ATST and Airspeeder still extremely overcosted

[Thraug 1,066]

Does anyone else who plays competitively still think the ATST and Airspeeder are still extremely over-costed? I play both casual and competitive and when I play casual I don't mind taking an ATST or Airspeeder (even though I know they are not good), but when playing competitive and wanting to be as competitive as possible, even with the most recent RRG changes, I can't justify ever including an ATST or Airspeeder unit, for these basic reasons, in order of importance:

ATST/Airspeeder, compared to equivalently costed units:

• Have limited objective impact .
  • The goal of the game is to complete objectives. A high-costed single unit is far less useful and impactful in objective claiming than simple trooper units, and for many objectives, vehicles can't contribute at all.
• One activation vs ~3-4
  • Activations are extremely important and I think are not valued as high and as important as they should be. You can get 4 quality trooper activations for one ATST. Not good.
• Do far less damage
  • This is where the ATST/Airspeeder should shine. You are sacrificing all of the other shortcomings listed here for what you would expect out of a vehicle, dishing out damage, and both the ATST/Airspeeder drastically under-perform compared to 3-4 troopers.
• Have far more mobility limitations
• Mainstay units devastate them
  • DLT-`19 troopers can eat through a ATST/Airspeeder without any of the anti-vehicle tech. With anti-vehicle tech (which no one plays), the ATST/Airspeeder would go down with little effort

 

There's a reason why the top lists at LVO, and each of the ~7-8 tourneys I've been in the past few months, do not contain any ATSTs/Airspeeders. They are still VERY over-costed when compared to equivalently costed troopers. The worst part of all of this is that even if the ATST/Airspeeder were played, there are units and upgrades that devastate them. I'm aware of the 2 upcoming pilots, one for Empire ground vehicles the other for Rebel respulsors, but they are still not going to make either of these units desirable. Honestly, even if the current ATST/Airspeeder were made invulnerable I still wouldn't take them.

So, in summary, I feel they either need to radically change their cost or somehow or give them 50%+ more damage output. This would have a cascading effect on the game, giving a LOT more value to the currently unused Ion/Impact cards and units in the game.

 

 

[RaevenKS 111]

I'm not sure what to say, but I'm currently working on a list with AT-ST and 2 Speed bikes (and still 9 activations) and another one perhaps a bit more optimized (with 10 activations). I'm sharing them right now

I share some point with you. Minus the "psychological impact", they are, for now, not really useful. Tho, it is not fair for them to say that "regular trooper" can eat them. That is not true. Think about them as a "rentability". They are not really useful in assault, but can still put shitload of suppressions over the board. Moreover, they will be focus 2-3 turns to be shutdown. If they are not shutted down, they are still a potent threat. The AT-ST can just sit in the middle of the table and deny many path. The Airspeeder can hunt down units.

The fact that the last tourneys does not contain them is not "something to point". I am still thinking that LVO lists are not even worked enough. There is so few Impact units, I don't understand why no one came with a "think long term in the game" list. For me, that "top list" in LVO are not "most advanced meta" and should not be use as referencing point (except : That's a good old meta from last years, nice  ).

But still, I think that AT-ST should come with Pierce as well as Impact on the melee and the stock weapon, and also on the "side blasters", and same for the AirSpeeder. And both unit should not roll "white dices". I mean... AT-ST shots are explosives.

In short : Even if they are "not cool", I still want to find them useful in the current state of the game. Stock troopers with Mech-droides are 53pts -77pts with DLT-. They can hold objective as well as protecting the AT-ST. I am sure we can do something with that.

Edited February 17, 2019 by RaevenKS

[TauntaunScout 4,276]

Competitive play, by definition, will always render a subset of a points-buy list, for any wargme, "unplayable". If it wasn't the AT-ST and T-47 it would be something else. The problem, if any can be said to exist, is with the competitive mindset and not the big vehicles. The single-mindedness with which very large numbers of competitive players intentionally try to eke out every advantage in their favorite games is always going to cull lots of cool toys from any game.

[smickletz 200]

I think the rule changes help the airspeeder far more than the AT-ST. They at least put it into consideration. 

I recently made three lists for an Operation: one that maxed out activations with 3 supports (12!), one that included an airspeeder and no supports (9 activations), and one that seemed a happy median (11 activations). All had identical commander, corps, and special forces with minor tweaks. 

