In Collected Visions i see only 3 Super Heavytanks.
Khatek Fellblade Tank
Looks like a Baneblade with round turret, twin heavy bolter instead of lascannon and lascannon or twin heavy bolter instead of twin heavy bolter (only one barrel with muzzle flash is seen).
The Imperial Reaper Stormsword Tank
Looks like a Baneblade with round turret. Fills the picture too much to show any sponsons.
Mordant Mammoth Heavy Tank
Looks like a Shadowsword with rounded turret and sponsons with Lascannons.

Thats it.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Yes so Black Legion wise (which uses them the most) they have
0-1 SC - Fair enough, like everyone
0-1 Spaceship - like everyone
0-1 Demon Prince per faction - fair enough it makes sense
0-1 Forlorn Hope - I can see this as a proportion of available marines and because scouts with marine stats are nasty, not to mention the fact they can get demons and be used for drop bombardment! But, would the same restriction be achieved to their numbers if they were 25 points higher?
0-1 Raptor - Apparently this is due to background? Though again its skewed somewhat with regards to their power vs bikes. Personally I'd prefer better stating and pointing to make it a straight choice like in the marine list.
0-2 Chosen - Why? Are they rarer than Terminators? If its a power thing would it be solved by making the formations base 6 strong (so cost more) or upping the cost of each unit by 5 or 10 points?
0-2 Assault - Slapped on at the last minute for obvious rasons. The proposal of sticking them in with navy and titans seems to solve it better, though unit balance may have to be looked at.

I don't mind limits for background, feel and rules. But for balance they should be a last resort.
And also of course there is a bit of conciet in there as I feel limits should be built into an army list so they are less obvious (like a core/support split, relative percentage restrictions like 1/3, 1 per x points in the army list and so on).

Edit - this post was done over two days the computer was left on, so the debate seems to have addressed some of this already Also it more about BL, not iron warriors, here the same restrictions could make far more sense.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Can you be tempted to make the basilisks the 1st edition model (or at least the 3rd edition/FW model) that is open topped, so armour 6+. It makes little difference, especially if emplaced but its the little touches I like the most.

Emplacements wise, why not change it a bit. Siegers are cheap so and so's but the Iron warriors would be a bit different, relying on I think slaves and similar to dig trenches when advancing. Plus armour 3+ marines in bunkers are horrible How about an emplacement set that is 1 bunker (command bunker!), trenches, minefields (dangerous terrain to both infantry and vehicles) and 3 emplacements?

Another change you might consider is having the reapers on the terminators replaced with ignore cover heavy flamers, emphasising the siege breaking nature of the army?

Removed 0-2 on Terminators

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Giving the IW's there own set of fortifications is an excellent idea   .

I also like the alternate weapons for Terminators to suit the siege breaker style of the list.

Big YAY! on Heavy Flamer Iron Warriors Terminators  

On Forlorn Hope: The Red Corsairs have a 6 units strong Chosen formation (read: Forlorn Hope)as as Support choice (Red Corsairs use Core/Support structure)which certainly costs more. This should hinder drop popcorning scouts and daemons somewhat.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Ok I post the Steve's version in a complete document, with all the unit charts and some background. If you see any mistakes tell me and I'll edit the doc. Just wanted everything nice and ready for printing and not searching through multiple files.

I dislike the Heavy Flamers. They aren't a must, and IW use other weapons. Nowhere it says 'and ye shall wield a heavy flamer during a siege in a terminator armour'. Reaper autocannons are ok, they're not salamanders. And if you insist on the change, how will it effect the cost? Flamers are worse then autocannons.

I think the current SHT are ok, though we can change names so they're more fitting.

changing the titans. Well they belong to Legio Mortis, so should stay the same. Let's not make a total 'everything is siege' paranoia. Should we also add 'shovels' to marines?  

Now if anyone can reply to my idea... - What about the 'either emplacements or thunderhawks' idea? This way you can make an Iron Warriors army from ANY of the Invasion Phases (ye securing the landing area, or siege etc). BTW I'm just reading Fulgirm and during the Great Crusade they already used Thunderhawk Gunships in all the Legions so they should have them. This way during a campaign I won't have to have two army lists for Iron Warriors when I just invade the planet and need to secure a landing area.
Changing the emplacements is a great idea  .

I would like to finish the project (I have a lot of time this month to playtest and write in the rules), however it is Steve's list so all the changes are up to him.

Overall what is left:
1. Picking an option - Thunderhawks or Emplacements when making an army list. Idea
2. Terminator Weapons
3. SHT names/configurations
4. Emplacement changes
5. Possible titan changes.

