Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's potentially a mistake because it's happened before where they put up the errata before the article and changed the errata file. I doubt this is the case but at least they've taken a step in the right direction

I can't say I'm surprised about the FAQ.  It's blatantly about money, so why would they change it quickly?  

 

Our arguments are about game balance, about being fun to play/play against.  The financial bottom line for a publicly traded company who makes the game trumps any discussion about game balance, period.  Particularly in the short term.  

 

This Space Marine revamp wasn't really meant to bring Marines back "into the fold."  It was to make sure that every 40k player has a Space Marine army on the side.  Many new, expensive models were released alongside a new book and 6 new supplements.  The revenue opportunity is maximized by making the rules ridiculous.

 

Iron Hands are simply at the top of the heap, but it's really all marines.

Edited by MeltaRange

I can't say I'm surprised about the FAQ.  It's blatantly about money, so why would they change it quickly?  

 

Our arguments are about game balance, about being fun to play/play against.  The financial bottom line for a publicly traded company who makes the game trumps any discussion about game balance, period.  Particularly in the short term.  

 

This Space Marine revamp wasn't really meant to bring Marines back "into the fold."  It was to make sure that every 40k player has a Space Marine army on the side.  Many new, expensive models were released alongside a new book and 6 new supplements.  The revenue opportunity is maximized by making the rules ridiculous.

 

Iron Hands are simply at the top of the heap, but it's really all marines.

 

The financial bottom line of a company who provides an unfun game is of more concern than selling one or two more models to people who were already going to buy the new marines anyway. 

 

The only thing this does is encourage more chaos black spray being sold. 

 

 

I can't say I'm surprised about the FAQ. It's blatantly about money, so why would they change it quickly?

 

Our arguments are about game balance, about being fun to play/play against. The financial bottom line for a publicly traded company who makes the game trumps any discussion about game balance, period. Particularly in the short term.

 

This Space Marine revamp wasn't really meant to bring Marines back "into the fold." It was to make sure that every 40k player has a Space Marine army on the side. Many new, expensive models were released alongside a new book and 6 new supplements. The revenue opportunity is maximized by making the rules ridiculous.

 

Iron Hands are simply at the top of the heap, but it's really all marines.

The financial bottom line of a company who provides an unfun game is of more concern than selling one or two more models to people who were already going to buy the new marines anyway.

 

The only thing this does is encourage more chaos black spray being sold.

Why would anyone use chaos black spray when army painter and scale colour are infinitely superior and cheaper

 

 

I can't say I'm surprised about the FAQ. It's blatantly about money, so why would they change it quickly?

 

Our arguments are about game balance, about being fun to play/play against. The financial bottom line for a publicly traded company who makes the game trumps any discussion about game balance, period. Particularly in the short term.

 

This Space Marine revamp wasn't really meant to bring Marines back "into the fold." It was to make sure that every 40k player has a Space Marine army on the side. Many new, expensive models were released alongside a new book and 6 new supplements. The revenue opportunity is maximized by making the rules ridiculous.

 

Iron Hands are simply at the top of the heap, but it's really all marines.

The financial bottom line of a company who provides an unfun game is of more concern than selling one or two more models to people who were already going to buy the new marines anyway.

 

The only thing this does is encourage more chaos black spray being sold.

Why would anyone use chaos black spray when army painter and scale colour are infinitely superior and cheaper

 

 

Good point. 

In that case, ignoring the IH issues actually causes financial harm rather than selling more GW products. Marines were always going to sell, especially after the new Codex. 

 

It's the colour you paint them that matters what rules you get. 

We have the witnesses (Playtesters)

We have the murder weapon (Tournament Results)

We have the motive (Money)

 

At this point, it should be an open and shut case, but we have Iron Hands players arguing the "well, your honor, you see we've had a tough upbringing, my father was killed by his best friend, and we have had some issues with religion in the past that split apart our family..." defense here. 

