PDA

View Full Version : iron warriors questions?



dark angel
01-01-2006, 19:41
hi

ive been looking round and noticed this iron warriors army

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14883&highlight=iron+warriors

i would like to start an iron warriors army but i have a few q's this army has a bombard and a seige dreadnought, can i use them or do i have to have opponents permission and if i can what else can i use???

PS thanks in advance

Rabid Bunny 666
01-01-2006, 19:42
well, you could use the VDR rules, they're in one of hte older chapter approved, and its online somewhere

dark angel
01-01-2006, 19:45
but cant i just use the normal rules

a seige dreadnough would make sense in iron warriors aswell as a bombard

Rabid Bunny 666
01-01-2006, 19:46
well, its not in the list, and the VDR rules are quite commonly used

dark angel
01-01-2006, 19:51
but i dont want to use the vdr as the not totally official

Grotsnik
01-01-2006, 20:03
Well then you won't be using them in a IW army then.
Neither is a unit option for IW.
You could use the Bombard to represent a basilisk, which the IW can have. But you are SOL on the seige dread.

Ophidicus
01-01-2006, 21:00
I'd let you use the standard rules for both if you took the time to make and paint them, and I don't see any reason for anyone else not to. If you just borrowed someone else's or just a base with feet glued on I'd tell you to get stuffed. Clearly Iron Warriors do make use of Bombards and Seige Dreadnoughts, they're right there!

Obviously this doesn't apply to everything, but usually if there's no fluff that it actually goes against, there's no reason why you shouldn't. Iron Warriors are seige masters, it's perfectly appropriate for them to use masters' tools.

Azial
01-01-2006, 22:11
Siege Dreadnaughts for Imperial Armies can be found in Imperial Armour update 2005 on the Forgeworld Web Site.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/imparm05.htm

dark angel
02-01-2006, 20:17
i have the book im just wondering if i can use it in the army

sorry if you got confused

Dreachon
02-01-2006, 21:21
Ask your opponent about fielding them if their okay with it go ahead, I have a bombard and medusa for my own IW army, each is fielded instead of the basilisk.
I also tell my opponent about their good and bad points.

boogle
02-01-2006, 21:49
i would have no Problem in you using them as they fit the background prefectly

Latro_
02-01-2006, 21:51
No

also notice thouse IW's on that link the bombard etc people are human guard. Pos used as a rebel ig army.

boogle
02-01-2006, 21:54
are you saying No to him using it?, if so then why?

Latro_
03-01-2006, 12:51
What no to using a bombard in a IW army?!

because its not part of their list. I woulden't try and use a landraider in my nid army

Puffin Magician
03-01-2006, 15:13
I'm pretty sure that in one of the .pdf versions of the Bombard's rules, the FW blokes said that 0-1 in an Iron Warriors army makes just as much sense as the Vindicator or Basilisk, but is still Opponent Permission since it's an Imperial Armour vehicle in the first place.

The Siege Dreadnought is clearly loyalist-only, although you could WYSIWYG that as a Chaos Dreadnought w/ CCW, Heavy Flamer & Multimelta.

boogle
03-01-2006, 17:40
What no to using a bombard in a IW army?!

because its not part of their list. I woulden't try and use a landraider in my nid army
yeah that's because that wouldn't fit the fluff at all whereas the Bombard fits in an IW army as a Siege Engine (i would however add it to the 0-1 limit that the Basilisk and Vindicator have)

Wraithbored
03-01-2006, 17:40
As long as it looks good, you took time and effort to make it and paint it and you had "semiofficial" rules for it I'd play against you in an instant! And Hell I'd allow a landraider in a nid army as well provided a Genestealer Patriarch or magus was accompanying it!

boogle
03-01-2006, 18:49
As long as it looks good, you took time and effort to make it and paint it and you had "semiofficial" rules for it I'd play against you in an instant! And Hell I'd allow a landraider in a nid army as well provided a Genestealer Patriarch or magus was accompanying it!
and i thought i was an open minded gamer

LostTemplar
03-01-2006, 19:31
in the .pdf Rules for the FW bombard it was stated that IW can indeed use one as their "bonus" tank.

