5+ Flesh is Weak

[Charlo]

Cheif Apothecary makes Flesh is weak a 5+ for all infantry/ bikers within 6"

 

From Faith and Fury book.

 

Lol.

[WarriorFish]

That's rather nifty, I've been meaning to sort some apothecaries out for my Marines for donkeys now this might be the motivation I need :P Any word on the upgrade nature? I'm really hoping it's not a CP price as with the Chapter Master as that's a bit rubbish.

[Raktra]

It’s CP.

[WarriorFish]

I suppose this time it's fair as nobody can buy a Chief Apothecary for points, at least not yet?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Can you use it for the Primaris medic ?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Yes, any apothecary can use the strat.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sweet!

[Cruor Vault]

As amazingly potent as this is, I suspect both this and the Techmarine WL trait are going to get nerfed the same way the Ironstone was.

[Lord Blackwood]

Veteran Intercessors with a Primaris Master of sanctity buffing them   and an apothecary to make them Tougher .... I am so close to my counter assault deathball. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I doubt it’ll be nerfed.

[quasistellar]

What makes me sad is that if you take a Techmarine and apothecary with these faith and fury upgrades, there’s almost no reason at all to take Feirros :(

 

5+++ is like way better than a 5++ on 3+ save infantry, and the Techmarine can get +1 to hit bubble.

[Raktra]

You could have the 5++ and 5+++, nothing’s changing that. Plus add in that Feirros is tougher than those two, hits harder, doesn’t cost CP to function, and doesn’t eat up a Warlord trait (and therefore more CP if you wanna stack), there’s plenty of reasons to take him.

[Lord Blackwood]

I  dont think you can have both , since Ferrios has the master of the forge keyword ?  If I recall that means you can either have him or the super tech marine  not both. 

[Raktra]

Better take Feirros unless you’re strapped for points in that case.

[Aothaine]

As amazingly potent as this is, I suspect both this and the Techmarine WL trait are going to get nerfed the same way the Ironstone was.

 

Wait until Ishagu hears about this. Prepare for a rampage! :D

 

Joking aside, this is really cool! Opens up so many different play-styles with Iron Hands now. Really looking forward to building my army up.

[quasistellar]

Better take Feirros unless you’re strapped for points in that case.

 

 

That depends. . . 

 

If you can only take one, and you're running multiple vehicles/dreads, then I'd take the new master of the forge techmarine.  Feirros only gives BS 2+ to one unit, while the master of the forge gives +1 to hit to every vehicle in 6".  Also, Feirros's invuln doesn't affect vehicles anymore.

 

For a 15 point savings (but at a cost of 2 CP) you could include the new Techmarine and Apothecary and actually be BETTER than just Feirros.  A 5+++ FnP (and being able to possibly heal or bring back a model!) is mostly better than a 5++ invuln on power armor infantry, I think.

 

It looks like the nerf to Feirros's invuln bubble is having the effect I feared. . . he's actually not great to take anymore at all vs alternatives, unless you're specifically wanting his warlord trait and superior base stats compared to a techmarine.  Or maybe the Master of the Forge is just too good for 1CP?

Edited November 18, 2019 by quasistellar

[Aothaine]

 

It looks like the nerf to Feirros's invuln bubble is having the effect I feared. . . he's actually not great to take anymore at all vs alternatives, unless you're specifically wanting his warlord trait and superior base stats compared to a techmarine.  Or maybe the Master of the Forge is just too good for 1CP?

 

This is exactly why I tried to calm people down when they all went bananas over Feirros. Give it a few weeks/months people. But no. They pressured GW to nerf him, he was nerfed and now you're left with a character that will rarely get fielded anymore. Sad days. But hey, those Nerf everything bandwagon players don't care. 

 

Sorry for the salt. This is the kind of stuff GW needs to get some thick skin about. They did the same thing with Guilliman, a damned primarch. He should never have been nerfed imho. Just increase his points. But meh.. whatever.

 

Time to move on. I'll eventually build Feirros and play with him for sure though.

 

Can anyone with the book actually list out the differences between a F&F Techmarine and Feirros? I wonder if it is more like the Tigurius comparison that is going on in the Ultramarines thread and we actually don't need to worry as much because Feirros is still a better option. I just don't have F&F yet to do the comparison. 

[quasistellar]

Spikey bits (barf) had images of the strats and warlord traits for the Techmarine.

