Seeing the Indy GT errata, I think there are some really good changes, but I am wondering whether I am reading this right. According the the new Kollossus rules from http://warmongers.ziggyqubert.com/wmbb/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=14931, it says "Always use the best armour and ward saves from the surviving crew or character against all wounds inflicted upon the Kollossus model."
Does this mean if I put a dwarf Lord on a Kollusus and give him Armour of Gazrakh (1+ sv), Dawnstone (re-roll failed saves), and the 4+ Ward item, that a T7 W 10, unit would benefit from all that protection. All I am saying is yes it is an investment, but since the Kollusus is now unbreakable, is this new rule over the top? Do you think it would have been better just to give the thing a 2+ save?
Then it will have an armour save 1+ and a ward save 4+, no re-roll because that is not an armour or ward save
Ok, that makes sense. Do you think that is OTT or justified considering it is the Kollosus plus a Lord? As I see it, that is by far the best combo for it. A Steam tank is hard enough to kill, but it does not have a 4+ Ward, but a lord on top will make the thing around 550pts, so almost double a ST.
on the other hand the Kollosus lacks hitting power in combat. It will sit there and hold 3 or more units hostage in a huge uneventful muti-combat but ‘real’ output is rather low. Basicaly you need to rely on your other units to take on whatever is left over. Having used the Kollosus in a few battles now I’ve dropped it as everyone complains and b**ches, but it is infact rather underwealming for the cost.
Yeah I see what you mean by lack of hitting power. In all seriousness you can’t really take it with as a lord mount in anything less than 2500, by which time most enemy armies are capable of having cannons, bolt throwers or strone thrower that ignore the save, leaving you with only a 4+ ward. Still, if used properly it could be a freakin pain in the ass, or a real good objective holder.