I chose the middle of the road list, but ended up with two corps units (135ish points) doing nothing to help with objectives the entire game and Han not shooting once. If I were to replay the match with the new rules, I think I would have taken the airspeeder since the extra activations ended up wasting time and those units did little in combat. My Fleets and Han literally hid behind buildings the whole game. 

[manoftomorrow010 1,119]

47 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Competitive play, by definition, will always render a subset of a points-buy list, for any wargme, "unplayable". If it wasn't the AT-ST and T-47 it would be something else. The problem, if any can be said to exist, is with the competitive mindset and not the big vehicles. The single-mindedness with which very large numbers of competitive players intentionally try to eke out every advantage in their favorite games is always going to cull lots of cool toys from any game.

Exactly this. We have lots of people playing the AT-ST and T-47 in lists in our local league. It seems most people here are into actually playing with the toys they have and enjoying themselves, regardless of whether the overall "meta" of Legion says one thing is viable or not.

Edited February 17, 2019 by manoftomorrow010

[Katarn 317]

The airspeeder is overcosted;  that said, I'm playing at being a platoon commander, not some sort of rear echelon requisitions type aiming for maximum firepower per credit.   This rules me out of the number crunching level of competitiveness I guess, though I'm still going to do my best to win with what I have in my own way.

I've never played a game without an airspeeder and unless I'm fighting a boarding action or tunnel fighting, I probably never will.  I can't say it's ever let me down, though I've used it badly at times.

[ScummyRebel 5,346]

11 minutes ago, manoftomorrow010 said:

Exactly this. We have lots of people playing the AT-ST and T-47 in lists in our local league. It seems most people here are into actually playing with the toys they have and enjoying themselves, regardless of whether the overall "meta" of Legion says one thing is viable or not.

Yup. Sometimes I don’t play with the AT-ST, but more often than not I do. When I didn’t bring it, it’s because I had other fun stuff I wanted to use and just couldn’t figure out how to fit it all in.

I eagerly await the Tx225 tank as well, because vehicles are fun. 

[Derrault 1,091]

2 hours ago, Thraug said:

Does anyone else who plays competitively still think the ATST and Airspeeder are still extremely over-costed? I play both casual and competitive and when I play casual I don't mind taking an ATST or Airspeeder (even though I know they are not good), but when playing competitive and wanting to be as competitive as possible, even with the most recent RRG changes, I can't justify ever including an ATST or Airspeeder unit, for these basic reasons, in order of importance:

ATST/Airspeeder, compared to equivalently costed units:

• Have limited objective impact .
  • The goal of the game is to complete objectives. A high-costed single unit is far less useful and impactful in objective claiming than simple trooper units, and for many objectives, vehicles can't contribute at all.
• One activation vs ~3-4
  • Activations are extremely important and I think are not valued as high and as important as they should be. You can get 4 quality trooper activations for one ATST. Not good.
• Do far less damage
  • This is where the ATST/Airspeeder should shine. You are sacrificing all of the other shortcomings listed here for what you would expect out of a vehicle, dishing out damage, and both the ATST/Airspeeder drastically under-perform compared to 3-4 troopers.
• Have far more mobility limitations
• Mainstay units devastate them
  • DLT-`19 troopers can eat through a ATST/Airspeeder without any of the anti-vehicle tech. With anti-vehicle tech (which no one plays), the ATST/Airspeeder would go down with little effort

 

There's a reason why the top lists at LVO, and each of the ~7-8 tourneys I've been in the past few months, do not contain any ATSTs/Airspeeders. They are still VERY over-costed when compared to equivalently costed troopers. The worst part of all of this is that even if the ATST/Airspeeder were played, there are units and upgrades that devastate them. I'm aware of the 2 upcoming pilots, one for Empire ground vehicles the other for Rebel respulsors, but they are still not going to make either of these units desirable. Honestly, even if the current ATST/Airspeeder were made invulnerable I still wouldn't take them.

So, in summary, I feel they either need to radically change their cost or somehow or give them 50%+ more damage output. This would have a cascading effect on the game, giving a LOT more value to the currently unused Ion/Impact cards and units in the game.

