Jump to content

I AM IRON MAN....err PRIEST


Godhead

Recommended Posts

I am seriously considering using an iron priest w/ a stormshield on a bike with a servo harness attached to a bc bike pack sporting 2 pw and a flamer. I plan to top it off with a wpl with tlc. It ends up being a moderately expensive unit, but it's so fast and nasty with 3 thunder hammer attacks and the 4th servo harness attack, and that's not even taking into account the BC's and pack leader armed with pw's either. This unit should be able to eat just about anything It comes across At T5 they should be pretty durable and the IP would have a 4+i in cc (or 3+i once the new C:SM comes out) It just sounds nasty on paper, but I'd like to hear from some of those with much more experience. Does anyone else actually field an iron priest?
Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/147492-i-am-iron-manerr-priest/
Share on other sites

And thats the main reason that I never invested in one- he cant repair anything, as rarely used as that ability might be, and he doesnt get any of the goodies associated with a servo-harness. He also cant take any heavy-bolter thralls... hes entirely CC.

 

I have CC... except for my tanks everything has CC... Ive even had Longfangs win CC. So why would I take that specialist elite when I could have a pack of wolf scouts, or two, a dreadnaught, and wolfgaurd pl's/bg's?

I knew a gentleman that regularly fielded one with his list, it was basically taking up an elite choice as he was using it as a leader for his grey hunters. He also used wolf guard and scouts, leaving no spots open for dreads (he didn't use a ven for HQ either) it was an OK list, but he never placed with it.

 

As others have said, our Iron Priest is NOTHING compared to the techmarine , or the new master of the forge.

 

I'd say don't get him... although if you want the model, it's still a nice model and the hammer is very nice, great for conversions. I'd recommend getting him soon too before the price hike.

i saw a guy us one in a apoc game. he brought 4 thralls with it. the only reason he took it, i think, is be cause he A: he knew his friend was running and Armored Company and B: i think he couldn't get his army to 3500 points with out it.

 

it did ok. he sat it kinda in the back. it actually fixed a baneblade and fended off some deep striking gargoyles.

I used one in a Apoc Game, where we House Rule'd the Servo Harness. He led the BC's in a LRC and added 8(!) Power Fist attacks to the unit - that's nasty.

 

But outside of Apoc and House Rules - No. Just not worth it for the Elites choice he uses.

The points and stats are solid with a IP, you can not get a WGBL in the same gear for as cheap and the WGBL is one of our cheapest HQs availabe. The problem is we already bring 3 HQs onto a battlefield, having another 100+ point IC model is a hard justification when points for troopers are a greater need.

 

If you do want to run him consider going el' cheapo on HQs nothing over 115 points, run a Ven Dred as the 3rd HQ keeping him at basic cost with an AC. This would leave you with some points to play with for basically another IC on the field. Drop the servo arm and run him as is, on the bike with the SS, 125 points I believe. Don't be tempted to add any war gear he is tough enough already and for any list under 2k you will need the points else where.

 

Sgt. Vrox over

I've got one on a bike and use him in large point games including Apoc. No reason other than it's a neat model and fun to use. He reinforces my 5 blood clow bikers with Wolf lord, rune priest and wolf priest, all on bikes. He can also reinforce the same ICs with a 4-man WG retinue on bikes. Lots of fun.

My guess would be that he will either:

A - Use C:SM for his whole army (an option some are doing... why, I have no idea)

B - Playing a game of Apocalypse

 

or..

 

C - Plays the game for fun with his friends, so they do stuff like that.

 

 

Jeske, you seem to be alot like how I was a few years ago. That fanatical desire to play 100% by the rules could end up giving you a bad case of burnout, much like it did with me.

My guess would be that he will either:

A - Use C:SM for his whole army (an option some are doing... why, I have no idea)

B - Playing a game of Apocalypse

 

or..

 

C - Plays the game for fun with his friends, so they do stuff like that.

A: yes, why because I want new toys, and I like being a little different and using something different

b: NEVER, DEATH TO APOCALYPSE!!!

C: If I had friends locally that would also be a possibility, as we follow rule number 1 of the rules, and thats that the rules are only a GUIDELINE, and that everything is basically up to you, something allot of people seem to overlook

Lars and Jes... you two are like an old married couple... :P , but I bet you guys get that a lot...