[Raktra]

 

Better take Feirros unless you’re strapped for points in that case.

 

 

That depends. . . 

 

If you can only take one, and you're running multiple vehicles/dreads, then I'd take the new master of the forge techmarine.  Feirros only gives BS 2+ to one unit, while the master of the forge gives +1 to hit to every vehicle in 6".  Also, Feirros's invuln doesn't affect vehicles anymore.

 

For a 15 point savings (but at a cost of 2 CP) you could include the new Techmarine and Apothecary and actually be BETTER than just Feirros.  A 5+++ FnP (and being able to possibly heal or bring back a model!) is mostly better than a 5++ invuln on power armor infantry, I think.

 

It looks like the nerf to Feirros's invuln bubble is having the effect I feared. . . he's actually not great to take anymore at all vs alternatives, unless you're specifically wanting his warlord trait and superior base stats compared to a techmarine.  Or maybe the Master of the Forge is just too good for 1CP?

 

I said just Feirros over the MotF, for all the above reasons. And again, the Techmarine would need to be your Warlord, so eats up a Warlord trait and gives you a super frail warlord. I'm not saying he's worthless, but come on, complaining about Feirros is 40k First World Problems.

[Aothaine]

 

I said just Feirros over the MotF, for all the above reasons. And again, the Techmarine would need to be your Warlord, so eats up a Warlord trait and gives you a super frail warlord. I'm not saying he's worthless, but come on, complaining about Feirros is 40k First World Problems.

 

First world's have problems too Raktra. :D

 

I totally hear where you are coming from. I think this update was mainly to help successor chapters get more traction. Now they can have cool characters that are actually decent on the table top but not quite as good as the primary chapter's special characters. Just wanted to vent a little about the great-nerf wave I've been seeing hit this forum recently. Reminds me of browsing the WoW forums a little bit. I do this Fierros needed a points increase for sure. But not the hammer he received. He is still really good though. Just a different type of good. Funny thing is, he isn't even in any of the lists I plan on building/playing for the next few years. :/

[quasistellar]

Should have just jacked his points up instead of removing almost everything special about him :(

 

Side note:  the more I think about it, the more I'm certain that the +1 to hit of the Master of the Forge warlord trait is going to get nerfed in some way.  Maybe decrease it to 3 inches?  Make it "wholly within"?

[MeltaRange]

First world's have problems too Raktra. :D

 

I totally hear where you are coming from. I think this update was mainly to help successor chapters get more traction. Now they can have cool characters that are actually decent on the table top but not quite as good as the primary chapter's special characters. Just wanted to vent a little about the great-nerf wave I've been seeing hit this forum recently. Reminds me of browsing the WoW forums a little bit. I do this Fierros needed a points increase for sure. But not the hammer he received. He is still really good though. Just a different type of good. Funny thing is, he isn't even in any of the lists I plan on building/playing for the next few years. :/

The nerfs were justified. Sorry you have hurt feelings about it but there are other players out there who want to have fun playing the game too. IH upon release generated an UNPRECEDENTED backlash including typically non vocal playtesters coming out of the woodwork to claim "I told them so". They destroyed the meta immediately. Even if you don't care about competitive play like me, any well designed list was rolling people with little to no tactics needed. People have a problem with that. Did you play a game against a decent IH list (without using IH yourself)

 

Iron Hands are still insanely good and have many, many good options to choose from. They can be good at basically every style.

 

These new options like the title of this topic are so ridiculous that it's just not worth pulling out my Marines right now. The possible combos with these new toys aren't fun to play with or against really

[Aothaine]

 

The nerfs were justified. Sorry you have hurt feelings about it but there are other players out there who want to have fun playing the game too. IH upon release generated an UNPRECEDENTED backlash including typically non vocal playtesters coming out of the woodwork to claim "I told them so". They destroyed the meta immediately. Even if you don't care about competitive play like me, any well designed list was rolling people with little to no tactics needed. People have a problem with that. Did you play a game against a decent IH list (without using IH yourself)

 

Iron Hands are still insanely good and have many, many good options to choose from. They can be good at basically every style.

 

These new options like the title of this topic are so ridiculous that it's just not worth pulling out my Marines right now. The possible combos with these new toys aren't fun to play with or against really

 

They destroyed a meta that was not focused on anti-meq. Unsurprising. All I was saying is give it a few weeks. People were complaining about tournament results from tournaments that were ran 1-2 weeks after the release. I wasn't saying he didn't need adjustments. But give the meta time to adjust. Instead of doing knee jerk reactions and causing problems going the other way. I also want to point out that people felt the same way about Guilliman, they waited before nerfing him. Giving the meta time to shift towards playing against him. That was all I was suggesting. 

