Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 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: 8537
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: 124
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: 124
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 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