 

GW is the judge and jury and let them off the hook with probation.  It is what it is.  We'll move on.

 

If I were an IH player though, I'd be pissed because now we're considered blatantly OP and more importantly, boring to play against.  

Boring? I think it's pretty freaking cool. The shock and awe of an Iron Air Force strike is straight awesome. 

 

It's just unfun and frustrating to play against for the player being obliterated :wink:

 

But a glorious death in fire and explosions is never boring. 

Edited by Lemondish

It's the colour you paint them that matters what rules you get.

 

This is blatantly false outside of official GW events and even then my black and red IH were accepted by GW once I showed the HH colour plate from the BBB. As long as its wysiwyg and your clear on which rules your using colour scheme has no impact

It's the colour you paint them that matters what rules you get.

 

This is blatantly false outside of official GW events and even then my black and red IH were accepted by GW once I showed the HH colour plate from the BBB. As long as its wysiwyg and your clear on which rules your using colour scheme has no impact

 

Fair enough. Let's not rehash this ridiculous discussion in another one of these threads, though. I apologize for bringing it up in jest. Seems we've just run out of motive then!

 

In which case, if you can use any colour marine as whatever you want, and we know marine players were already buying new kits following the codex release, then this puerile argument about GW's motives being entirely financially motivated doesn't really make sense. Hope we can finally close the book on that discussion too. Good? Good!

 

As far as the actual Iron Hands FAQ goes...it's not far enough. Not even close. I pity our Iron Hands brothers who, even when they drop Feirros and Leviathans to try and be a sporting opponent, are still the villains. 

Edited by Lemondish

While I do think that this is a good start, I don't think this was enough to bridge the gap. The problem is that GW are known for their heavy hand with balance changes. I do hope that they can balance them fairly and could do so soon. I have a fluffy tournament next weekend and I'm taking a list with 3 Vinidcators, Assault Centurions and a StormHawk (all of which I was going to take before the codex/suppliments dropped) and am worried that I'll be seen as "that guy"

 

All they need to do is make some more minor tweaks and it brings them down a peg

I'll be running my Iron Ultimas at the next tournament. Think I'll do quite well.

Seeing as how Battle For Salvation a grand total of 8 of the 10 highest ranked players were ALL IRON HANDS, yes you will.

 

Also, wow Ishagu. You've now actually stooped to the stereotype of the kind of player who will run what are clearly Ultramarines using different chapter tactics because they're better than the Ultras. Congrats.

Edited by Gederas

 

 

 

What nerfs in particular are you saying are too harsh?

I would say everything is too harsh, if people spam it, make it a bit more expensive. job done. and feirros, at least 50 pts more.

Feirrios is too cheap atm, not by a huge amount. I generally think points increases don't fix the game, only can it fix them in the extreme of cases ie Feirrios.

 

Bumping the points of "spammable units" is entirely counterproductive and hurts the rest of the faction. Why bump the price for stormhawks when they're very okay with white scars or salamanders for example

 

Believe me they will rise in points because friendly gamers ruin it for everyone else but at least GWs quarter-yearly financial report is fine for this period. That is why I do not play "that guy" lists and do not try to excel in a single aspect.

 

Uh. I could argue that tournament players ruin it for everyone else because they break how narrative and thematic things can be.

 

 

I'll be running my Iron Ultimas at the next tournament. Think I'll do quite well.

Seeing as how Battle For Salvation a grand total of 8 of the 10 highest ranked players were ALL IRON HANDS, yes you will.

 

Also, wow Ishagu. You've now actually stooped to the stereotype of the kind of player who will run what are clearly Ultramarines using different chapter tactics because they're better than the Ultras. Congrats.

Was my joke not obvious?

I'll be running my Iron Ultimas at the next tournament. Think I'll do quite well.

Seeing as how Battle For Salvation a grand total of 8 of the 10 highest ranked players were ALL IRON HANDS, yes you will.