Cheers

@Laylo: You should really read Storm of Iron.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

and here is the slightly changed version with the Thunderhawk if sb prefers and it's ok to post.

BlackLegion - I have but only a few fragments for now. I want to read all the Horus Heresy books first. I know that your list suits the book, however I prefer Steve's approach to IW  

I know but it gives good ideas about Iron Warriors warfare.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

The list doesn't have a forlorn hope formation anyway, re the BL the popcorn scout drop isn't an actual problem. After buying pods, spaceship, summoning kit and daemons it just doesn't work with scout formations - added to that is their 1 per retinue rule which largley prevents massive numbers of scouts

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Hi thanks for putting that together Laylo - I haven't had a look yet though as I haven't got the software to open it.

SHTs-
I think keep baneblade lose the shadowsword and replace it with the Stormsword
15cm 4+ 6+ 4+
siege cannon 45cm  BP3  disrupt, ignore cover, fixed forward
heavy bolter 30cm AP5+
2 x twin heavy bolter 30cm AP4+
2 x heavy flamer 15cm AP4+

reinforced armour, DC3, Critical hit - the cannon's magazine detonates, the stormsword is destroyed, units within 5cm take a hit on a 6+

Terminators - how about replacing 1 reaper with 1 heavy flamer?

Basilsks - lets go with TRCs 6+ save

Emplacements/thunderhawks - I'm still against including thawks. I know fluff-wise they are a unit we could include but I think the combination of, even unemplaced, artillery and thunderhawks will make it a very powerful air assault list which is not the intention of the list.
Perhaps, as the desire for thawks seems to be based on scenario play, we could include an appendix/note at the end of the list. Something about how the focus of this list is a siege force but if you want to use a thawk for scenario purposes we suggest not using emplacements etc. and placing artillery formations in the titans/planes allowance.

Fortifications - TRCs suggestion -I like this idea what points would you suggest Chris?

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Hey guys,

Laylo, the IW army you see Onyx painting belongs to me and was inspired by the book Storm Of Iron. I wrote a list many years ago and lost it when my computer crashed. What I use now is the remaining army builder that I created using Excel. Many of my themes are similar to that used by Steve. I have bannished any sort of fast attack from the army and have allowed them to take certain things that are not in other Chaos Lists.

My list was based on BL with ammendments. Changes I have made are describes below.

Added Havoc Retinue to Core formation - Lord + 6, then add ons.
Added Artillery to List 0-8 Basilisks 75points each
Added Assault Artillery 0-6 Vindicators
Added Daemonic Artillery, similar concept to Steves
Added Beserkers lord + 0-8 Stands upgrades based around transport options.

Vindicator as an upgrade 0 - 3 50pointe ea

'The rest I will get to in due course an publish the whole thing for you to look at.

I have to ask, why do they get an Initiative of 1+?

I too use my army to campaign and it is force organised to achieve that based on what I have read. It has two armoued assault battalions, two seige battalions, to specialist that have back up units for the main forces and the unique tools for the breakin on the seige. One drop to take the bridgeheads and a chosen battalion cause I can.

More later
Cheers
Aaron

Yes its, as pointed out above, definitively a downgrade. I'm sick to death of my salamander terminators staring at AV skimmers and cursing the armoury Tis why they were kept at 325 in that list rather than go up.

1 for one is an interesting idea though. They lose out on a bit of AT and some AP range, but get in return IC FF, so its probably a fair swap.

Still I reckon flame weapons make sense so a siege unit, especially as they would I guess in the background be precision inserted to form breach heads. (Salamanders wise one thing they excel at is bunker clearance!)
Basilsks - lets go with TRCs 6+ save

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I'd prefer the Basilisk formations to be more than 3 vehicles. It's so easy to break a formation of 3 and it's really annoying.
I'd prefer 4 or CAL001's flexible formation size would be good to.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

The problem with that though is the artillery table.
If you have a formations of three you have 1 template, AP3+/AT4+. Take one casualty you have 1 template AP5+/AT5+. Firepower assuming 4 targets under template has dropped from 2 2/3AP / 2AT to 1 1/3AP / 1 1/3AT. Roughly halved.
A formation of 4 has double the firepower of a formation of 3, 2 templates AP3+/AT4+. So perhaps twice the cost or certainly 50+ % more. But if it loses a man it drops to 1 template AP4+/AT5+. 5 1/3AP / 4AT to 2AP / 1 1/3AT. A drop of 2/3's. So how to point it? Its why arty normally comes in collections of 3, 6, 9bp's
Its the same problem incidentally that makes the Marauder bomber so unattractive (4 bp to 2).

(Edit is why when you have a flexible formation 4 bp's is always the cheapest option and 8bps not as good - better instead to have 2 4's.)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x