It's rare you find a unit that is so insanely overcosted as this - I'd venture to say it is the most over costed unit in the game. It is the Centurion devastator and ofc it comes out of the beautiful codex space marines which is full of some real competition for the title. Honestly though - these guys make terminators and dreadnoughts seem like a bargain. That is some serious praise.

Okay lets start with a dreadnought base 70
Lets give the unit -2t -5 wounds -2 movement and -2 attacks -1S - but to compensate lets have them ignore movement penalties and give a 2+ save from a 3+. Less also charge 10 more points cause you know...we don't even have guns yet. Indeed this unit was actually raised 10 (i think it was 10 - coulda been 15) points from the index to the codex. Odd because it was already one of the most obviously over-costed units in the book.

So end result is after you arm the cents with 2x Las and Cent missle launcher you are sitting on a 155 point unit with 3 wounds t5 and a 2+ save. For 10 points less you can get a t7 8W 3+ save dread with basically the exact same load-out (the cent ML is just a ML d3 shots instead of 1 with -12 range and d3 damage instead of d6) realistically these weapons are equivalent just trading some range for target versatility.

Lets make that a little easier to see at a glance
8W T7 3+ save - 2 LC and a ML - 145
3W T5 2+ save - 2 LC and a ML - 155

What the actual F GW? Why does the Centuran cost 100% more than it should base!

I know there is no perfect example for what they should cost. In the range of 40-45 makes the most sense. compared to the field.
Obliterators 3w 2+ 5++save but only T4 (can deep strike). They have a a 30 point weapon (that is my estimate of what it is worth) So that puts oblits at a base 35 points
Crisis suits 3W T5 3+ save (can deep strike) fly key word but only bs 4+ = 42 points base (honestly this is very overcosted probably by 10 points) Ill split the difference though 37 points
Wraith gaurd 3W T6 3+ save (can fall back and shoot) base = 23 points

Off the top of my head these are the most comparable units and their base costs. You'll notice that all these units have some sort of special rule - they all also use assault weapons so they basically have a better version of the centurion move and shoot rule. Centurians also ignore cover - but most of these units can deep strike (actually they all can) The only way cents can deep strike is with a over costed drop pod.

In any case. The base profile for the Cent is probably still the best out of all these 3. T5 and 2+ save is a nice profile. In terms of cost though - this is maybe a 5 point upgrade. Using the Obliterator as a compactor - I'd say this would put Cents at a base of 40 being totally fair. Making Cents 100% overcosted base. Holy crap GW.

This would be 40 points off the price tag of a 2LC ML dev. Bringing it down to 115 points. This still feels a little high.
It would also bring the 2x HB and huriBolter loadout down to 66 points (which I think you would see a lot more off)
The GC ML build would be (93) This seems high too.

I think it's clear some space marine weapons costs to much too. LC shouldn't be 25 when a blaster is 17. ML shouldn't be 25 ether. Both these weapons should probably drop to 20 points across the board. Grav cannons should probably drop to 15 - being the imperial star cannon/dessie cannon equivalent (these also cost 15) I'll be fair and say it should cost 20.

So this would Bring the 2x LC ML down to 100 points
and the GC ML down to 83 points.

These are perfectly fair prices.

Discuss - debate - whatever. This base cost is a travesty. It's actually worthy of a hotfix.

Once again we have a unit paying for its sins because of a previous edition.

It's terrible. I don't think you'll get much argument about this one.

That's bad yes. Imperial titans could give run for money though. They are so bad opponent doesn't even need to waste time shooting at them and still win.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again we have a unit paying for its sins because of a previous edition.

Is it possible this was just a typo from index to codex transition? I can't think of any rational reason why anyone would raise their cost from the index. Do you happen to know their index cost? I don't have my index anymore.

"You bought the new shiny in time for the new edition?"
"Now, in 8th, you can use that same shiny for twice the price."

If Primaris, being the next new thing, get the same price-rise treatment, there'll be all hell to pay.
I got Centurions in 7th, and they went well with my Sternguard.
Both have been shafted this time around.

tneva82 wrote:
That's bad yes. Imperial titans could give run for money though. They are so bad opponent doesn't even need to waste time shooting at them and still win.

Well - FW is another bag of tricks honestly. They doubled the cost of a lot of units just so you couldn't bring them to a standard game. They really shouldn't be discussed when talking about "the game". Point is correct though. A lot of FW titans are probably worse costed than centurions.

I don't know if these models could ever be anything but massively overcosted or undercosted. They are almost all glass cannon punch - meaning that they either deal waay out of their weight class or whiff horribly and drag your game down with their untimely demise.

What they should have done was never release the model in the first place - they were already pushing the mechanics with the various blends of 'special' terminators (looking at you blightlords) and dialing things to 11 again was destined to bring angst no matter the point cost.

 Skinnereal wrote:
"You bought the new shiny in time for the new edition?"
"Now, in 8th, you can use that same shiny for twice the price."

If Primaris, being the next new thing, get the same price-rise treatment, there'll be all hell to pay.
I got Centurions in 7th, and they went well with my Sternguard.
Both have been shafted this time around.

Haha - I actually did this. It was my first purchase after not playing from 7th to 8th - a box of cents. I always wanted to put 6LC cents in a godhammer landraider and pump out death lasers that actaully killed things (always loved las cannons but they were junk in 7th) In 8th when I saw the profile for the las cannon I was like. OH man! Time for LC party...then I saw the index...then I saw the codex..I nearly cried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I don't know if these models could ever be anything but massively overcosted or undercosted. They are almost all glass cannon punch - meaning that they either deal waay out of their weight class or whiff horribly and drag your game down with their untimely demise.

What they should have done was never release the model in the first place - they were already pushing the mechanics with the various blends of 'special' terminators (looking at you blightlords) and dialing things to 11 again was destined to bring angst no matter the point cost.

They could have been more like killa cans or broadsides. I see what you are saying because terms basically got shafted by cents in 7th. They could have resigned them to something more like a mini dread (which is still glass cannon like - but thats fine - this is a space marine army) More glass cannons for the glass cannons!

I disagree though - there is a price point/ stat adjustment that can make any unit work. I agree that the cent is currently too far on the glass side though. It should have more wounds to balance out the 3 heavies.

The Monolith is pretty poorly priced, considering how iconic it is.

For the price they're at, Centurion variants really should have 4 wounds. Would help make them the supposed wall they should be.

Even then, the Devastators are absurdly costed. At MOST they should've only been 10 points more expensive base than the Assault ones, who aren't exactly good but are sorta useable. Once again it's only because of the Raven Guard stratetem but still.

"Let's talk about the most over costed unit in the game"
Ok.

" - Centurion devs!"
Up there, but no.

They are super overcosted. However, before we go crazy, lets look at what they are:
80ppm platforms that take 3 Heavy weapons.
S/T5 W3 2+
Ignores Cover (but not LOS)
No movement penalty.

Lets compare then to Devs:
Devs: 65 pt base for 5 S/T4 3+ saves, 5 independant W, 4 Heavy choices, and a Sarge.
-Dev Cent is a bit less durable - 3W but a 2+, and T5.
-Dev Cent has 75% the Heavy weapons and less small arms, but Ignores Cover/no movement penalty help it. So it's worse, but only by 15-20% once you factor those in.