Wraithbored
03-01-2006, 19:53
and i thought i was an open minded gamer There is always someone a step higher and lower than you my friend! ;)

Latro_
03-01-2006, 20:46
yeah that's because that wouldn't fit the fluff at all whereas the Bombard fits in an IW army as a Siege Engine (i would however add it to the 0-1 limit that the Basilisk and Vindicator have)

Cool i'm gonna do an Iron hands army with necro destroyers... you know all that replacing your bits with mechanical parts... its fluffy

hehe.

c'mon IW's have enough already.

blitz589
03-01-2006, 20:53
If you had an army as nice as those, id let you, but if they don't the Bombard is A basilisk, and the seige dred, can swap his weapons to be legal.

boogle
03-01-2006, 23:23
Cool i'm gonna do an Iron hands army with necro destroyers... you know all that replacing your bits with mechanical parts... its fluffy

hehe.

c'mon IW's have enough already.
once again though your missing the point, the Bombard fits in with the IW Doctrine of Siege warfare, both of your examples are silly and not fluffy at all

Easy E
03-01-2006, 23:50
Of course it depends on the setting. If we are just having a freindly game, there is no reason not to let you use a Bombard. If it is in a tourney setting, then there is a issue as FW models are not allowed.

Tom
04-01-2006, 00:17
Of course it depends on the setting. If we are just having a freindly game, there is no reason not to let you use a Bombard. If it is in a tourney setting, then there is a issue as FW models are not allowed.

Although this is changing; IIRC it's now only super-heavies that are banned (possibly flyers too but people seem to like valks).

With regards to Siege Dreadnoughts: I plan one with a heavy bolter housing above the carapace- CCW, Heavy Flamer and TLHB!

So yes, it is possible to use a Bombard if you somehow alter it to perform and look like it ewould fulfil the role of the basilisk or, hell, Vindicator, or to use the Siege Dread with the above example. Just be a bit creative.

Although I wouldn't be able to use the bombard as a basilisk anyway; not using the IW rules. Resonant frequencies and fortress walls do not mix.

Latro_
04-01-2006, 00:49
once again though your missing the point, the Bombard fits in with the IW Doctrine of Siege warfare, both of your examples are silly and not fluffy at all

The Iron Hands' particular hatred for weakness in any form or nature has a marked effect on their combat doctrine. This hatred is extended to incorporate the physical body, and they see weakness even in their own augmented physiques. These perceived frailties are ruthlessly eradicated through any possible means. This has further developed to a near worship of the mechanical that approaches the zeal and devotion of the Adeptus Mechanicus. A weak body can easily be broken or led into temptations of the flesh, so they believe, and this is what the Iron Hands hate and fear most of all. Consequently, the harder, more mechanical the body, the less room there is for physical failings and frailties.

I think attempting to augment them selves with necrony bitz is quite fluffy.
hehe

You see your reasoning was low level fluff. Seige tank! seige based marines! whooop. Fluff is, As in the example above too often a matter of opinion. One thing is for sure (some what:D) thats written rules. As far as i can see IW's can't have bombards in the same way iron hands cant use necron destroyers.

pyramid_head
04-01-2006, 04:38
Cool i'm gonna do an Iron hands army with necro destroyers... you know all that replacing your bits with mechanical parts... its fluffy

hehe.

c'mon IW's have enough already.


thanks for missing the point.

The iron hands dont utilize any type of gaus weaponry as far as we know and they certainly don't use the units themselves. Show me the story where the iron hands go into battle with destroyers/monoliths etc and I'll let you field them.

HEHE

read storm of iron or dead sky black sun, there are siege engines portrayed in their which make the bombard look like an air rifle. I always make sure my opponent knows its not official rules and I have yet to be turned down yet.

Also the guardsmen are auxilaries not a regiment of their own

New Cult King
04-01-2006, 04:55
If worse came to worst, you could always just use the 'counts as' rule: use a Bombard model, but let your opponent know that it uses the Basilisk rules in your game.

Hell, I'm thinking of doing the same thing myself when I revisit my own IW.

Latro_
04-01-2006, 12:49
thanks for missing the point.

The iron hands dont utilize any type of gaus weaponry as far as we know and they certainly don't use the units themselves. Show me the story where the iron hands go into battle with destroyers/monoliths etc and I'll let you field them.