 

To answer Lars' question, you can combine runic armor and a bike, and I did it quite often in 4th when that meant a 2+ invuln. on the turbo boost, but now in 5th it's not that amazing, but yes, the Iron priest will keep his 2+ on the bike.

 

On a side note, I had much fun with a WGBG retinue all in runic armor on bikes with a Lord, the over 1000 point unit was a beast, but never got it's points back... ;)

 

I agree with Jes on the rules, but I also agree with Lars that we'll eventually soften up over time on being so strict on the rules. By that time however lars will definitely be a long fang. :P and all he'll be doing is complaining about how back in his day when the sky was bluer and the mead was stronger. ;)

Ok, just to throw my thoughts in on this:

 

Where RAW is applicable, however broken, nonsensical or rubbish it applies. End of.

 

The problems start arising when RAW doesn't work... hence why we have many of these conversations at the Fang, as for use RAW is floating down a toilet somewhere with a Thousand Son games designer desperately flushing our ruleset down the pan.

Gawd... teach me to go to work and not check my forums:

 

Jeske - I agree, mostly. GW doesnt care about their rules most of the time.. why should we? :) For tournaments, that attitude is completely acceptable. Part of why I dont care to play in them. I am not huge on following the RAW, all the rules, all the time. I am open to interpretation, discussion, and agreements between players. When you have rules with the quality that GW puts out, and a lack of interest on their part to clarify mistakes, you can do no less.

 

King Tiger - I am just going to go with your a bit unbalanced.. or were dropped on the head as a child. I am willing to bet that I can go toe to toe with the new marines and still walk away with a win, because the wolves are just that awesome. Everything worth having from their codex, we have (except for their tactics thing that lets you retreat... but hey, we get way more stuff).

 

Never played Apocalypse, but I am looking forward to giving it a try. Death to Force Org Charts!

 

Wolf - Not really... now, DC and I... that was amusing. ;)

The Iron Priest is an odd model and the rules for him are a tad vague, the notes on the side of the page say that "Irom Priests are unique to the Space Wolves Chapter but have much in common with the Techmarines of the other Chapters. The Iron Priests look after the many technical systems in the Fang,". When I have seen them used at tournaments it was always taken that the above lines indicated that the Iron Priests 'could' fix things in the same way as a Techmarine.

 

It is indeed strange that GW would not clear up the ambiguity of the techmarines rules, seeing that the model and the codex has been out for eight years. If the Iron Priest can't be used to repair vehicles then he becomes almost useless as a gaming piece as he is expensive to field compared to what he can do.

 

Godhead, if your intending to use an IP in a tournament, I suggest you write to the TO and inform him of how your intending to use the IP. Most would agree that he works exactly the same way as an Techmarine, if not at least you would have a ruling for the tournament.

 

I used to take an IP to Apocalypse games and keep him close to the Dreads and the Warhound as he was allowed to fix damage on the Warhound, in the end he was not needed for that task so he stayed with the dreads.

 

A few years back I knew a player who used the IP and four Thrawls as close combat unit but from memory it did not work very well for him.

The 1st SW codex made no mistake about what the IP was and did. This was an obvious oversite in our current codex.

 

For anyone who claims the SW IP should not be allowed to use the servo arm in the same manner as the current techmarines is jelious of SWs, should have their teeth ripped out and the holes where the teeth were back filled with rock salt.

 

Sgt. Vrox over.

When you have rules with the quality that GW puts out, and a lack of interest on their part to clarify mistakes, you can do no less.

well am not blind , so I agree with you . For me this manilly leads to killing of whole armies . for example when the triple codex of BA came out [remember when it was in WD , the german/US and UK versions were different] it was banned from tournament play . And for us that also means it was banned from "friendlly games"till the online version was made . Of course most people till then either repainted or sold those armies . We are strickt RAW people , but we do know that the GW rules suck . there was a constantlly updated version of tournament rulings we used here for both WFB and W40k [mostlly stuff GW didnt want to anwser etc] by the end of 4th it was almost 200 pages long . God speed to the guys who are remaking the stuff for this ed now . But we also have a ruling [one could say a generall one] , that if someone doesnt know how something works it either does nothing or cant be played . As an example for a long time in nids on nids battles failed Ld tests didnt exist , then we had the ruling they always fall back to a friendlly synaps.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.