 

Also, wow Ishagu. You've now actually stooped to the stereotype of the kind of player who will run what are clearly Ultramarines using different chapter tactics because they're better than the Ultras. Congrats.

Was my joke not obvious?

No, because many of your previous comments make you come across as a WAAC player. I apologize for misunderstanding your comment, but.... It wasn't very hard to misunderstand it. :sleep:

 

(also: Sarcasm is hard to detect over text unless blatantly obvious, and even then sometimes it's still ambiguous :laugh.:)

Edited by Gederas

 

I'll be running my Iron Ultimas at the next tournament. Think I'll do quite well.

Seeing as how Battle For Salvation a grand total of 8 of the 10 highest ranked players were ALL IRON HANDS, yes you will.

 

Also, wow Ishagu. You've now actually stooped to the stereotype of the kind of player who will run what are clearly Ultramarines using different chapter tactics because they're better than the Ultras. Congrats.

Was my joke not obvious?

No, because many of your previous comments make you come across as a WAAC player. I apologize for misunderstanding your comment, but.... It wasn't very hard to misunderstand it. :sleep:

 

(also: Sarcasm is hard to detect over text unless blatantly obvious, and even then sometimes it's still ambiguous :laugh.:)

 

Ay, it was obvious to me, and I can't even pick up on sarcasm in the real world half the time. :mellow.:

Yesh... That's some FAQ. My Iron hands playing mate will be upset because he doesn't want a super powered army.

 

Also just noticed he's been playing the Doctrine wrong! You can re-roll all 1's with Heavy weapons? Assumed it was only when you move! Don't really get how or why people are claiming at least a bit of a Nerf isn't needed here...

Yesh... That's some FAQ. My Iron hands playing mate will be upset because he doesn't want a super powered army.

 

Also just noticed he's been playing the Doctrine wrong! You can re-roll all 1's with Heavy weapons? Assumed it was only when you move! Don't really get how or why people are claiming at least a bit of a Nerf isn't needed here...

To quote an earlier post "What did you expect bud your in the IH subforum. Lol"

The lowest-placing of any Iron Hands player in an ITC event still saw them beat 35% of the field. Let me rephrase that; no Iron Hands player ever finished in the bottom third of the rankings. That should stun you. Either the Iron Hands players are collectively some of the best players in the ITC or the army is so forgiving that just about any person can pick them up and outperform everyone else.

 

 

 :whistling:

Oh man, I pretty much expected this faq. Glad the dreadnought thing was handled at least.....but it isn't over yet. We still have 2019 faq, and who knows, something may happen yet eventually, lets just see how this all shakes out post LVO

 

Having had an iron hands army since 3rd, it was nice to actually get what we got, but I do sorely wish it was just slightly toned down a bit more. Powerful, but not powerful enough that everyone jumps on it and GW runs out of repulsor executioners online. Armies that get this treatment just pump out half-assed, un-converted, heartless, unpainted armies. And what better to fit the bill? A black spray paint jop with some leadbealcher here and here. And space marines to boot! Weird army lists consisting of units that iron hands are not famous for. Blah. Whatever. I will continue to work on my primaris iron hands, with heavy bionics built in. Non-spammed units, no flyers....and yet will still be undoubtedly be labeled as "oh look...another iron hands player". That's the part I really don't like.  *points at my original 3rd edition iron father pewter miniature.*

My White Irons are ready to hit the table top!

I 100% agree.  I am ecstatic about the codex and supplement, and glad we're flying under the radar compared to Iron Hands.  

 

On that note, I personally think that White Scars are actually a fairly nice counter the Iron Hands, particularly builds built for huddling around the Ironstone.  Even Executioners can be held up in combat with Master of Snares, Stormwreathed is going to annoy them big time, Encirclement will help immensely, and you might able to use our speed and consolidation shenanigans to kill their Ironstone guy/repair bots in melee.

After a bunch of GTs this past weekend, White Scars are one of the only armies out there with a favorable win rate against Iron Hands.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.