HEHE

read storm of iron or dead sky black sun, there are siege engines portrayed in their which make the bombard look like an air rifle. I always make sure my opponent knows its not official rules and I have yet to be turned down yet.

Also the guardsmen are auxilaries not a regiment of their own

I'v read storm of iron I have a large IW army.
The fact you have to be shown a story in its self results in you 'missing' my 'point'. My Iron hands fluff explination was founded on my own imagination built on the exisiting fluff frame work. The fact a story has not been published about it is neither here nor there. Fiction is fiction.

Going back to your book reference
In Storm of iron there is a Tyranid capured bio ship, there are Prisioners used as cannon foder on trucks + an Iron warrior champion possessed by khorne. Should these be available to iron warriors in a standard game of 40k also then?

There is a point where fiction and the game cross and thats called the Chaos space marine codex.
By all means use what you like in friendly games. Hell make up fluff for orks to use wave serpents if you like. I just would not expect most gamers to allow such things in games when they want a balanced battle.

Grim
04-01-2006, 16:27
I'm have an IW army myself, just wan't to say that they rock! I'm weary clear of my opinion about the IW though. And never use rools that I don't see fit with the iron warriors in my opinion (even if the rule is aloud for IW.) I think it's important to set som personal lines for you'r army, to make it unik. I i.e. never gave my warriors large-horn helmets, or tusks. No fur or hair either. All characters with helmless heads, had a greytone skin, to fit with their cold and hard style. Though this is not what you ask'd for, I just had to tell you. Hehe

Puffin Magician
04-01-2006, 16:48
I just would not expect most gamers to allow such things in games when they want a balanced battle.I think you need to take a minute and remember what the hell you're talking about.

Iron Warriors, probably the best siege army every to wage war in the Galaxy, being allowed 0-1 Bombard Siege Mortar. Unfair, silly, zany? Far from it.

Fluffy, balanced games? Tell that to the people that never bother to expand their army to include flavourful units, and stick to their "tried and true" minmaxed LasPlas/6 Dreadnought/200pt Daemon Prince armies.

Grim: Welcome to the forums.

Latro_
04-01-2006, 17:43
As far as i see it three types of games:

1. Tourney dead beardy competative games
2. Normal balanaced gaming night games
3. Fun, friendly have a laugh meh games.

Second one. Myself and most gamers that i know that like a game thats balanced (not that GW has a good track record of this :P) would rather play with armies that are legal in the 40k rules. That does not extend to using unflavourful units nor does not branch into any other issues associated with 1.

People can do what they like its a game after all. We make up loads of fun rules senarios etc... in a 3. style game. However if someone came to a games night on the premise of a 1-2 style game then using a bombard in a IW army is out the window. It may be fluffy or even put someone at a disadvantage! using it. I'd rather just play under the rules that were playtested etc.

Grotsnik
04-01-2006, 18:36
Went thru this whole threat & all I see is someone wanting to use a vehicle that isn't allowed by the IW list.
The big excuse being it fits the "Fluff". Hell, the IW had Titans in Storm of Iron. Guess that means you can play one in 40K also. :rolleyes:

Play by the rules & stop trying to give your army advantages it doesn't need.

From a visual aspect I think it would be great to have a Bombard "count as" a basilisk in a IW army. But I would never think of using one with the Bombard rules and using "fluff" as an excuse.

I have played IW for a long time & they don't need another "looted" vehicle. They are quite strong enough as is. :skull:

Latro_
04-01-2006, 18:42
Went thru this whole threat & all I see is someone wanting to use a vehicle that isn't allowed by the IW list.
The big excuse being it fits the "Fluff". Hell, the IW had Titans in Storm of Iron. Guess that means you can play one in 40K also. :rolleyes:


http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/cwarhound1store.jpg

Yep you can.

boogle
04-01-2006, 18:51
Went thru this whole threat & all I see is someone wanting to use a vehicle that isn't allowed by the IW list.
The big excuse being it fits the "Fluff". Hell, the IW had Titans in Storm of Iron. Guess that means you can play one in 40K also. :rolleyes:

Play by the rules & stop trying to give your army advantages it doesn't need.