Yes, overcosted. But not double. The chasis does several nice things. Not worth 70, but is worth something.

Other units to compare them to?
Crisis?
Remember that they're WS/BS4+, and a 3+ SV. WS/BS 3+ and a 2+ SV definitely puts them well above Crisis. Then Crisis have Fly, but also almost all their weapons are super short range. Devs have much longer range, and can move + shoot Heavies with no penalty. So, compared to Crisis, we're looking at the 45-65 range.
Wraithguard? They share an approximate baseline stat range (+1T but -1Sv). But Wraithguard have 8", 12", or melee as their range options. That's it. That makes them more akin to Assault Cents than Dev Cents.

I really don't get how you think T5 2+ is really only worth 5 points on a 3W heavy dakka weapon. Consider this - are 3 Missile Launcher Deathguard really only worth less than 2ppm more than 3 Missile Launcher Marines?

" but most of these units can deep strike (actually they all can)"
Wraithguard can deepstrike the same way Cents can - if you buy something for them. Cents pay tons of points for it where WG pay little (CP and opportunity), but they both have that option.

Cents, stock, at 40ppm? So a hurricane bolter and two HB on an ignores-cover ignores-movement-penalties T5 3W 2+ platform for 70 points? That sounds waaay too cheap.

As for weapons - one problem is what you're balancing against. a 20pt LC might seem fair, but remember there are inferior weapons that cost 20pt. How can the LC cost no more than a Brightlance?

GravCannon at 15? Because we want Dissies +2 everywhere, right?
GC compared to the StarCannon:
Heavy 4 vs Heavy 2, S5 vs S6, D:d3 vs 3+ models vs D:d3
Twice the shots with one less S and half the D vs 4+ or worse models (mostly 1-W models).
How the feth is that fair? I want to see the GC come down, but not to 15 points. It's almost like you want Marines to get mowed down by Dissies and equivelants.

The imperial Plas is the Plasma Cannon. D3 shots, but S8 D:2 vs S6 D:d3 with gets hot. Or S7 D1 without gets hot.

I'd agree on the IoM ML going down.

"LC shouldn't be 25 when a blaster is 17"
"Brightlance shouldn't be 20 when a Melta Gun is 17" Isn't that equally rediculous? LC is a Bright/Darklance, not a Blaster. Blaster is more in line with MeltaGun or PlasmaGun.

I don't think Devs should be over 70ppm base or under 50ppm from the analysis so far. Some weapons points changes could be done, but not as much as was suggested.

Actually they're not 70 points they're 85 I think.

80, I thought. It was a typo. 110 with 30pts worth of weapons.

Bharring wrote:
80, I thought. It was a typo. 110 with 30pts worth of weapons.

Which comes in a minimum of 3 man squads.

So are Crisis Suits actually more overcosted than Centurion Devastators? No.

Are Crisis Suits overcosted? Absolutely.

I'd love for them to get a price adjustment in the CA for the end of the year.

Something small to just move them a little and see what people think. Like 10 points a model, and then consider another 10 points a model if they still sit the shelves.

Not sure where I said Crisis Suits are more overcosted than Dev Cents. I certainly don't believe that.

Yeah they are 80 points.

Bharring - Str 9 ap-3 vs str 8 ap-4 is equal in just about every situation mathmatically except in sitatuions where there is and invo save or t8 or 9.

Dark lances are better against Rhinos
Lascannons are better against lemon russ.

The weapons should have an equal cost IMO.

Also - why would 70 points for 2 HB and a huri bolter be too much? They move 4" the huri bolters are never getting rapid fire with that kind of movement.

2 Agressors is about the same cost and they have basically the same defensive profile with a 3+ save but get an additional wound. They also get 4 power fist attacks.

19 shots compared to 18 shots if the cents have rapid fire (which they probably wont)

Except the agressors are shooting twice if they didn't move so 38 shots compared to 18.

These are perfectly reasonable costs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Not sure where I said Crisis Suits are more overcosted than Dev Cents. I certainly don't believe that.

Well I am glad I didn't slam you for it - because I was about to. Yeah they are overcosted but more like 50% base overcosted - not 100% like the cents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love for them to get a price adjustment in the CA for the end of the year.

Something small to just move them a little and see what people think. Like 10 points a model, and then consider another 10 points a model if they still sit the shelves.

It's not enough - They were like that in the index - in fact I think they were 65 in the index - laughably overcosted at that price. They need to drop 30-40 points.

GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

S9 AP-3 R:48" vs S8 AP-4 R:36" is not very equal at all. Especially when they're both Heavy, the LC is predominantly on stationary models, and the Brightlance is predominantly on mobile models.

Brightlance is worse vs Rhinos due to range.
LC is better vs Lemon Russes due to S9 *and* range.

The weapons should not cost the same. 36" vs 48" is a big deal.

"Also - why would 70 points for 2 HB and a huri bolter be too much?"
That's the firepower of an 8man Dev squad with 2 HB. Sure, they're overcosted, but that 8man squad is 124 points. 70 points is way too low.

"They move 4" the huri bolters are never getting rapid fire with that kind of movement."
Assuming you're hoofing it towards the opponent, sure. But that's a terrible assumption. Is there never a reason a GEQ or MEQ might possibly need to come within 28" of your deployment zone? The HB isn't going to reach deep into the opponent's backfield (unless you pod or something), sure. But it's got good coverage within your deployment zone. And most of it's favorite targets need to get within 28" of your stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xeno,
Why were you "about to slam" me about something I never said? A position I've never supported? Are you really so ready to throw around strawmen?

Banville wrote:
GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

I've never understood the hatred of their look. It's like 40k meets exo-squad. Giant suits with lots of guns...This is not something I would expect complaints from. Really I think it's butt hurtness mostly. Ether from space marine players that are sad terminators suck - or people who got ruined by cent stars in 7th.

Fun fact:
War Walker: 50ppm base
Twice the W, +1 T, 4+/5++ instead of a 2+
Two Heavies, instead of Cents' 3 Heavies

So we've got something a bit more durable, more manueverable, but with 2/3 of the firepower options, at 50ppm. That shows an 80ppm base is way too high.

However, compare that model with 2x SC vs the 70ppm Hurricane/2HB model: same points, more durable and maneuverable, but substantially less firepower. So 70ppm kitted seems too low.

Centurion Devastators are absolutely overcosted, because even if you ignore the cost of their stats and wargear - assuming that is justified - they can't ride in anything except a land raider. They move 4" a turn.

So, if you bring centurion devastators and their transport, you're looking at an investment of like 700 points for 4 models with no invulnerable saves.

I proposed in another thread - a long time ago - that the units able to ride in a drop pod should increase, and these should be one of those units. Also, with a decrease in price of a drop pod, these guys aren't flat terrible.

For instance, 3 Centurion Devastators in a drop pod counter dark reapers hard. I would also give these guys the ability to ignore negative to-hit modifiers. That further expands their use case. They could shoot down fliers like a boss.

So many people complained about Drop Pods last edition (lol noobs) that not only did we get a ridiculous price increase on them, BUT we can't throw anything in them BUT Power Armor infantry!

I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Because boltguns are so good vs 2+ saves.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

The game needs less invulnerable saves, and less units like hemlocks which have AP-4 guns.

