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.

They're fine as infnatry. I'd probably amp the price for their Grav options, since it's stupidly OP.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many of the current Monstrous Creatures are certainly not that and just described as such as GW can't be bothered to fix the Walker issues.

Walkers (and most vehicles) suffer so badly with the damage chart compared to creatures.

Still I would rather just fix imbalance(and get rid of "walkers but not walker" type of creatures) rather than get rid of entire class. Ultimately vehicles still work differently to organic things.

many many thingsd should be walkers but games workshop recognizes that monstrous crature/gmc rules are busted and use it to sell models. we should be thankful they didnt make the goliath a fething GMC

they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

Or they actually fix Terminators and leave Centurions alone because they're fine for the most part.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

Or they actually fix Terminators and leave Centurions alone because they're fine for the most part.

The only way to really fix terminators is to remove cent and have move their stats over to terminators. Thats the issue i have, Centurions are better stronger terminators, for the same or some times less of a cost.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

Or they actually fix Terminators and leave Centurions alone because they're fine for the most part.

The only way to really fix terminators is to remove cent and have move their stats over to terminators. Thats the issue i have, Centurions are better stronger terminators, for the same or some times less of a cost.

Terminators were crap before Centurions, saying that Centurions invalidated Terminators is ridiculous.

Centurions are "better", additionally, because their weapons are better.
Terminators have Storm Bolters and Storm Bolters are crap.
Terminators can only take ranged weapon upgrades at a 1:5 ratio.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

Or they actually fix Terminators and leave Centurions alone because they're fine for the most part.

The only way to really fix terminators is to remove cent and have move their stats over to terminators. Thats the issue i have, Centurions are better stronger terminators, for the same or some times less of a cost.

Terminators were crap before Centurions, saying that Centurions invalidated Terminators is ridiculous.

Centurions are "better", additionally, because their weapons are better.
Terminators have Storm Bolters and Storm Bolters are crap.
Terminators can only take ranged weapon upgrades at a 1:5 ratio.

I understand that, im saying they made them even worse. And the only place terminators really had to go was on par with a centurion.

Another topic completely, but IMO the best way to buff terminators is to either give them 2 heavy weapon choices and either 2 wounds or T5

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
they should just be removed and their purpose rolled into what terminators would be doing with a point increase.

Or they actually fix Terminators and leave Centurions alone because they're fine for the most part.

The only way to really fix terminators is to remove cent and have move their stats over to terminators. Thats the issue i have, Centurions are better stronger terminators, for the same or some times less of a cost.

Terminators were crap before Centurions, saying that Centurions invalidated Terminators is ridiculous.

Centurions are "better", additionally, because their weapons are better.
Terminators have Storm Bolters and Storm Bolters are crap.
Terminators can only take ranged weapon upgrades at a 1:5 ratio.

I understand that, im saying they made them even worse. And the only place terminators really had to go was on par with a centurion.

Another topic completely, but IMO the best way to buff terminators is to either give them 2 heavy weapon choices and either 2 wounds or T5

They didn't make Terminators worse. They were never good to begin with, even with 4th edition. They even got a 5 point discount and are still terrible. Now you want an entire model removed for reasons. Alright.

OR you could fix them for their intended role, which is a shock trooper instead of trying to increase their durability, which is NOT the problem, but rather the damage output is.

Personally, Centurions smack of something that was pushed out the door because someone was told to do *something* and they just decided to make a bigger meaner Terminator because they couldnt be arsed to think of anything better. Centurions dont really fit into the fluff at all and contradict Terminator armors longstanding fluff as the most powerful personal protection available, and in general are just a really hamfisted addition to the Space Marine line that doesnt really fill any gaps but does absolutely make several preexisting units largely pointless.

They look stupid also with the whole "armored dude inside bigger armor" thing.

That said, they dont really work as walkers, and they're not gonna go anywhere (even though they really should).