 

 

If by trooper units you mean corps units, it’s a minimum of 3, max 6; so at most if you skipped full corps, you’d only be forgoing 3, never 4.

It would take at least six attacks by full squads with DLT-19s and the extra trooper to kill a T-47; 13+ to kill an AT-ST. Their firepower isn’t the same as the troopers because they last significantly longer in the face of incoming attacks. The exact same dice would easily decimated far more trooper units simply because they lack armor. You’re not paying for firepower (although the cost per point per die for the extra weapons is actually cheaper on heavies than on corps), you’re paying to durability.

A corps might get deleted in a single attack (and all too frequently will) or decimated to the point that it’s output is basically nothing, at only 1-2 dice. A Heavy has no such worries, easily soaking  even large numbers of dice.

[DarkTrooperZero 304]

You will still get people here living in their own special world where this one time that T47 won the game. But yes they are a combo of overcosted and not impactful enough, the AtSt needs 2R, 4B as the white dice with no surge was a designer/playtester fail  and the T47 needs to drop by 20.

[Tokous 53]

I believe it wasn't used because they personally didn't choose it, not that it isn't good, more that it didn't fit into how they play and the armies overall goal. Sort of like why an imperial player wouldn't use boba fett, not because he is bad just isn't part of their play style or strategy. 

I'm not agreeing with your reasons, yet they are how you see things currently.

When it comes to objective impact, they certainly have major impact. Capturing an objective is only one side of the coin; defeating and preventing units from having the objective is important too.

Wasn't understanding why you are comparing corps units with vehicles. Luke is equal or more than an airspeeder, Emperor Palpatine/Vader is equal or more than an AT-ST... yet both are used and both could be replaced for 4 corps units. Luke is mainly close quarters strong - Airspeeder fast with range strong. Emperor/Vader are powerful close and slow - AT-ST faster with variety of long-short ranges with lots of HP and nearly as powerful close combat.

They tend to do more not less damage.

AT-ST- Range 1-4 (2 red, 2 black, 2 white dice) and with arsenal 2 another of it's weapons being Range 1-3(1 red, 1 black, 1 white dice), Range 4+ (3 white dice), or Range 1-2 (2 black dice) compared with x4 Stormtrooper units of 5 troopers with Range 1-3 (5 white dice) in 4 different activations of a total of 20 white dice!?? I'd pick the AT-ST as way more damage dealing, even more so if they are against the AT-ST vs them.

Airspeeder- Range 1-3 (3 red, 3 black) and with arsenal 2 another of it's weapons being Range 1-2 (4 black) or (1 red) compared with x4 Rebel Trooper units of 5 troopers with Range 1-3 (1 black) in 4 different activations of a total of 20 black dice, may be better off than the stormtroopers but still has to deal with cover 1 and armor not really doing a whole lot. Once again, if vs. each other, I'd choose the Airspeeder.

Mobility prowess is closer to the truth. The AT-ST lacks only because it is a ground vehicle, but fast for one. However the airspeeder on the otherhand has compulsory with speed 3 movement while having speeder 2, unless you have very high terrain the airspeeder is unmatched at mobility.

I additionally disagree with a heavy weapon unit with say DLT-19 is superior to an Airspeeder or AT-ST. I do agree it should do maybe some damage with those 2 red dice and 4 white dice but not to the extent you are speaking of ... the Airspeeder has cover 1 canceling 1 hit in the apply dodge/Cover before Impact in the modify attack dice canceling it's armor in addition. White attack dice stormtroopers aren't reliable to consider even getting a hit. Realistically you might get at least 1-2 damage in if not blocked. It still has 5-6 HP remaining. If it shot at Stormtroopers, I'm sure with 3 red 3 black dice minimum should do more damage to them than them to it even against the red defense dice.

If it isn't for you or don't understand how to use it effectively then simply don't use it. 

When it comes down to it, each and every single unit ever made and ever will be made in star wars legion is valid and useful. Each has it's own unique strengths & weaknesses, play style, usage, effectiveness, fatal flaw if used wrong, etc.  That's the cool part of this game, you have choices what kind of army you want and how that army will play. Even if not in full bloom, its sort of like a rock, paper, scissors game but way more advanced beyond 3 outcomes.. ever growing.