From a visual aspect I think it would be great to have a Bombard "count as" a basilisk in a IW army. But I would never think of using one with the Bombard rules and using "fluff" as an excuse.

I have played IW for a long time & they don't need another "looted" vehicle. They are quite strong enough as is. :skull:
so thats means i'll put my homegrown Arbites army in storage just because it's not a legal army then shall I?

can i also point out that this is 'our game' and we should be allowed to play it any way we like, just so long as its not too outlandish

Puffin Magician
04-01-2006, 19:06
Play by the rules & stop trying to give your army advantages it doesn't need.So by that line of thinking wouldn't you say that they should have the Bombard instead of the Vindicator? Surely the Bombard [Open-Top Chimera, only fires every other turn] is less advantageous than a Vindcator or Basilisk.

But I would never think of using one with the Bombard rules and using "fluff" as an excuse.Nothing wrong with that, just don't jump down our throats because we aren't Codex Nazis that only use exactly what GW tells us to use. We've got brains in our heads and can make decisions ourselves, you know.

IW don't need another vehicle... they are quite strong enough as is.You seem to have missed the point again. It's not about whether they need it or shouldn't have it because it's a powerful tank, but they should have the option of taking one because it fits their style of warfare to a T, it's reasonable for them to have access to a few [moreso than say a Tyranid Bioship, which is probably the most stupid idea anyone has ever written about in 40k], and FW themselves said it was fine.

TWB
04-01-2006, 19:09
I say if you have the money and time to prep and paint the FW bits, go for it, if you are playing Vs somebody who has problems with the specific rules that FW produce (like me) play them as a regular Dread and a Basilisk, agains others, use them as their FW described rules.

I realise that a bombard might be entirely in keeping with the IW's background but this isn't a gameside justification, the Salamanders would be able to upgrade their terminator powerfists to thunder hammers if this was the case, 3 guardsmen woul be able to rip a Khorne Berzerker to pieces with las-fire etc etc yadda yadda yadda.

Latro_
04-01-2006, 19:18
o o oo i have another one.

Should space wolves have access to 13th company wolf packs?
Maybe imperial fists should have bombards too?

Thinking about it since the point is on 'seige'
All IW armies should have access to these tanks too???

STORMSWORD SUPER HEAVY SIEGE TANK
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/storm1.jpg

THUNDERER SIEGE TANK
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/thunstore.jpg

MEDUSA SELF-PROPELLED HEAVY MORTAR
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/medusestore.jpg


:D

Use em in a fun game sure. Where your opponent is cool with it. Any other time errr IW Stormsword yea ok... no.

Puffin Magician
04-01-2006, 19:35
I realise that a bombard might be entirely in keeping with the IW's background but this isn't a gameside justification.According to Forge World it is, otherwise they wouldn't have included that little tidbit of psuedo-approval in the trial rules.

Latro, I'd rather see a wonderfully converted IW Medusa than yet another 5-man squad of Autocannon Havocs with Tank Hunter.

I'll simply agree to disagree; some of you will never agree with my [or others'] flexibility as far as combining fluff and the game goes. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit if someone says I can't use a Bombard in an Iron Warriors army, but conversely I have every right to deny a game with a moronic WAAC army created with a perfectly Codex-legal list [that some of you seem to swear by].

boogle
04-01-2006, 19:35
o o oo i have another one.

Should space wolves have access to 13th company wolf packs?
Maybe imperial fists should have bombards too?

.
if by that you mean a pack of Fenrisian Wolves, then yes i think it should be made an option when they get around to redoing the SW Codex

As IF already have access to the Vindicator, and have had their Siege Master rules all but removed from the game (plus from a background standpoint, they always preferred to use Troops rather than Warmachines to break the sieges)

Totally agree with you on this one, went into my local GW today, to ask the boss if when we play our 3-3 game in March if he mided me using my Arbite Codex, one of the staff said 'why don't you use the Witchunters book', i then reeled off a list of stuff in my codex, and gave reasons why, although certain units could be converted to be used in the WH list, my list fits them better from a fluff point of view (such as Executioner Rounds, and other Shotgun Ammo, Units of K9's and Supression teams)

Latro_
04-01-2006, 19:56
"According to Forge World it is, otherwise they wouldn't have included that little tidbit of psuedo-approval in the trial rules."

