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.

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.