I said something like this in another post... try not to think something is not effective, instead try to think of ways it is effective. Dismissing it is easy.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Tokous

[Darkwinter 4]

You are correct in my opinion. Airspeeder is clearly worse than ATST. They will probably get a boost in Apirl to make them more viable. I’d love to take 2 airspeeders, but they are way too expensive and you just don’t have enough points left to make the rest of the army work. 

[jocke01 920]

I think the at-st is fine with the exception of no offensive surge. It's both durable, area deny and cover negating. It however needs alot of spotter support to help the dice.

The snowspeeder is overcosted. The cover keyword is sadly very innefective vs impact weapons. The lack of surge is hurting offence. The tow cable is jank and the ground busser needs something like blast or supressive to make up for the high cost.

Maybe the at-st isn't the best meta pick, put it at least works. The snowspeeder is a very expensive single activation with no clear battlefield roll that other units can't do better and/or cheaper. I still try to make it work though.

[Thraug 1,066]

When the meta of the biggest recent tourney has shown us these units are not worthy of competitive play then it's obvious these units are over-costed. Yes, the competitive scene will always gravitate towards the most cost effective pieces, but why does that matter for boosting the strength, or lowering the cost (something they probably won't due unless they go to an app similar to X-Wing 2.0), of obviously under-performing units? This hasn't been a knee-jerk change, it has happened over the course of the game since release.

Giving them boosts won't affect non-tourney games already being played, and it's brutually obvious both of these units are poor, so why not give them something to make them better? Maybe there's more in the vehicles packs besides the 2 pilots that will help the ATST/Airspeeder, but from what I've seen, I don't think so. Something more than the recent minor RRG changes should be done.

[UnitOmega 2,818]

So, I think some of this boils down to differences in design philosophy and utility than what people are expecting. Looking at the design, the initial two Heavy units are clearly meant for vehicles to counter vehicles - vehicles mostly have white defense dice and their core weapons (so at their cheapest) involve a lot of Impact. The AT-ST has very clear anti-infantry options, but those both have more specific range requirements, and the T-47's anti-infantry looking weapon doesn't really do anything special. Compound this with their seemingly unique upgrade slot to modify (pilots) is very conservatively placed in terms of abilities. Compare this a lot to Commanders/Operatives, our other big centerpiece slots, who often have a little bit of impact, but prefer Sharpshooter and Pierce which helps them slip in a little bit of damage on any unit type. Vehicles are slightly left holding the bag with all that impact. Ion is the same.

While Support vehicles were very prominent in the early game, I think for their flexibility, they have very rapidly cooled off to be replaced by double commanders, special forces, emplacements and operatives. Since Heavies were never super popular, this means that naturally they feel Overcosted, because what they are designed to do and counter act is not present, so you're paying too much for not the right effect. I do not know if I want to say though they are absolutely overcosted, in part because not everybody seems to agree what they think they're paying too much for. 

So, there's a couple ways this can change, and like FFG I think actually cycling down the points is the last resort. First up, I think the addition of the new Heavies may bring a lot. One, it may encourage people to run more armored units, thus make people willing to bring impact back over more anti-infantry. Those big exposed sides on the TX-225 look like primo targets for an Airspeeder, and Tow Cable can have some interesting results with the elongated base. But also, there are new pilots in these packs, which may for relatively low cost bring some new options to new and old units (for instance, the new unique Imperial pilot appears to grant Tactical 1, giving an Aim token after a standard move, which may help the AT-ST with it's variance). There is also evolving keywords to consider - we now have Armor X, which could possibly even be applied to troopers (such as heavy-duty droids) to give them a slight edge - if these start to pop up a bit more, Impact will lose less value vs infantry. 

Also, honestly, wouldn't be opposed as FFG is evolving their sculpts if they released little "upgrade kits" for the AT-ST and T-47 with some new options (like General Weiss able to actually turn out of the AT-ST like the Occupier guys can) without needing to pay full price to buy a new AT-ST, and maybe some new hardpoints for them to give them more flexibility. Plus unless I'm crazy, doesn't General Weiss' art show some slightly different weapons on his AT-ST?

EDIT: Commanders also hugely change the game on a list building level - we've already had a few Command Cards themed that way, more options like that could certainly push the value of such units - like a commander with an ability similar to Palp's "Pulling the Strings" but for Vehicles. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by UnitOmega

[DarkTrooperZero 304]

1 hour ago, jocke01 said:

I think the at-st is fine with the exception of no offensive surge.

But that's the problem, for the points without surge or better dice stock standard it's very  poor.

[Thraug 1,066]

I have been testing the ATST with the upcoming Tactical 1 upgrade (gain an aim token when you move) and it helps a little, but not enough. Even fully decked out, at 240 points with 3R, 5B, 3W, it just doesn't compare to any equivalent 240 points:

• 3.5 DLT Stormtroopers: 7R, 14W
• 3.8 Rebel z6 Troopers: 15B, 23W

Sure, dice aren't the only consideration. In broad comparisons, multiple troopers are better in most categories, except not having Armor and generally no weapon attenuation.

[Derrault 1,091]

2 hours ago, jocke01 said:

I think the at-st is fine with the exception of no offensive surge. It's both durable, area deny and cover negating. It however needs alot of spotter support to help the dice.

The snowspeeder is overcosted. The cover keyword is sadly very innefective vs impact weapons. The lack of surge is hurting offence. The tow cable is jank and the ground busser needs something like blast or supressive to make up for the high cost.

Maybe the at-st isn't the best meta pick, put it at least works. The snowspeeder is a very expensive single activation with no clear battlefield roll that other units can't do better and/or cheaper. I still try to make it work though.

Cover 1 reduces the impact effectiveness when there are hits less than or equal to the impact rating. This is more pronounced when looking at an attack with high impact, ie Vader’s saber throw; because of the impact and pierce, Vader would normally deal 3 damage to any target with 3 hits; with cover 1 automatically reduces that to only 2 damage (less if there are fewer hits of course).

Because of armor, the Cover 1 is only useful against enemies with Impact. 

[lologrelol 488]

I completely agree with the original poster on this opinion.

Vehicles are fun, but they just aren't worth it on the competitive scene AT ALL!

I think the designers seriously over-estimated the ability of having powerful dice in a single dice pool, as well as over-estimating the tactical strength of no depreciation in power over multiple wounds.

The OP has made clear points on why these units don't work, and this is a clear balancing issue. Rather than just saying "I think vehicles are fun, competitive means nothing", we should try to find constructive ways to make vehicles more appealing. Because if top players aren't choosing it, there are very strong reasons as to why.

Honestly, I think the new vehicles also look over-costed. The AT-RT needs surge to defense. 

I don't think anyone would fault the designers for erratering points costs on just a handful of units. I would even be really happy that they chose to do that, because it shows they are okay with making hard decisions. I'd only errata a 2-3 units at most, because otherwise it will just be too much having to constantly look over lots of errata changes to points. Another option would be to have a vehicle hardpoint add on card for 2 points (this adds one hard point), then you do an 8 point armour hard point add on (that gives you +3 HP, and increases you damage threshold by +3).

I honestly think this is the best major sci fi tapletop battle game out there right now.

[UnitOmega 2,818]

So I think actually adjusting the points should only be done on something if you're 100% certain you'll never again release anything which will alter that unit's value - otherwise it's crappy futureproofing. FFG probably has a rough sketch of like, the next 12 months worth of content or more (I know turnaround time on X-Wing expansions was pegged at around a year), so if they say, drop the points tomorrow then they would have to know that for a long time they're not planning on anything which will make these units more cost effective otherwise when those release(s) hit, they just have to adjust the point cost again. X-Wing 2 works for this because it's deliberately set-up so there is no knowledge of upgrades and points without the secondary infrastructure (app or printable lists) and even then the structure of it is not universally popular. And don't act like there's no way that they could improve the value of these units without scratching the numbers off - people in this very thread say they feel comfortable or close to comfortable using the AT-ST. Points are not an exact science, so "overcosted" isn't either. 

If they are going to "hard eratta" the original Heavies, I'd prefer if they did it more along the lines of some of the errata we do have to like, clarify the cards and keep them up-to-date as the game evolves. Like for instance, the Harpoon could probably really use Pierce 1 to actually guarantee the damage to activate Tow Cable, and the fact that for it's total point cost the T-47 can actually guarantee a single point of damage at R1-2 in it's rear only is not a huge deal compared to say, the effectiveness of certain commanders for less points. 

There is always, by design, some level of niche play to vehicles. The game requires troopers in the form of commanders and corps. This means they can't ever release a "vehicle only" Objective without also coming up with some scenario for if one or both lists has no vehicles - in which case it's moot. So vehicles will always have to share the spotlight with troopers. If this means there are long periods where vehicles are not the "tournament meta" that's probably okay. 

[Alpha17 2,853]

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

The AT-RT needs surge to defense. 

1

I'll agree with most of what you wrote, but not this.  The AT-RT is honestly too good compared to other vehicles as it is.  The driver is exposed, yet somehow doesn't have a weak spot in it's armor like the AT-ST or Occupier, it has surge to crit, and it can climb into positions that are borderline ridiculous.  The lack of a defensive surge is the only thing that keeps it from being OP right now. 

[KommanderKeldoth 3,141]

The AT-ST has a huge impact on objective play. Park that bad boy right in front of the center objective and delete any corps unit foolish enough to make a run at it. Or they waste a bunch of attacks trying to kill it.

Most lists nowadays (sniper and corps spam) don't have enough Impact to even attempt to kill an AT-ST inside of 6 rounds

[lologrelol 488]

3 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I'll agree with most of what you wrote, but not this.  The AT-RT is honestly too good compared to other vehicles as it is.  The driver is exposed, yet somehow doesn't have a weak spot in it's armor like the AT-ST or Occupier, it has surge to crit, and it can climb into positions that are borderline ridiculous.  The lack of a defensive surge is the only thing that keeps it from being OP right now. 

The pilot is a trooper mini, who's armour save on foot is surge.

[lologrelol 488]

3 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

So I think actually adjusting the points should only be done on something if you're 100% certain you'll never again release anything which will alter that unit's value - otherwise it's crappy futureproofing. FFG probably has a rough sketch of like, the next 12 months worth of content or more (I know turnaround time on X-Wing expansions was pegged at around a year), so if they say, drop the points tomorrow then they would have to know that for a long time they're not planning on anything which will make these units more cost effective otherwise when those release(s) hit, they just have to adjust the point cost again. X-Wing 2 works for this because it's deliberately set-up so there is no knowledge of upgrades and points without the secondary infrastructure (app or printable lists) and even then the structure of it is not universally popular. And don't act like there's no way that they could improve the value of these units without scratching the numbers off - people in this very thread say they feel comfortable or close to comfortable using the AT-ST. Points are not an exact science, so "overcosted" isn't either. 

If they are going to "hard eratta" the original Heavies, I'd prefer if they did it more along the lines of some of the errata we do have to like, clarify the cards and keep them up-to-date as the game evolves. Like for instance, the Harpoon could probably really use Pierce 1 to actually guarantee the damage to activate Tow Cable, and the fact that for it's total point cost the T-47 can actually guarantee a single point of damage at R1-2 in it's rear only is not a huge deal compared to say, the effectiveness of certain commanders for less points. 

There is always, by design, some level of niche play to vehicles. The game requires troopers in the form of commanders and corps. This means they can't ever release a "vehicle only" Objective without also coming up with some scenario for if one or both lists has no vehicles - in which case it's moot. So vehicles will always have to share the spotlight with troopers. If this means there are long periods where vehicles are not the "tournament meta" that's probably okay. 

This makes sense to me. But I am not optimistic that the meta will shift proportionately. SWL 1st edition already has some clear winners and losers, that I think will remain throughout the life of the edition.

[RaevenKS 111]

7 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I'll agree with most of what you wrote, but not this.  The AT-RT is honestly too good compared to other vehicles as it is.  The driver is exposed, yet somehow doesn't have a weak spot in it's armor like the AT-ST or Occupier, it has surge to crit, and it can climb into positions that are borderline ridiculous.  The lack of a defensive surge is the only thing that keeps it from being OP right now. 

I personnaly play 3 AT-RT in my list, and even against the "meta supa list", i never lost once. That's why I ever say that Meta is not for not what it is suppose to be

[DarkTrooperZero 304]

1 hour ago, RaevenKS said:

I personnaly play 3 AT-RT in my list, and even against the "meta supa list", i never lost once. That's why I ever say that Meta is not for not what it is suppose to be

 

Vehicle units considered good for legions entire life: AtRt

Vehicle units considered bad for legions entire life: AtSt, T47