I could see Dev Cents having the same rule as Reapers with regards to to-hit penalties: either Dev Cents always hit on 3s or Reapers only ignore the to-move penalty. I like the second one more, but either would be a good thing.

They're a heavy platform for the weapons. Them not suffering a movement penalty is fine enough for a bonus.

Bharring wrote:
S9 AP-3 R:48" vs S8 AP-4 R:36" is not very equal at all. Especially when they're both Heavy, the LC is predominantly on stationary models, and the Brightlance is predominantly on mobile models.

Brightlance is worse vs Rhinos due to range.
LC is better vs Lemon Russes due to S9 *and* range.

The weapons should not cost the same. 36" vs 48" is a big deal.

"Also - why would 70 points for 2 HB and a huri bolter be too much?"
That's the firepower of an 8man Dev squad with 2 HB. Sure, they're overcosted, but that 8man squad is 124 points. 70 points is way too low.

"They move 4" the huri bolters are never getting rapid fire with that kind of movement."
Assuming you're hoofing it towards the opponent, sure. But that's a terrible assumption. Is there never a reason a GEQ or MEQ might possibly need to come within 28" of your deployment zone? The HB isn't going to reach deep into the opponent's backfield (unless you pod or something), sure. But it's got good coverage within your deployment zone. And most of it's favorite targets need to get within 28" of your stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xeno,
Why were you "about to slam" me about something I never said? A position I've never supported? Are you really so ready to throw around strawmen?

36" range is more than enough to be in range turn 1 of your desired target and not move to shoot it. You can take them on crimson hunters with bs2+ so they hit on 3's and they still cost 20 points. Like I said there are some situations were ether weapon is the better choice - those situations being roughly equal. The cost should be equivalent.

In your dev to cents comparison - it's like you are ignoring the 8 single wounds compared to 3 like they don't matter at all. Also ignoring the fact you could just take a 5 man dev with 4 HB and a cherub for less points than the trash 8 man dev and have more firepower than the cent dev. 5 HB compared to 2 and 6 bolters. Devs areb't great ether. Every unit in power armor is overcosted by 3 points or so in the marine codex.

So in a perfect world the 4 HB dev unit would cost 87 with a cherub compared to the cent dev at 68 points. Seems reasonable to me.

Martel,
Why is a 3+ paper armor on Marines, but godly armor on non-Marines?

And when I say Tac Marines, why do you assume just boltguns?

Even if you could put a 3-man Dev Cent squad into a pod, you're just looking at moar boltguns plus some AP-1 HB, unless you went Grav - and then why not go Grav Devs?

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Martel,
Why is a 3+ paper armor on Marines, but godly armor on non-Marines?

And when I say Tac Marines, why do you assume just boltguns?

Even if you could put a 3-man Dev Cent squad into a pod, you're just looking at moar boltguns plus some AP-1 HB, unless you went Grav - and then why not go Grav Devs?

It's not as much about the armor as how gakky marine firepower is. Marines have problems getting other marines out of cover for sure. We don't have the magical reapers or dissy cannons on the cheap.

Grav is so expensive it might as well not exist anymore. I suppose for some, that's a good thing.

Tac marines can't pack in enough weapons to put a dent in dark reapers, so I'm not sure what tac squads you are referring to.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.

I would prefer Land Raiders and the such got to re-roll failed saves instead of an invuln. Better versus light weapons, and makes weapons like meltaguns useful against heavy vehicles.

Darsath wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.

I would prefer Land Raiders and the such got to re-roll failed saves instead of an invuln. Better versus light weapons, and makes weapons like meltaguns useful against heavy vehicles.

Meltaguns already suck vs landraider because point blank shots wounding on a 4+ is a disaster. Meltaguns just suck period.

"36" range is more than enough to be in range turn 1 of your desired target and not move to shoot it."
Provided the target is dropped before you've dropped. And can't reposition. 36" is great. But hitting backfielders with it requires you be mid-field. The extra 12" range gives you a lot more safety.

"You can take them on crimson hunters with bs2+ so they hit on 3's and they still cost 20 points."
You can take LCs on Land Raiders and Dev Cents and still hit on 3s after moving. The CH is good, those platforms are bad. But from a "Unit can still hit on 3+ after moving" perspective, IoM does better than CWE here.

"Like I said there are some situations were ether weapon is the better choice"
Situations where Brightlance is better than LasCannon at the same points? Heavily contrived. Far more, the LC is better. They should not cost the same.

For the dev comparision, yes, there are some weaknesses of the argument. But it cuts both ways. Cents are moving + firing without penalty. Cents are ignoring cover. So perhaps we should look at the WW comparision instead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created. "
AP-4 still gives you a save. It's just when the 5++ starts mattering. It needs AP-5 to remove saves in the open, AP-6 if you have cover. Those are *very* rare.

You do know how expensive Land Raiders and Centurions are in relation to Crimson Hunters, yes?

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact:
War Walker: 50ppm base
Twice the W, +1 T, 4+/5++ instead of a 2+
Two Heavies, instead of Cents' 3 Heavies

So we've got something a bit more durable, more manueverable, but with 2/3 of the firepower options, at 50ppm. That shows an 80ppm base is way too high.

However, compare that model with 2x SC vs the 70ppm Hurricane/2HB model: same points, more durable and maneuverable, but substantially less firepower. So 70ppm kitted seems too low.

I almost mentioned warwalkers in the comparison. However - they have a much different statline. They are more comparable to a GC ML Dev under my point suggestions. A starcannon and a BL is a comparable loadout. 85 points compared to 80 for the cent.

The warwalker gets bonus survivability - outflank ability - greater mobility but worse accuracy on the move. (These units are typically not moving I play with WW all the time) The cent gets ignore cover and better survivability vs small arms.

This all seems reasonable to me.

Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

Bharring wrote:
"36" range is more than enough to be in range turn 1 of your desired target and not move to shoot it."
Provided the target is dropped before you've dropped. And can't reposition. 36" is great. But hitting backfielders with it requires you be mid-field. The extra 12" range gives you a lot more safety.

"You can take them on crimson hunters with bs2+ so they hit on 3's and they still cost 20 points."
You can take LCs on Land Raiders and Dev Cents and still hit on 3s after moving. The CH is good, those platforms are bad. But from a "Unit can still hit on 3+ after moving" perspective, IoM does better than CWE here.

"Like I said there are some situations were ether weapon is the better choice"
Situations where Brightlance is better than LasCannon at the same points? Heavily contrived. Far more, the LC is better. They should not cost the same.

For the dev comparision, yes, there are some weaknesses of the argument. But it cuts both ways. Cents are moving + firing without penalty. Cents are ignoring cover. So perhaps we should look at the WW comparision instead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created. "
AP-4 still gives you a save. It's just when the 5++ starts mattering. It needs AP-5 to remove saves in the open, AP-6 if you have cover. Those are *very* rare.

To justify its current cost, a land raider would need a 3++, though. A 6+ vs a lance is not getting it done for its crazy high cost.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Banville wrote:
GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

I've never understood the hatred of their look. It's like 40k meets exo-squad. Giant suits with lots of guns...This is not something I would expect complaints from. Really I think it's butt hurtness mostly. Ether from space marine players that are sad terminators suck - or people who got ruined by cent stars in 7th.

Nope. Never faced them. Used to own a squad but got rid of them. They just look like teletubbies. In my opinion. Your mileage may vary. I love exo-armour. I love the whole idea of a chassis with weapons bolted on. Cents were just badly realised. Again, in my opinion.

