| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Living Metal http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=23695 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | LordotMilk [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Living Metal |
I am starting a necron army and have been comaring lists around. It seems epic -UK feels the Net EA living metal rule makes it very frustrating to fight against and therefore have changed it to a simple 4+ invulnerable Save. However this lacks any flavor really, and is way too similar to TAU deflector shields, except better. If this is a concern, why not give all the current living metal units the reinforced armor ability and make the living metal rule: A unit with the living metal ability can never suffer more than one damage from any hits it takes. This could allow for a cheaper Abattoir/Aeonic Orb option also, which would allow to field one of the two and a SC. Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Removed for being nonsensical |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Afaik epic uk changed it so that macro weapons were better against it than normal AT attacks..... |
|
| Author: | stompzilla [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
kyussinchains wrote: Afaik epic uk changed it so that macro weapons were better against it than normal AT attacks..... That is indeed why it was changed but the effect on Harvesters was a positive side effect too. Dropping their resilience also meant that they were justifiably cheaper and so there was a higher possibility of actually seeing one every now and again. The 4+ Inv save also has some interesting interplay with sniper and lance - making them less/none effective against living metal which fits the fluff background and the 50% chance of a save against expensive TK shots makes living metal better than standard RA but not anywhere near as table-punchingly frustrating to play against as its previous incarnation (Especially if you were a marine player who payed a premium for MWs and have no TK weapons.) |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Quote: not anywhere near as table-punchingly frustrating to play against as its previous incarnation I always found it (Living Metal) fine. Big WE's notably underpowered. *shrug* I'm interested to play against the down powered EUK list at some point and see how it goes - so far I've only seen it being played not played against it. How's the EUK list doing in tournaments? |
|
| Author: | Steve54 [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Britcon is the first tournament its legal for though I'm not sure if anybody is taking them |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
That explains why the stats page was blank, heh. |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Hmm, I see I did manage to miss the main point of the EUK rule. Disregard my post, mostly. |
|
| Author: | hello_dave [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
I've been playing informally using the EUK list, and it's not really proven to be too downgrading in my experience. I have ran a Harvester engine at 4k (not least because the Overlord upgrade takes a fair bit of pressure off the over-subscribed Necron WE allowance as it is) and it's not really ever come close to being destroyed (well apart from that one time I was using the list for the first time, against a Warlock Titan). I think if there is anything wrong with the rule (in either form) it's that it's a flat value for a wide range of units - so nerfing it to make the Harvesters less overpowered might have the effect of making Monoliths sub-par against armies with lots of MW ranged attacks. Would having the EUK solution, but perhaps with a Number in Brackets representing the value of the invulnerable save (so it can be varied) Something like Living Metal (4+) be of interest? I think this makes it easier to balance for the larger WE's and still allow for toughening up Monoliths if it's needed.. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
The epicUK system is a significant downgrade for both AVs and WEs, and one that I don't think is justified. |
|
| Author: | MikeT [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
The only change for AVs (Monoliths) is that they only get one save vs macro hits, rather than 2. Everything else is the same. War engines still get a single 4+ save against TK shots, though they don't get any unsaved hits reduced to 1 DC. A bit of a reduction but then again the 2 big war engines dropped by 100 points each. I wouldn't call it a significant downgrade. |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
MikeT wrote: The only change for AVs (Monoliths) is that they only get one save vs macro hits, rather than 2. Everything else is the same. With how key Monoliths are to a Necron army, that's pretty significant. It also changes what units you'd want for dealing with Necrons. Quote: I wouldn't call it a significant downgrade. I would. And if the Necrons are balanced, why would they be nerfed to this significant degree? Monoliths are everything in the list. I don't mind downgrading Harvester engines. I've got no experience with them, but they look ridiculously tough on paper. If people who have used them extensively feel that they are overpowered (or should be worse so they can get a points drop and actually be used), I won't protest. |
|
| Author: | hello_dave [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
Ulrik wrote: I would. And if the Necrons are balanced, why would they be nerfed to this significant degree? Monoliths are everything in the list. I don't mind downgrading Harvester engines. I've got no experience with them, but they look ridiculously tough on paper. If people who have used them extensively feel that they are overpowered (or should be worse so they can get a points drop and actually be used), I won't protest. I didn't actually try the large harvesters until after the downgrade was introduced in the EUK list, all I can say is that I've found them fine at current points levels with LM as it is there. The fact it causes issues for Monoliths at the same time is something that imho could be tackled with a points drop for them - if you can squeeze more of them in your opponent is unlikely to have enough MW attacks to end them all... |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
hello_dave wrote: The fact it causes issues for Monoliths at the same time is something that imho could be tackled with a points drop for them - if you can squeeze more of them in your opponent is unlikely to have enough MW attacks to end them all... That's not a good idea, and I think EUK agrees? The change to Living Metal was apparently made to nerf Monoliths, not Harvesters (that was a beneficial side effect). They didn't get a price drop either, so the EUK decided they were too good. I'm curious. Was it changed because it was found that the EA Necrons were too good, or was it changed because it was annoying to play against? |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Living Metal |
It was changed because the epicUK developers are conservative and (overly?) cautious when it comes to list power and special rules. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|