This is why a completely stagnant empire is a terrible faction in a game where they are wanting to sell new models.

Centurions are dumb. Sadly its not likely that they will be removed. Best to make them less desireable, although making them walkers isn't really a great solution.

They're only T5 W2 2+ and no invuln though. The only reason they're tough at all is because people make them Invisible or tank them with Characters. If some of those rules changed, I don't think Centurions would be so popular.

You know something is wrong with the game when a unit that is T5 W2 with a 2+ save is not considered tough without being paired with separate broken mechanics

That is totally dependent on what you consider tough. Without those extra bonuses that sort of target should be pretty manageable by any reasonable army, IMO. Concentrated fire would take it's toll on them, as would focused specialist fire. That's all perfectly acceptable to me. They're in the same class as Terminators for resilience.

People take Centurions because they're deathstar-build-friendly with their high damage output.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, Centurions smack of something that was pushed out the door because someone was told to do *something* and they just decided to make a bigger meaner Terminator because they couldnt be arsed to think of anything better. Centurions dont really fit into the fluff at all and contradict Terminator armors longstanding fluff as the most powerful personal protection available, and in general are just a really hamfisted addition to the Space Marine line that doesnt really fill any gaps but does absolutely make several preexisting units largely pointless.

To be fair, Centurions work just fine with the fluff and the more modern thinking of exoskeletons that we have today versus what we had back when Terminators were first created.

Martel732 wrote:
This is why a completely stagnant empire is a terrible faction in a game where they are wanting to sell new models.

It's such a crazy mindgame to me for them to be like "No new technology!" but they need to make new models so it turns into "Here's a new type of thing that has always existed! But not for chapters that have their own books."

 Kanluwen wrote:

To be fair, Centurions work just fine with the fluff and the more modern thinking of exoskeletons that we have today versus what we had back when Terminators were first created.

A Centurion is an exoskeleton wrapped in another exoskeleton. It's dumb.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

To be fair, Centurions work just fine with the fluff and the more modern thinking of exoskeletons that we have today versus what we had back when Terminators were first created.

A Centurion is an exoskeleton wrapped in another exoskeleton. It's dumb.

Power armor != exoskeleton.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Power armor != exoskeleton.

It's literally the same thing. It's an exoskeleton with armor on it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Power armor != exoskeleton.

It's literally the same thing. It's an exoskeleton with armor on it.

Exoskeleton, in terms of the concept, is not the same thing as powered armor.

A quick rule of thumb:
If it is being piloted? Exoskeleton
If it is being worn? Powered armor.

1. Is Matt Damon "wearing" or "piloting" in Elysium?

2. How are you making that distinction?

3. Why are the current military projects called Exoskeletons?

If anything, the opposite of what you are saying is true. A beetle doesn't "pilot" its body around, but biologically it's stated to have an exoskeleton. A Gundam-mecha thing is less exoskeleton than "walking tank".

 Insectum7 wrote:
1. Is Matt Damon "wearing" or "piloting" in Elysium?

Neither. It's surgically grafted to his spine and isn't armor. It's an exoskeletal assist system.

2. How are you making that distinction?

Pretty simply. Look at science fiction since the introduction of the concept.

3. Why are the current military projects called Exoskeletons?

Because the current military projects are designed to be exoskeletal assistance systems, not full fledged armor.

If anything, the opposite of what you are saying is true. A beetle doesn't "pilot" its body around, but biologically it's stated to have an exoskeleton.

Because the term exoskeleton does not mean "it has its armor on the outside".

A Gundam-mecha thing is less exoskeleton than "walking tank".

A Gundam is a mecha/mech.

Oh, and it's piloted by a nervous system linkage.

Then :

 Kanluwen wrote:

To be fair, Centurions work just fine with the fluff and the more modern thinking of exoskeletons that we have today versus what we had back when Terminators were first created.

Why do you equate exoskeletons with Centurion armor?