But I was only being facetious. I'm sure they are overcosted/underperforming. Par for the course with Marines.

They are hideous models for sure, imo. Glad BA don't get them.

Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

I'd much prefer them to address any fix by points change over doing anything with stats/rules.abilities.

And I don't care if that puts them in an apparent cost juxtaposition if your comparing them to a a war walker. Those can be addressed some other time, perhaps in their own thread.

Oh, look - a hyberbolic thread by Xenos complaining about Space Marines. It must be Monday again.

But really, if we want to look at actual unit crimes that are overcosted, I think wraithknights are far worse of an offense than centurions.

I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

Nah - It would be reasonable to consider LC and BL equivalent weapons though. I don't think the 12" bonus range on a las cannon really comes into play that often. The only place I take BL is on crimson hunters or war walkers. WW will ether start on the table in range to shoot or outflank in range to shoot - crimson hunter has unlimited range. For target eligibility LOS is more often an issue than range. So the mobility of eldar units is't wasted ether.

I just don't see any real reason why the LC should cost more than the BL. AP-4 is really nice. ESP against 2+ saves in cover. Think...broadsides, riptides, obliterators.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Oh, look - a hyberbolic thread by Xenos complaining about Space Marines. It must be Monday again.

But really, if we want to look at actual unit crimes that are overcosted, I think wraithknights are far worse of an offense than centurions.

A WK is at most 100 points overcosted representing 15%-20% overcosted. Cent are about 33% -50% overcosted.

Also - you keep using that word - I don't think you know what it means. Everything in this post is ment to be taken seriously. It's supported by empirical data for logical deduction. You can't even admit shinning spears are undercosted. You have 0 credibility in regards to balance. I bet I could look back in your post history and find you defending 7th ed scat packs. lol

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

check out the price on warp flamers. Im sure they give your examples a run for its money.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

Centurioun devs? That's a funny way to say drop pod

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

+1 Wound? That's worth what? 5ish points? You want to knock of 10 when I have demonstrated they are 40 points over?

They're not 40 points overcosted. They're pretty damn overcosted though sure, probably the most overcosted unit in the game. Why is that?
1. Each single 2+ T5 wound is nearly 40 points.
2. Weapon costs are bizarre at times, like with the Grav Cannon.
3. They're slow.

Some of those issues aren't even directly related to them though. Making them FIFTY points cheaper wouldn't fix issues with the Grav Cannon though. So the making of them viable is to make sure they're not doing their role (they're basically supposed to be a wall with a lot of weapons) for too much.
1. Giving an extra wound with a slight point decrease (5 or 10) makes them only around 25-30 points per T5 2+ wound once outfitted. This isn't a bad deal. While it doesn't help against D2 weapons, it helps against literally everything else. Any whining about D2 weapons can be taken to a different thread as I don't care if you bring up Plasma and Autocannons.
2. Hurricane Bolters need to go back to their original price. Was it 5 points? Can't remember. They need to be cheaper again though.
3. The ML, Lascannon, and Grav Cannon clearly need to be cheaper. Probably 5 points off? Same goes for the Melta Gun and Flamer for the Assault variant.
4. Drop Pods need to go back to being able to transport stuff outside PA, and I already discussed how I feel to tackle Land Raiders in a separate thread here.

You aren't looking at big picture stuff sometimes.

Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

Counting index stuff doesn't work when they're gonna get their codex pretty soon. It'll either be directly after Space Wolves or Genestealer Cults (I didn't see the latter one getting love in a box set so...)

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

That thing is so laughably bad I can't believe it made it to the printers. As for centurions yeah they are absolutely awful units that every time I see them on the table or a battle report I immediately lose interest in the game because chances are the marines already lost. The drop pod is another horrible unit that has the same effect for me. I would be extremely interested in seeing the sale numbers for these models from 7th to 8th. Someone in GW has to realize crap rules are bad for sales.

I don't know how anyone can defend Dev cent points costs when a Custode trooper is 40ppm with +1WS effectively same BS, S, T, W, +1A and a 4++.
They highlight how rediculous Dev cents and Crisis suit points costs are.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

+1 Wound? That's worth what? 5ish points? You want to knock of 10 when I have demonstrated they are 40 points over?

They're not 40 points overcosted. They're pretty damn overcosted though sure, probably the most overcosted unit in the game. Why is that?
1. Each single 2+ T5 wound is nearly 40 points.
2. Weapon costs are bizarre at times, like with the Grav Cannon.
3. They're slow.

Some of those issues aren't even directly related to them though. Making them FIFTY points cheaper wouldn't fix issues with the Grav Cannon though. So the making of them viable is to make sure they're not doing their role (they're basically supposed to be a wall with a lot of weapons) for too much.
1. Giving an extra wound with a slight point decrease (5 or 10) makes them only around 25-30 points per T5 2+ wound once outfitted. This isn't a bad deal. While it doesn't help against D2 weapons, it helps against literally everything else. Any whining about D2 weapons can be taken to a different thread as I don't care if you bring up Plasma and Autocannons.
2. Hurricane Bolters need to go back to their original price. Was it 5 points? Can't remember. They need to be cheaper again though.
3. The ML, Lascannon, and Grav Cannon clearly need to be cheaper. Probably 5 points off? Same goes for the Melta Gun and Flamer for the Assault variant.
4. Drop Pods need to go back to being able to transport stuff outside PA, and I already discussed how I feel to tackle Land Raiders in a separate thread here.

You aren't looking at big picture stuff sometimes.

They are absolutely 40 points over costed base. I have demonstrated it. You could maybe argue 35 - but anything less is just purely idiotic. I'm talking about units that have almost the exact same base stats costing 45-40 points less than them. It really isn't rocket science man.

The weapons are also over costed. LC should be the same cost as a BL - it's been demonstrated. ML is clearly not worth more than a LC - so equal cost seems like a good place to start - honestly 15-18 seems more right for a ML.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

Index units have not been adjusted yet. It's probably a good thing too - IK give them a good base fix the stompa. Don't count on it though. GW sucks at things.

I think Centurions are absolutely overcosted. I actually like the idea of an SM army built around that piece of fluff where Iron Hands Assault Centurions drill through the side of an "impenetrable" fortress and crack it wide open. Say, two or three squads of them, possibly in LRs.

Sadly that's not to be. This is one of the few units where I think the rules are just fine, and the points cost is the real problem.

Xeno,
Fine, lets do it your way. Dev Cents vs BL/BL WW
GC/ML:
H:4 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 Dd6 + ... nothing

Or, more closely related:
LC/ML:
H:2 S9 AP-3 Dd6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 AP-4 Dd6

Either way, you're looking at *dramatically* more firepower on the DevCents than the WW. Certainly not worth the premium they pay today, but definitely too much to consider a price point below the WW.

As for 36" vs 48", try 36" on the QuadLas Pred sometime, to see the difference. Even LC-hugging Tacs will notice the difference in many games. CH and WW are not the only platforms that take Brightlances.

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
Fine, lets do it your way. Dev Cents vs BL/BL WW
GC/ML:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 Dd6 + ... nothing

Or, more closely related:
GC/ML:
H:2 S9 AP-3 Dd6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 AP-4 Dd6

Either way, you're looking at *dramatically* more firepower on the DevCents than the WW. Certainly not worth the premium they pay today, but definitely too much to consider a price point below the WW.