If they wanted to make it a propper game side justification it would not be a psuedo-approval in trial rules.

I said cool use what you like in a fun game. But don't keep saying we are missing the point. Most people play this game with codex's pts values etc... Post a list on the army list forum and people will think its from a codex, Ask about a rule on the rules forum and people will think its an actual rule not one you made up. In the same sense I expressed that no you can't use a bomb in an IW army as i assumed the poster was refering to a normal army.

this thread be dead

blitz589
04-01-2006, 19:58
Large amounts of Artillery are needed for seiges so the Iron Warriors have know to capture and re-construct Imperial Equipment for the job.
A bombards Imperial Equipment, and IWs are known to Capture Imperial Equmpment for the Job, So maybey it would of been included, had the Bombard been released, before the Chaos Codex.


The Iron Warriors follow a simple method. They commence battle with a sustained bombardment utilising every gun at their disposal. The basis of this is a complex fire plan in which every weapon is directed with utmost care at the optimum target for maximum effect. Where possible, the Iron Warriors will coordinate with Traitor Titan Legions to add to their own considerable firepower. The bombardment can last for weeks as the Iron Warriors rarely seem to be short of ammunition. They handle their weaponry well, with formations moving forward to fire and then redeploying before any reprisal. Often their entire force will move laterally to bring their fire against enemy weak points, with the result that counter-attacks flounder helplessly in the teeth of the Iron Warriors’ weapons.

So they Use EVERY Gun at their Disposal, and I think someone mentioned Titans , which they have been knowned to use.


Edit) Started typing before LAtro Said the tread was done.

Latro_
04-01-2006, 20:16
A bombards Imperial Equipment, and IWs are known to Capture Imperial Equmpment for the Job, So maybey it would of been included, had the Bombard been released, before the Chaos Codex.


Orks are also more so known to Capture Imperial Equmpment for the Job So maybey it would of been included, had the vindicator been released, before the Ork Codex.

oh wait hang on... the vindicator was already released.
"looks at ork codex" but its fluffy for them to loot tanks! and its not in there! but it was out at the time!

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!"

Edit: Started typing after you editied (haha now thats funny) - It was dead for me, no reason for you all not to carry on, i'm nout special. All this posting really is so i don't have to paint at those death guard watching me from accross the room... hehe avast.

blitz589
04-01-2006, 20:30
Orks are also more so known to Capture Imperial Equmpment for the Job So maybey it would of been included, had the vindicator been released, before the Ork Codex.


Its probably becasue they already have a demolisher Cannon, on the Russ, and why the Russ Over the Vindicator, because they already had acseess to the other russ with a Battle cannon.

pyramid_head
05-01-2006, 02:30
Going back to your book reference
In Storm of iron there is a Tyranid capured bio ship, there are Prisioners used as cannon foder on trucks + an Iron warrior champion possessed by khorne. Should these be available to iron warriors in a standard game of 40k also then?


Yes I reckon they should in terms of a true fluffy list, I'd love to have a mass conscript wave or two.


o o oo i have another one.

Should space wolves have access to 13th company wolf packs?
Maybe imperial fists should have bombards too?

Thinking about it since the point is on 'seige'
All IW armies should have access to these tanks too???



:imacockyfag:

Use em in a fun game sure. Where your opponent is cool with it. Any other time errr IW Stormsword yea ok... no.

Uh the imperial fists follow the rules very closely apart from their brashness, they only utilize vehicles that normal marine chapters use.

You seem to forget all those vehicles have large weak spots, they don't in any way overpower the list, the Thunderer is nearly identical to a mutated hull vindicator, the medusa is weak as **** in soaking up damage and the stormsword is an extremely role oriented piece of equipment which gets slaughtered in any open terrain.

as somone said GW's own website states that the iron warriors utilize a vast aray of siege machinery, the list is the way it is for balance, not for fluff, and most people in non tourney games like playing games for fun, not because they are a pedantic killjoy. If people are allowed to use VDR then they most certainly should be allowed to use STC compliant vehicles which also fit the fluff of the chosen army neatly

Before I did my teutonian super heavy AC I was thinking of doing a traitor siege company with two stormswords and a shadowsword to act as a mobile battering ram :)