron

Just to point out the Iron Warriors attack style is to dig trenches to the target, shell the hell out of it and assault. When attacking.
Or dig trenches, shell the hell out the targets as they cross their fire zones then counter assault. When defending.
A mixed load incidentally would fill that, more importantly it help take enemy bunkers and similar (FF IC is quite handy in a limited number of cases).
As to the artillery, regardless of what you do, the small formation would break easily, hence why I went with a varied size at 75ea.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Why not create an Iron Warriors "Attack" list and an Iron Warriors "Defense" list, similar to what I was trying to do with Cadians?
To show that the "same" army can have radically different approaches/setups; either because they are in different theatres or it's different stages of an invasion, etc