 

I firmly believe that the adjustments made to him were a little over done. They were effective in quashing the raging herds but have effectively hamstrung other options that were available to IHs. I know that IHs are still really good. I know that further adjustments will most likely happen. But it is really poor practice to nerf like GW did. Despite the outcry. Prepare for this to keep happening with every codex release. If GW continues to do this they are going to have issues with initial sales. People are going to want to wait to see what is nerfed before making purchases. With the exception of the really hardcore competitive players that dump thousands into the game monthly. Most people can't afford that. Most people don't want to spend $30+ on a model or group of models that is just going to sit on the shelf after a potential nerf like this. 

 

Anyway.. lol. I way over did this. Just give it some time in the field. Let the meta shift a little and see what comes about before bringing out the hammer of nerfing. That is all I am saying in regards to this specific issue.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Aothaine

[Cruor Vault]

Should have just jacked his points up instead of removing almost everything special about him

 

Side note:  the more I think about it, the more I'm certain that the +1 to hit of the Master of the Forge warlord trait is going to get nerfed in some way.  Maybe decrease it to 3 inches?  Make it "wholly within"?

 

We've already been through this problem with Guilliman.

 

Jacking the points on a single character doesn't scale to how much impact their buffs provide as games change in size.  Either their buff become useless in a small game, or overpowering in a large one.

 

Initially GW tried to bump specific unit's costs, but that made those units unplayable for Chapters that didn't have access to Guilliman (IE: Fire Raptors).  Next GW tried jacking Guilliman's points, and to a lesser extent that worked, except it made it impossible to bring him in anything less than a 2K game.

 

As to your side note: I 100% believe that it will be changed in the same fashion as the Iron Stone was.

[Aothaine]

 

We've already been through this problem with Guilliman.

 

Jacking the points on a single character doesn't scale to how much impact their buffs provide as games change in size.  Either their buff become useless in a small game, or overpowering in a large one.

 

Initially GW tried to bump specific unit's costs, but that made those units unplayable for Chapters that didn't have access to Guilliman (IE: Fire Raptors).  Next GW tried jacking Guilliman's points, and to a lesser extent that worked, except it made it impossible to bring him in anything less than a 2K game.

 

As to your side note: I 100% believe that it will be changed in the same fashion as the Iron Stone was.

 

Isn't that good though? Why would Guilliman, a primarch, be involved in a scout patrol? It just doesn't make sense. He should only be usable in larger engagements. The same with Feirros. In order to even have him and make it some-what effective you needed to build an Iron Council around him which ends up making the list quite expensive if you are trying to build a competitive list. I agree with not letting his aura affect flyers. That is perfectly reasonable. But nerfing the Iron Stone was not needed. Hell the Eldar have that same effect on every single one of their Wave Serpents. I don't remember anyone freaking out about that. It was good but it wasn't game breaking. It trapped all those units together making them easy to assault and tie down. It also created a sort of death ball that could be some-what avoided using terrain and faster units/vehicles. 

 

So I just don't agree with most the arguments stating that it needed to be nerfed. "Easy to play" & "Point and click" is not a reason to nerf things. Everyone enjoys different play-styles. I remember people being salty for years about the old T'au lists with triple riptides. But people played around them. The meta shifted and changed. It just doesn't make any sense from a competitive stand point to have this knee jerk reaction. Give the meta time to adjust. It will adjust and things you think are op might not be as bad as you thought. It was certainly strong and there are certain aspects of Iron Hands that are still really good. But I guess I'm just more against the instant outrage and rioting over it so fast and GW's reaction to it. Most of us still don't know what is in store for Xenos and Chaos or what crazy combos are going to come out of that. Also, Genestealer lists were still beating the IHs lists from what I recall. But I don't see any outrage against the Genestealer codex. 

 

I think the main issue is that people were able to paint the black over all their minis so fast that you saw a flood of IHs players. Making the problem seem larger that it actually was. I really like defending my point so I appreciate the arguments. I hope that I am sounding calm, because I am. Also if I come across as insulting I do not mean it. Just having a discussion with people that enjoy the same game I enjoy.