As for 36" vs 48", try 36" on the QuadLas Pred sometime, to see the difference. Even LC-hugging Tacs will notice the difference in many games. CH and WW are not the only platforms that take Brightlances.

Where are you getting H8 from a GC is Heavy 4?

Oh, wow, my bad. I was thinking it was a pair, like the other weapons.

That does bring it back into line a bit more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That firepower is still a ton better on the DevCent, even with the GC corrected.

Sorry for my mistake.

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
Fine, lets do it your way. Dev Cents vs BL/BL WW
GC/ML:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 Dd6 + ... nothing

Or, more closely related:
GC/ML:
H:2 S9 AP-3 Dd6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S8 AP-4 Dd6

Either way, you're looking at *dramatically* more firepower on the DevCents than the WW. Certainly not worth the premium they pay today, but definitely too much to consider a price point below the WW.

As for 36" vs 48", try 36" on the QuadLas Pred sometime, to see the difference. Even LC-hugging Tacs will notice the difference in many games. CH and WW are not the only platforms that take Brightlances.

The dev cent should have more firepower - he costs more. Plus he has half the wounds - no invo 1/3 the mobility.

Something you guys need to understand is. Space marines does not mean it needs to be worse at everything compared to xenos races.

Where do you take bright lances? The only other place you should take it is a siamhan vyper. No where else does it make sense.

Bharring wrote:
Oh, wow, my bad. I was thinking it was a pair, like the other weapons.

That does bring it back into line a bit more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That firepower is still a ton better on the DevCent, even with the GC corrected.

Sorry for my mistake.

Also why are we compairing to war walkers?
They have 2.5 times the movement and double the wounds of a single dev cent?

What else should I put on my Falcon? Oh, wait, I shouldn't take Falcons? Thanks for the tip!

What Heavy do you put on your Guardians when you use them for backfield camping?

Ever needed more AT and had a couple Wraithlord hardpoints open?

Ever been Uthwe with enough points left over for a Vyper?

Sometimes, I want two Serpents. But don't want to run them both Shuriken Cannon Spam.

You do realize Dev Cents aren't the only unit that can take Lascannons, right (that was sarcastic)?

Back to the topic at hand - yes, the Dev Cent does cost more. You're arguing that it should cost *less* than a WW. That is what I'm disagreeing with.

He does have half the wounds, but he's got half again the firepower. Remember all those times you would yell and shout that Reapers were better than Marines with ablaitive wounds because you get half again the firepower instead of *twice* the wounds? Well it's the same thing. Except, in this case, it's a 2+ vs a 4+/5++. So even with half the wounds, more survivable vs small arms. A 5++ woudn't even take effect on a Cent until AP-4 or better were in use - and that's *out* of cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WW do have double the movement. Although anything but Shuriken then fires at -1 to hit. Dev Cents don't suffer that penalty.

They have double the wounds, but a 4+/5++. So less survivable to small arms, moderately more survivable to the big stuff. A *ton* less dakka, typically.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Something you guys need to understand is. Space marines does not mean it needs to be worse at everything compared to xenos races.

I think you just meant to type Eldar/DE, not Xenos as a whole.

Bharring wrote:
What else should I put on my Falcon? Oh, wait, I shouldn't take Falcons? Thanks for the tip!

What Heavy do you put on your Guardians when you use them for backfield camping?

Ever needed more AT and had a couple Wraithlord hardpoints open?

Ever been Uthwe with enough points left over for a Vyper?

Sometimes, I want two Serpents. But don't want to run them both Shuriken Cannon Spam.

You do realize Dev Cents aren't the only unit that can take Lascannons, right (that was sarcastic)?

Back to the topic at hand - yes, the Dev Cent does cost more. You're arguing that it should cost *less* than a WW. That is what I'm disagreeing with.

He does have half the wounds, but he's got half again the firepower. Remember all those times you would yell and shout that Reapers were better than Marines with ablaitive wounds because you get half again the firepower instead of *twice* the wounds? Well it's the same thing. Except, in this case, it's a 2+ vs a 4+/5++. So even with half the wounds, more survivable vs small arms. A 5++ woudn't even take effect on a Cent until AP-4 or better were in use - and that's *out* of cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WW do have double the movement. Although anything but Shuriken then fires at -1 to hit. Dev Cents don't suffer that penalty.

They have double the wounds, but a 4+/5++. So less survivable to small arms, moderately more survivable to the big stuff. A *ton* less dakka, typically.

Also are warwalkers considered competitive or even comp casual viable?

I haven't really heard an counter to my custodes comparison yet?

On the other hand, Space Marines does not need to be stronger, either. So perhaps we should aim to be "as strong as"?

Bharring wrote:
On the other hand, Space Marines does not need to be stronger, either. So perhaps we should aim to be "as strong as"?

That is my aim.

I started by trying to give the cent a fair base cost. Do you have an issue with my base cost? If so - what is it?

You seem to take issue with my idea that LC should also be 5 points off. LC and BL are equivalent imo - we can agree to disagree on that. Do you have issue with the base price?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
What else should I put on my Falcon? Oh, wait, I shouldn't take Falcons? Thanks for the tip!

What Heavy do you put on your Guardians when you use them for backfield camping?

Ever needed more AT and had a couple Wraithlord hardpoints open?

Ever been Uthwe with enough points left over for a Vyper?

Sometimes, I want two Serpents. But don't want to run them both Shuriken Cannon Spam.

You do realize Dev Cents aren't the only unit that can take Lascannons, right (that was sarcastic)?

Back to the topic at hand - yes, the Dev Cent does cost more. You're arguing that it should cost *less* than a WW. That is what I'm disagreeing with.

He does have half the wounds, but he's got half again the firepower. Remember all those times you would yell and shout that Reapers were better than Marines with ablaitive wounds because you get half again the firepower instead of *twice* the wounds? Well it's the same thing. Except, in this case, it's a 2+ vs a 4+/5++. So even with half the wounds, more survivable vs small arms. A 5++ woudn't even take effect on a Cent until AP-4 or better were in use - and that's *out* of cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WW do have double the movement. Although anything but Shuriken then fires at -1 to hit. Dev Cents don't suffer that penalty.

They have double the wounds, but a 4+/5++. So less survivable to small arms, moderately more survivable to the big stuff. A *ton* less dakka, typically.

Also are warwalkers considered competitive or even comp casual viable?

I haven't really heard an counter to my custodes comparison yet?

They are casual but playable - Cimson hunters are better platforms for everything WW do well. Same as Falcons. A falcon with a bright lance is almost the same cost as a crimson hunter with 2 bright lances. Crimson with 2x BL is 5 more points than a flacon with 1 BL and a SC and add crystal targeting matrix is the exact same cost (CTM alows you to move and shoot the closest target with no penalty IMO it's mandatory on a falcon and is it's best build) Now the only difference is t7 vs t6-1 to hit and 1 is trading a BL for a SC. I think we know which one is better.

Crimson hunters hit on 2's naturally so they are 3+ to hit with heavy weapons.

The one thing WW do well is they are a unit so - they take advantage of guide really well. This makes them a good comparison for Cents. If i can give you an idea...If you take 6 WW with star cannons vs a space marine player - you with obliterate them.

Yes, I think the base cost should probably be about 50ppm, or somewhere around there. Even without discounted weapons. That's still 30ppm cheaper than it is today.

No argument that CH are amazing. But does one unit in another codex really decide the price of Lascannons across the entire Marine dex? Most of your arguments are rules specific to the CH, not the Brightlance itself.

Bharring wrote:
Yes, I think the base cost should probably be about 50ppm, or somewhere around there. Even without discounted weapons. That's still 30ppm cheaper than it is today.

No argument that CH are amazing. But does one unit in another codex really decide the price of Lascannons across the entire Marine dex? Most of your arguments are rules specific to the CH, not the Brightlance itself.

Yeah and if GW made a fix like that in CA I think people could start playing them casually. 115-120 range with 2 las and a missle launcher is still pretty bad though. A razor with 2 LC is 120 points and generally considered to be trash. It's even tougher than the dreadnaught in my comparison on the front page. 128 for a 2 LC HKM and storm bolter razor. 10 wounds instead of 3.

Offense is clearly more pricey than defense but if something is 3x harder to kill at 120 points but has 1 less heavy - about a 20 point drop seems reasonable thats an 18% drop in points to lose 2/3 the defense and gain 1/3 the firepower. Not to even mention the loss of movement stat - which does not mater for each of these units really.

OR we could just give them 6 wounds. Like a Broadside and leave them at about 120-130.

Since no one has pointed it out that I saw and several people discussing Deep Strike options, Cents do have access to Strike From the Shadows.

The Newman wrote:
Since no one has pointed it out that I saw and several people discussing Deep Strike options, Cents do have access to Strike From the Shadows.

That is infiltration...waste of CP if you don't go first really. Most of the units I compared cents to had natural deep strike ability except for wraithgaurd which have actauly deep strike stratagem or the good old trust wave serpent which is about 1/3 the cost of a landraider and doesn't suck.

The wraithgaurd example is really funny because it has 3W T6 3+ instead of 3W T5 2+ - better movement - better close combat ability - can fall back and shoot. Plus can be taken in 10 man squads to maximize buffs like protect / conceal / fortune.


Their base cost is currently 1/3 of a centurion. LOL. 4 wraithgaurd with wraithcannons currently costs about 1 centurian with 2xlas and rocket build. Getting approx. 4x the wounds and 1.5x the firepower. It is quite literally the most insane points discrepancy I have ever seen in gaming. The crazy thing is WG aren't even a very good unit lol.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Oh, wow, my bad. I was thinking it was a pair, like the other weapons.

That does bring it back into line a bit more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That firepower is still a ton better on the DevCent, even with the GC corrected.

Sorry for my mistake.

Also why are we compairing to war walkers?
They have 2.5 times the movement and double the wounds of a single dev cent?

I have absolutely no idea why Bharring and Xeno have been arguing about this comparison throughout the thread, both units are rubbish at present.

I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

I don't think you can expect every 'heavy but slow damage outputter' to be able to deepstrike, and I personally believe that is one of the design problems of 8e.
Although, with that being said the poor big boi does need to be looked at. Either make him durable for those points (A slow walking unit that can soak bullets) or reduce him by at least 20 points.

I'd rather them keep the points and instead get the following rules:
- Reduces AP of all weaponry by half (Minimum 0)
- All damage received is reduced by 1 (Minimum 1)

Lets them survive the hail of plasma fire and tank up against pretty much every weapon. One-shot-kill weapons are still effective.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

Xenomancer is synonymous with Hyperbole, iirc the most overcosted unit of the game is either the Stompa or one of the many titans available.

As an aside I'm curious though, the apothecary can resurrect < INFANTRY > units right, how's he go with the Centurions? I'd imagine it'd be the best unit he can resurrect for points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Banville wrote:
GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

I've never understood the hatred of their look. It's like 40k meets exo-squad. Giant suits with lots of guns...This is not something I would expect complaints from. Really I think it's butt hurtness mostly. Ether from space marine players that are sad terminators suck - or people who got ruined by cent stars in 7th.

I think it's more people who refuse to accept anything new past 3rd or 4th edition or so.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Banville wrote:
GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

I've never understood the hatred of their look. It's like 40k meets exo-squad. Giant suits with lots of guns...This is not something I would expect complaints from. Really I think it's butt hurtness mostly. Ether from space marine players that are sad terminators suck - or people who got ruined by cent stars in 7th.

I think it's more people who refuse to accept anything new past 3rd or 4th edition or so.

They're some of the worst looking models in recent history from a dark time for GW, right up there with the mono pose plastic daemon prince. It's not surprising that people don't like them and I would be happy if they left them as an index unit in the future.

Yep. they must have really been sick of Grav Cents...

7th edition, my star unit was 3 Cents, a Pod, and a tech marine with hunters eye.

now its the same points, minus the Pod, minus the Techy...

Ice_can wrote:
I don't know how anyone can defend Dev cent points costs when a Custode trooper is 40ppm with +1WS effectively same BS, S, T, W, +1A and a 4++.
They highlight how rediculous Dev cents and Crisis suit points costs are.

Ice_can wrote:

I haven't really heard an counter to my custodes comparison yet?

Not arguing for or against your point. Just correcting your point cost. Custodes troopers have mandatory wargear that costs points, making them a minimum of 52ppm.

Always kinda wanted to stick 5 of them in a Crusader for the lulz. Or 6 in a Spartan.

Bizzarely costed unit. They'd be a prime choice for a shoot-twice Stratagem. What other unit can get 18 S8+ D6 Damage shots? Falchion I guess?

The ability to move and shoot heavy weapons isn’t all that great when you only move 4”. That movement is doing nothing for you. It was useful when that movement was used to get out of a Drop Pod. Now you are just better off heading them for long range and not moving them at all.

Arson Fire wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I don't know how anyone can defend Dev cent points costs when a Custode trooper is 40ppm with +1WS effectively same BS, S, T, W, +1A and a 4++.
They highlight how rediculous Dev cents and Crisis suit points costs are.

Ice_can wrote:

I haven't really heard an counter to my custodes comparison yet?

Not arguing for or against your point. Just correcting your point cost. Custodes troopers have mandatory wargear that costs points, making them a minimum of 52ppm.

And dev cents have a minimum weapon cost of 30 points which makes them 110 points each? Or almost twice the cost of a Custode. Whatever GW was smoking was strong that day.

Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Ice_can wrote:
And dev cents have a minimum weapon cost of 30 points which makes them 110 points each? Or almost twice the cost of a Custode. Whatever GW was smoking was strong that day.

Indeed!
My point was merely that listing stuff at their base model cost can be misleading. A more extreme example being dark reapers at 5ppm, before wargear.

Arson Fire wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
And dev cents have a minimum weapon cost of 30 points which makes them 110 points each? Or almost twice the cost of a Custode. Whatever GW was smoking was strong that day.

Indeed!
My point was merely that listing stuff at their base model cost can be misleading. A more extreme example being dark reapers at 5ppm, before wargear.

Reapers are wierdly costed. I thought they were more than that though, they should atleast cost more than a SOB with whome they share a decent chunk of their statline with.

On the other hand they are an awful silly idea for a model done to sell more marines before they thought up massive marines. So them going extinct is fine...

