My point exactly. Compare Living Metal on Skimmers to RA3+ and tell me again that it is unplayable and not hypocritical

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Personally I've never been that in favour of living metal, I've felt an invulnerable save would suffice. I'm not that anti it though because it's an army special rule shared by multiple units, so at least has a purpose.



Anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm the least power-gamey player out there, if that's what you're implying.

Can't say I disagree with Zombo here.

Given the grief I've gotten within the local for Knights, purely because of the 4+RA/TS, I can't see how 3+RA is a good idea.

It wouldn't be as bad if the Achilles wasn't so blatantly a wank tank. It's obviously the result of a fanboy's masturbatory fantasy (must have bestest tank!). That it's firstly under consideration as an inclusion is one thing. That it's being pushed through as "direct translation from 40K" rather than just being abstracted, is another.

Upscaling because another army is problematic is the problem that causes "codex creep" effects.

Morgan Vening

Well for starters, Obelisks don't have Living Metal, but fine....

Normal hits:
4+ Living metal - 25% chance of failure (4 hits needed to kill)
3+ reinforced - 11% chance of failure (9 hits needed to kill)

MW hits:
4+ Living metal - 25% chance of failure (4 hits needed to kill)
3+ reinforced - 33% chance of failure (3 hits needed to kill)

TK hits
4+ Living metal - 50% chance of failure (2 hits needed to kill)
3+ reinforced - 100% chance of failure (1 hit needed to kill)

For Normal hits, 3+R is 2.25 times better
For MW hits 4+L is 1.33 times better
For TK hits 4+L is 2 times better

Given that the vast majority of hits in the game are Normal, and the only slight difference in MW survivability, 3+ reinforced comes out the clear winner overall. Factor in formation size and ATSKNF, and the monoliths are also much more easily broken.

Also note that the Achilles immunity to melta and lance weaponry is not unique for 40k space marines; thunderhawks also get it, yet don't in epic.

Actually Russ are first defeated by needing a 3+ to activate under fire. But their biggest problem is bm's. They suppress easily and break easily, then die due to bm's. But yes assault is what often breaks them first.

So take the simple option, and make the achilles an upgrade to a core formation or to a 'normal' landraider formation.

Fluff seems to hold it's as rare as hen's teeth, and being an upgrade auto-makes them more of a 'centerpiece' unit.

To suppress/break the formation you shoot it (or CC maybe). the achilles shrugs, but everything around it is lying about looking dazed. Achilles is neutralized.

having it 3+RA as an upgrade might work... or as a 0-1 formation...

but thinking of 7 3+RA 4 tank formations in an army... that's horrendous it doesn't matter than you'll be out activated when it'll take 2 or 3 formations firing to get a single kill!

Froggie: I think you're gonna have to back down and go with 4+RA & Inv Save.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That is fine. We are in discussions rather than discussing an actual change to a set unit. That's why these discussions are good.


That is all I needed to know. Thanks Hena


..and once again you seem to deliberately ignore close combat. Is that because the Necrons with Skimmer would come out on top? I really find it a waste of time discussing these things when people appear to leave the other half of the examples at the door before coming in with their stats.


Seriously, grow up. We play with toy tanks and you play with the "bestest" titan list

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

So back to the above

Personally it is option 2 or 4 for me.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I'd go 4). You get an extra couple percent save boost, and have a chance to save against really nasty weapons, which seems in character for the "masturbatory fantasy" that is Ferromantic Invulnerability.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Well the tank appears to be here to stay so if we are to represent it correctly, I would like to get it right the first time.

In all honesty I should just adopt Living Metal for this tank. (My, what a preposterous idea!).

In doing so I could also campaign to have the Living Metal changed to something other armies could also use.

None of the options (1-4) really represent a tank that survives a run across the table. We have the 'accepted' rules in the game yet they are tied to set armies which they should not be.

Living Metal is the answer, yet somehow lines used with GW hate descriptives somehow wins the day. *shakes head*

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Would/Could people accept this as a proposal for the Achilles to replace Reinforced Armour:


===============================

Ferromantic Armour: The unit is considered to always have a Reinforced Armour save. This cannot be taken away by weapon abilities.

===============================


In effect, this would allow the Achilles to have:

Both 4+ saves vs normal attacks - standard
Both 4+ saves vs Lance attacks - a change representative of the increased toughness
One 4+ save vs Macro Weapons - Standard
One 4+ save vs TK attacks - a change representative of the increased toughness

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats