7th Ed. Scaly skin and Lore of Metal

[Celticfire]

If you look in the brb, it states that scaly skin counts as an armor save, yet what logic (i did just use that word) allows the rule of burning iron, which states that "Armor plates sear bare flesh" to use a combined scaly skin and armor save to detemine the str of the hit?
the only answers that i can think of are:
you use the full armor save(combined scaly skin and any other armor)- this is illogical. but at what point has GW ever been logical
you count what the armor save would have been if there had been no scaly skin- this is the most logical course of action, but maybe i am just rules lawyering for a better deal for me.

 

[strewart]

Armour is not classified into different types in warhammer, so you aren't even trying to find a loophole you are clutching at straws. I mean, think about the armour save bonus for being mounted and apply that to burning iron. Exactly the same WTF arises. The simple fact is armour is armour, it doesn't have different types, and burning iron effects armour saves so it effects scaly skin. It doesn't make sense from a logical perspective, but from a balance persepective and for the simplicity of the game, just go with it.

 

[Celticfire]

that was what i thought thanks

 

[Scarloc]

But scaley skin is a different armor save. I think in the empire and VC (maybe) books there are magic weapons that ignore scaley skin saves.

 

[Wolf]

True, there are weapons that ignore the scaly skin save. In that case (I believe) you just ignore the 5+ or 4+ scaly skin save and count the rest of the armour. For example: a Cold One Rider would still have a 4+ save. I don't know how you would then calculate the strength modifier, does it go of the armour on top of the removal of the scaly skin or is the strength calculated into the removal of the scaly skin?

 

[strewart]

I know of no weapon that ignores scaly skin, can someone give a specific example? That is intriguing if they exist. I am almost 100% sure VC don't have one since I play them.

Strength modifiers would have to ignore the scaly skin and just remove the other armour.

 

[Foolie]

Caledor's Bane for the dark elves ignores Scaly Skin saves.

(Nonetheless, metal spells affect scaly skin. Man up and take the hits)

 

[salamander]

I think it cant count scaly scin saves or mounted
I mean it says rule of burning iron
and it says it heats there armour and if it heats the scaly scin it also directly heats
[for example] the saurus so it wouldnt sear theyre flesh it would just overheat them

 

[Caneghem]

I think it cant count scaly scin saves or mounted
I mean it says rule of burning iron
and it says it heats there armour and if it heats the scaly scin it also directly heats
[for example] the saurus so it wouldnt sear theyre flesh it would just overheat them

Actual rules always overpower fluff descriptions... so yeah, unless GW releases a FAQ that says scaly skin doesn't count, burning iron uses the full armor save.

 

[strewart]

Yeah I could point out a hundred things that don't make complete sense from a fluff or (especially) logical perspective yet are in the rules, the fact it the rules for it says it is based on the armour save of the model, mounts and scaly skin add to the armour save, so it effects both of them. GW is not going to rule otherwise because it simply adds to the complication and picky amount of little rules to remember with no real benefit to the game.

 

[salamander]

nice! but the problem is if you have lizardmen [except you have a skink army] and you opponent uses the
lore of metal you would be in big trouble!

 

[Caneghem]

nice! but the problem is if you have lizardmen [except you have a skink army] and you opponent uses the
lore of metal you would be in big trouble!

Well, not in much more trouble than most other armies... because while scaly skin is great, usually our troops don't wear much on top of that, so you're looking at about the same damage as against other armies.

 

[salamander]

yeah youre right id better start thinking

 

[strewart]

And I mean you could try dispelling the spells... Really it is no more dangerous than any other lores, you shouldn't be overly worried about it.

 

[Wolf]

Rule of Burning Iron is pretty nasty against Saurus Charaters though, definietly stop that one

 

[Celticfire]

it was just a thought, and yes i know thatvery little makes actual sense with GW. thankfully no one i play has takenlore of metal. one of my friends hates magic so mush that we normally play a game with no magic. for all that continued this thread i would just point out that i conceded the point in the third post. i pretty much thought that that what strewart said would be what he was going to say.(does that make any sense?)

 

[strewart]

Yeah you conceded, but other people kept trying to continue it, so the thread went on.

I'm not a particular fan of magic either, and would certainly play a few games without it. But playing as or against undead almost ensures magic needs to be strong. I enjoy playing Dwarfs with my HE, seeing them proudly bringing out all their dispelling ability then wiping the smile when I pull nothing but a scroll cady in my standard all round list.