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Ice_can wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
And dev cents have a minimum weapon cost of 30 points which makes them 110 points each? Or almost twice the cost of a Custode. Whatever GW was smoking was strong that day.

Indeed!
My point was merely that listing stuff at their base model cost can be misleading. A more extreme example being dark reapers at 5ppm, before wargear.

Reapers are wierdly costed. I thought they were more than that though, they should atleast cost more than a SOB with whome they share a decent chunk of their statline with.

They are, they're 12ppm after the last FAQ.

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

When a Landradier with 4 lascannons 2 heavy bolters onna T8 platform with 16 wounds is 360, 420 for 9 T5 wounds is bad even removing the 100 points for the third pair of lascannons to more equally compair firepower thats 360 points vrs 320 with transport capacity of 10 models so free rhino and much better mobility.

I can't believe I'm actually using a landraider as an example of a more competitive choice than something

The_Real_Chris wrote:
On the other hand they are an awful silly idea for a model done to sell more marines before they thought up massive marines. So them going extinct is fine...

They look better if you manage to space them out a bit, fix up the crotch plate and remove the crappy "bling" most recent marines are dumped into. Kind of annoying to do though.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
On the other hand they are an awful silly idea for a model done to sell more marines before they thought up massive marines. So them going extinct is fine...

Big armour suit with heavy weapons? Like Terminators?

Marine inside a walking vehicle with heavy weapons? Like Dreadnoughts?

It's the sort of joke that people who dont like 40K make about 40K. "Yo dawg, I heard you liked power armour, so we put some power armour in your power armour...."

 n0t_u wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
On the other hand they are an awful silly idea for a model done to sell more marines before they thought up massive marines. So them going extinct is fine...

They look better if you manage to space them out a bit, fix up the crotch plate and remove the crappy "bling" most recent marines are dumped into. Kind of annoying to do though.

Got any links to such improved models?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

It's probably close to 100 over - but % wise thats like 20% not nearly as bad as cents. They are 100% overcosted base lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most of you have probably never seen a las cannon centurion. They look awesome.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

It's probably close to 100 over - but % wise thats like 20% not nearly as bad as cents. They are 100% overcosted base lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most of you have probably never seen a las cannon centurion. They look awesome.

Still hideous.

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Hang on are you trying to tell me that (20 wounds t4 2+ save 5++ save with base deep strike is less relisent) than (9 wounds t5 2++ no invo no deep strike?) The terms also have 21 d3 damage close combat attacks - not to mention 24 storm bolter shots. Yes - the terms are bad - but cents are MUCH MUCH worse. Should be comparing them to 3 wound paladins anyways. Which make it look even worse really.

I reiterate - cents have no business costing more that 40 base points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

It's probably close to 100 over - but % wise thats like 20% not nearly as bad as cents. They are 100% overcosted base lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most of you have probably never seen a las cannon centurion. They look awesome.

Still hideous.

Still looks better than mepheiston!

Thats not fair, he is what a 3rd ed model? lol

I don't usually agree - but yeah, Cent Devs are "we don't want you to buy these any more" awful.

Really not seeing how T5/2+ justifies 40+ points/wound. Last time I checked Leman Russes were not the price of Shadowswords.

They could get 6 wounds for their points and I am still not convinced they would be an autotake.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Hang on are you trying to tell me that (20 wounds t4 2+ save 5++ save with base deep strike is less relisent) than (9 wounds t5 2++ no invo no deep strike?) The terms also have 21 d3 damage close combat attacks - not to mention 24 storm bolter shots. Yes - the terms are bad - but cents are MUCH MUCH worse. Should be comparing them to 3 wound paladins anyways. Which make it look even worse really.

I reiterate - cents have no business costing more that 40 base points.

I suspect the first bit of his post was about power armored GK, otherwise I have no idea what he was on about either, and no idea if that claim is even true.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Hang on are you trying to tell me that (20 wounds t4 2+ save 5++ save with base deep strike is less relisent) than (9 wounds t5 2++ no invo no deep strike?) The terms also have 21 d3 damage close combat attacks - not to mention 24 storm bolter shots. Yes - the terms are bad - but cents are MUCH MUCH worse. Should be comparing them to 3 wound paladins anyways. Which make it look even worse really.

I reiterate - cents have no business costing more that 40 base points.

I suspect the first bit of his post was about power armored GK, otherwise I have no idea what he was on about either, and no idea if that claim is even true.

Well I mean - lets say hes talking about purifiers. Which are paying for a special smite rule (d6 at 3" on a regular cast - don't get me wrong this is a terrible unit) In theory though - this unit could pop out of a rhino - throw out a 6 damage smite and drop 2 155 point cents and make up their points before the shooting phase. A 5 man unit could do that. There are silly ways to load units that don't centergize with your rules. Like for example - I could load up a VV squad with thunderhammers and plasma pistols and make a 10 man close to 500 points. That is just not reasonable when you can take a 10 man with double chainswords for like 180 points - that isn't a unit being insanely overcosted - that is just called using it wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Hang on are you trying to tell me that (20 wounds t4 2+ save 5++ save with base deep strike is less relisent) than (9 wounds t5 2++ no invo no deep strike?) The terms also have 21 d3 damage close combat attacks - not to mention 24 storm bolter shots. Yes - the terms are bad - but cents are MUCH MUCH worse. Should be comparing them to 3 wound paladins anyways. Which make it look even worse really.

I reiterate - cents have no business costing more that 40 base points.

I suspect the first bit of his post was about power armored GK, otherwise I have no idea what he was on about either, and no idea if that claim is even true.

Well I mean - lets say hes talking about purifiers. Which are paying for a special smite rule (d6 at 3" on a regular cast - don't get me wrong this is a terrible unit) In theory though - this unit could pop out of a rhino - throw out a 6 damage smite and drop 2 155 point cents and make up their points before the shooting phase. A 5 man unit could do that. There are silly ways to load units that don't centergize with your rules. Like for example - I could load up a VV squad with thunderhammers and plasma pistols and make a 10 man close to 500 points. That is just not reasonable when you can take a 10 man with double chainswords for like 180 points - that isn't a unit being insanely overcosted - that is just called using it wrong.

A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Right, that's the direction my logic was heading. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy inherent in saying "X is used wrong" as a dismissal, because you end up following an identical argument back to saying "you're playing the game wrong" if you use a subpar codex.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Right, that's the direction my logic was heading. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy inherent in saying "X is used wrong" as a dismissal, because you end up following an identical argument back to saying "you're playing the game wrong" if you use a subpar codex.

Which obviously you shouldn't be punished for liking the look of one army more than another.

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

But to some people just playing a game is a win, it comes down to the person, not everyone plays to win. the greatest game i have ever played in 40k and will never have a game as good as that one ever again, me and my opponent both called it and we didnt care who won, i dont think we even looked at the score, it was just a long game and it was 4am (started at 9pm lol). We both took 7th ed semi-comp list, he was SM-SW and i was Corsiars, he did infantry with rhinos and plasma spam with Skyhammer Assault formation, i did infantry JSJ with fusion pistol spam and some heavy shuriken units with JSJ a unit of melee bikers, 1 Warp hunter and 2 hornets.

