Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Space Marine codex, in the armylist section, states what armor almost every infantry troop is wearing. Scouts have Scout Armor in their wargear, most others have Power Armor, terminators have terminator armor, but strangely nothing is listed in the Centurion section. Is this an oversight of GW?

Are you expecting it to make a difference to their rules?

Ultimately, unless a specific armour has special rules (ala TDA) it doesn't make any difference. They have the armour save listed on their profile.

Seeing as they have 2+ armour with no invuln, I would say they are wearing a variant of articifer armour.

However, like insaniak has said, it makes no difference to their rules unless they are wearing armour that has its own rules like terminator does.

i guess its should be the new terminator armour, the lost the technology and try to build new TDA and came up with the Centurion

It would make a difference for the Caestus Assault Ram, which can only have models in Power, Artificer or Terminator armour embarked.

Not that I expect Centurions to actually be wearing any of the above. I expect they're wearing "Centurion Armour", which because it does nothing special and isn't ubiquitous didn't get it's own entry.

Well Scout Armor or Power Armor arent anything special either, but they got their explicit entries, so that made me curious.

In fact what bugs me is that on page 126 they even had space to add in Centurion armor, but instead they chose to paste some decorative doodle instead.

This won't help, but fluff-wise it's power armour, with an extra Exo-skeleton on top.

 grendel083 wrote:
This won't help, but fluff-wise it's power armour, with an extra Exo-skeleton on top.

so a space marine inside a space marine?

 Sir Arun wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
This won't help, but fluff-wise it's power armour, with an extra Exo-skeleton on top.

so a space marine inside a space marine?

Exactly

From the back you can actually see some of the regular (Mk 8 'Errant' I assume) armor that the marine is wearing under the exo. IIRC it even describes that the marine just hops into one of these things with his arms folded in front of him (minus his shoulder pads I guess) and controls the suit with his black carapace connections. I hate that they tried to ret-con these things into lore, but they did bring back grav weaponry so I can forgive.

 Murphy(GER) wrote:
i guess its should be the new terminator armour, the lost the technology and try to build new TDA and came up with the Centurion

Nah, TDA isn't lost tech yet.

Centurion armor is more of a semi-mobile heavy weapons platform while TDA is more like a true suit of armor.

It's crappy no matter what it is. No invuln, and non power fists.

Its a 50% improvement over standard power armor vs things that are AP4 or worse and a 100% increase against weapons that are AP3.

Reverse Plot Armor.

"It has to be this way because screw fluff, give us ur monez!"

Don't waste your points armor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its a 50% improvement over standard power armor vs things that are AP4 or worse and a 100% increase against weapons that are AP3.

Try 300% increase against Ap4 (ignores twice as many wounds and has twice as many wounds)

A 1100% improvement vs Ap3

And 100% improvement vs Ap2 all assuming S9 or below.

Centurions are fluff wise in power armour and are one of the strongest units in the game right now. The fact people want even more from them beggars belief.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its a 50% improvement over standard power armor vs things that are AP4 or worse and a 100% increase against weapons that are AP3.

Centurions are fluff wise in power armour and are one of the strongest units in the game right now. The fact people want even more from them beggars belief.

I have 2 theories on that matter
1. They are too expensive and people love barrage sniping with a AP5 weapon , so they won't spam centurions.
2. Having no invulnerable save means they die like honor guard to Taudar.

Both of the above (along with S&P) means they aren't an easy win button like the Riptide or WS so people say they aren't good. I will agree they are tough as nails and are very killy (run them as IH w/ GC & GA for maximum effect).

Try them in a Gravesastar they are devastating. The invun can be easily mitigated with a tank Character or O'Vesa (or both). They are brilliant when used well but as you say because they are not entirely brainless win buttons they are terrible like Tyranids...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Try them in a Gravesastar they are devastating. The invun can be easily mitigated with a tank Character or O'Vesa (or both). They are brilliant when used well but as you say because they are not entirely brainless win buttons they are terrible like Tyranids...

Or simply take Mantis Warriors with a lvl2 librarian: hello Forewarning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the OP, its Centurion Armor, but for some stupid reason isn't in the wargear section. It would have been simpler to say that the armor gives a 2+, S&P and Dec. Pro., but instead they put the 2+ in the statline and the rules in the unit's SR. Why they did that is beyond me.

 guinness707 wrote:
but they did bring back grav weaponry so I can forgive.

Yup they did make a weapon with rules soo obscure and ill-writted that someone tried to convince me that i could'nt make an Invul save on my Mauler ..., my hand in his face, convinced him that i could.

if invul. saves are okay, why arent cover saves?

Slayer le boucher wrote:

 guinness707 wrote:
but they did bring back grav weaponry so I can forgive.

Yup they did make a weapon with rules soo obscure and ill-writted that someone tried to convince me that i could'nt make an Invul save on my Mauler ..., my hand in his face, convinced him that i could.

Sir Arun wrote:if invul. saves are okay, why arent cover saves?

In his situation it shouldn't matter what save he took if they interpreted that they can still take saves on vehicles against grav-weapons. I guess that poor Maulerfiend was out in the open.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 guinness707 wrote:
but they did bring back grav weaponry so I can forgive.

Yup they did make a weapon with rules soo obscure and ill-writted that someone tried to convince me that i could'nt make an Invul save on my Mauler ..., my hand in his face, convinced him that i could.

It's badly written for sure, because according to RAW, you couldn't take a save against a grav gun. I'm sure most people would however agree that you can, and that's certainly how I would play it.

 Sir Arun wrote:
if invul. saves are okay, why arent cover saves?

By RaW neither is allowed but by RaW if those Centurions were wearing helmets they couldn't shoot. Its pretty obvious to every reasonable human being that cover and invuns can be taken against Grav. That people want them not to be is not the fault of the writer but of the readers.

The Writters should know and thus act accordingly, that there will be rules Shenaningans, the seconde that rules for something new are out.

Its like a Naked brain fest when you see 3 or 4 of those Monkeys wrapping their heads and minds to see how to use those "glitches", its scary..., really..., liek they don't thik like real human beings you know, but more like machines ( darn been watching too much Almost Human...).

But sorry i derailed the topic with this.

It is suits of ginormous artificed armors.

Let's endeavor to stay on topic please.