It was bascially playing a chest game and Go at the same time, the movements in that game was unreal, he moved up shoot get into a rhino, i would move up shoot and move out of his position, it went back and forth like that all game, each only killing off a unit or 2 at max each turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Right, that's the direction my logic was heading. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy inherent in saying "X is used wrong" as a dismissal, because you end up following an identical argument back to saying "you're playing the game wrong" if you use a subpar codex.

Which obviously you shouldn't be punished for liking the look of one army more than another.

There are, of course, modes of play besides matched for people who care about looks more than winning.

(Just being the devil's advocate, trying to elicit the logic flaws in saying "you're using X wrong" as a reason why that claim can be dismissed).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Karol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not saying that centurions are good, or that people are wrong here. But is it strange that I would like to run them in my army. 330pts for a unit of lascannons doesn't seem bad, for my faction.

the 6 lascannons on 3 cents is 420 points sure you still want to run them?

Cost less then 10 GK with 4 psycannons, more resilient and have lascannons. So yeah, I said it was odd, and I know they are bad. I would even run hvy bolter centurions too. The termintors I have as troop choice cost 40+pts per dude. So 420 for 3W dudes doesn't seem that much overpriced.

Hang on are you trying to tell me that (20 wounds t4 2+ save 5++ save with base deep strike is less relisent) than (9 wounds t5 2++ no invo no deep strike?) The terms also have 21 d3 damage close combat attacks - not to mention 24 storm bolter shots. Yes - the terms are bad - but cents are MUCH MUCH worse. Should be comparing them to 3 wound paladins anyways. Which make it look even worse really.

I reiterate - cents have no business costing more that 40 base points.

I suspect the first bit of his post was about power armored GK, otherwise I have no idea what he was on about either, and no idea if that claim is even true.

The dudes with 4 psycannons are in power armor. The 400+pts is what 10 termintors cost. You don't want to know how much 10 paladins cost, lets just say they cost more then custodes for weaker stats, and weaker rules.


And yes termintors can have more wounds then centurions. The thing is their str4 bolters do nothing to knights, shadowswords and other huge stuff that is very popular around here. Am just saying when I run 3 units of 5 termintors, I wouldn't mind running one unit of centurions and some termintors. I know the centurions are bad.

I might have to second that the Necron Monolith is *way* more over costed than these are. If they dropped 150 points off it, most people would still have to think about running it (because it would still be bad). Worse than a land raider in every way pretty much, and dramatically more expensive.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Right, that's the direction my logic was heading. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy inherent in saying "X is used wrong" as a dismissal, because you end up following an identical argument back to saying "you're playing the game wrong" if you use a subpar codex.

Which obviously you shouldn't be punished for liking the look of one army more than another.

There are, of course, modes of play besides matched for people who care about looks more than winning.

(Just being the devil's advocate, trying to elicit the logic flaws in saying "you're using X wrong" as a reason why that claim can be dismissed).

So because "different" "modes" of play exist now, bad balance is okay, whereas last edition it would be unacceptable?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A good point, that illustrates a philosophy I'd like to go deeper into, if I may.

A unit taking bad wargear is being "used wrong."
Could you then extrapolate to say an army taking bad units is being "used wrong" and be equally dismissive?

You can say playing a bad codex is playing 40k wrong - and from a perspective of wanting to win, it is.
Not sure it tells you much about how the game should be balanced though.

Right, that's the direction my logic was heading. I was trying to illustrate the fallacy inherent in saying "X is used wrong" as a dismissal, because you end up following an identical argument back to saying "you're playing the game wrong" if you use a subpar codex.

Which obviously you shouldn't be punished for liking the look of one army more than another.

There are, of course, modes of play besides matched for people who care about looks more than winning.

(Just being the devil's advocate, trying to elicit the logic flaws in saying "you're using X wrong" as a reason why that claim can be dismissed).

So because "different" "modes" of play exist now, bad balance is okay, whereas last edition it would be unacceptable?

No, what?

I'm saying bad balance is acceptable because anyone playing a bad army is "just doing it wrong". Y'know, like Xenomancers said about the unit above. Obviously if he wanted to win, he wouldn't use the wargear wrong, then he wouldn't use the unit wrong, then he wouldn't use the codex wrong, which means using it for competitive play...

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I didnt read all 3 pages, but im sure the Wraithknight is one of the most over costed units in None FW 40k, well over 80pts overcosted.

It's probably close to 100 over - but % wise thats like 20% not nearly as bad as cents. They are 100% overcosted base lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most of you have probably never seen a las cannon centurion. They look awesome.

Still hideous.

A lot of people like Cardi B. Aesthetics and taste will always be subjective. I really like their look and I can’t ever justify putting them in a list.

 Billagio wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

yea, you forget, we ork players are just salty and bitter for daring to complain about anything... but seriously the stompa point for point is the most overpriced unit in the game... that said centurian devs are pretty lackluster to and probably belong on the short list of the worst models.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

yea, you forget, we ork players are just salty and bitter for daring to complain about anything... but seriously the stompa point for point is the most overpriced unit in the game... that said centurian devs are pretty lackluster to and probably belong on the short list of the worst models.

You have the hope of a fix in the Codex, dev cents have no hope outside of Chapter Approved.
It might be a small hope but atleast the new buggy model shows some hope that GW might be willing to embrace Orks.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

yea, you forget, we ork players are just salty and bitter for daring to complain about anything... but seriously the stompa point for point is the most overpriced unit in the game... that said centurian devs are pretty lackluster to and probably belong on the short list of the worst models.

Forgive me if I have no sympathy for orks

Your index kicks the crap out of our necron Codex, and the stompa is better costed than the monolith.

Ice_can wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

yea, you forget, we ork players are just salty and bitter for daring to complain about anything... but seriously the stompa point for point is the most overpriced unit in the game... that said centurian devs are pretty lackluster to and probably belong on the short list of the worst models.

You have the hope of a fix in the Codex, dev cents have no hope outside of Chapter Approved.
It might be a small hope but atleast the new buggy model shows some hope that GW might be willing to embrace Orks.

I am hoping that points for units get addressed in the next chapter approved. they did help orks a bit with our index by balancing down some options. maybe they can fix some of the marine stuff this way along with other armies that could use a good shift to the middle be it up or down.

valdier wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Surely the most over costed unit in the game at the moment is the Stompa?

I said that but was shot down because apparently not having a codex means that the models in the index dont exist in the game

yea, you forget, we ork players are just salty and bitter for daring to complain about anything... but seriously the stompa point for point is the most overpriced unit in the game... that said centurian devs are pretty lackluster to and probably belong on the short list of the worst models.

Forgive me if I have no sympathy for orks

Your index kicks the crap out of our necron Codex, and the stompa is better costed than the monolith.

orks are tough for necrons if they play green tide (which is the only way to stand a chance with orks now), but you would destroy our current vehicle lists. mayeb the dex will change that. on the monolith vs stompa though I am pretty sure 2 monoliths (that cost less than the 1 stompa) beat it 9.5 times out of 10. that said I also think the necrons dex could use a balancing and hope chapter approved does some points fixes there as well.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Since no one has pointed it out that I saw and several people discussing Deep Strike options, Cents do have access to Strike From the Shadows.

That is infiltration...waste of CP if you don't go first really.

That's not at all true. SFTS lets you wrong-foot your opponent into poor deployments, and then deploy into good firing positions if you get the first turn or out of LoS if you don't. I'd argue it's almost as strong for Raven Guard as the chapter perk.