New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Stitch5000]

 

47 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

They are calling him a Centurion because the new rules for what you can take in a “Force Org” are tied to the HQ you pick. Centurions have certain options Praetors won’t have. He was clearly designed as a Praetor. 

In the curent Liber Astartes the longitudinal crest is for "Legion Officers" (The Praetor) and the transverse crest is for the "Line Officers", including sergeants. This alludes to a hierarchy where the higher rank is denoted by a longitudinal crest. That would infer that the model in question is designed as a Centurion.

[Marshal Rohr]

9 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

 

In the curent Liber Astartes the longitudinal crest is for "Legion Officers" (The Praetor) and the transverse crest is for the "Line Officers", including sergeants. This alludes to a hierarchy where the higher rank is denoted by a longitudinal crest. That would infer that the model in question is designed as a Centurion.

What direction is the crest on the Praetors of the Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Saul Tarvitz, Overseer, and Chaplain? And then the crest on the Sabateur, Space Wolf, etc. Your argument would be correct if there was consistency, but there is not. 

[Stitch5000]

8 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

What direction is the crest on the Praetors of the Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Saul Tarvitz, Overseer, and Chaplain? And then the crest on the Sabateur, Space Wolf, etc. Your argument would be correct if there was consistency, but there is not. 

Your argument would be correct if there was consistency, but there is not... I'm just going by what is written in the heraldry section of the books? 

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

What direction is the crest on the Praetors of the Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Saul Tarvitz, Overseer, and Chaplain? And then the crest on the Sabateur, Space Wolf, etc. Your argument would be correct if there was consistency, but there is not. 

 

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

Your argument would be correct if there was consistency, but there is not... I'm just going by what is written in the heraldry section of the books? 

I’ll check my copy later, but I thought line officers were Lieutenants and lower.

[Gorgoff]

For what's it worth apparently the known wound table seems to be the same:

 

[Captain Idaho]

That's good. It means high toughness vehicles can't be hurt by small arms, if the loss of AV values is a thing.

[jaxom]

53 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

I’ll check my copy later, but I thought line officers were Lieutenants and lower.

Centurion stat line covers everything from Company Captains to Legion Champions according to the unit descritpion. It's very broad. The color plates describe Line Officers as Sergeants, Lieutenants (Junior Centurions), and Captains (Senior Centurions). Legions Officers includes Consuls and Praetors; i.e. Centurion unit statline for Consuls and Praetor statline for Praetors.

 

Looking at older images for Ultramarines, they don't show a helm for a Legion Officer. The Praetor model has a Praetorian-pattern helmet with Crest similar to the Captain Mk4 helmet picture, but the whole faceplate is gold and the white and black on the crest hair are reversed. The Invictarii pictures have the longitudinal crest, but the models don't.

 

Shrug, fictional history is inconsistent or mirrors changes over time in how rank is represented.

 

 

[Brother Sutek]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

For what's it worth apparently the known wound table seems to be the same:

 

The little victories matter.

[PerfectChocolateMadeleine]

18 hours ago, FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants said:

So do people plan using the MkII Centurion as a Centurion or a Praeter given how ornate he appears. Instead of using him as a Praeter I’m also thinking he’d make for a good Chaplain Consul with that huge honking power maul. People’s thoughts?

i plan on using him as a III Legion Forge Lord (will have to do a bit of kitbashing but the bling is great for EC)

[Brother Kraskor]

10 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

For what's it worth apparently the known wound table seems to be the same:

 

It only goes up to S8/T8. That is different! Not sure what the implications are for this, is everything to be reigned into a smaller scale (and if so, why...)?

Edited yesterday at 06:05 AM by Brother Kraskor

[Nephaston]

9 minutes ago, Brother Kraskor said:

It only goes up to S8/T8. That is different! Not sure what the implications are for this, is everything to be reigned into a smaller scale (and if so, why...)?

 

Hmm, maybe an infantry specific table to keep it simple? Surely they wouldn't condense the toughness values for everything.

[Fire Golem]

14 minutes ago, Brother Kraskor said:

It only goes up to S8/T8. That is different! Not sure what the implications are for this, is everything to be reigned into a smaller scale (and if so, why...)?

I think this is from the quick start booklet in the box, implying that S and or T8 are the highest in the box (so probably T8 for the dread). 

[Brother Kraskor]

17 minutes ago, Fire Golem said:

I think this is from the quick start booklet in the box, implying that S and or T8 are the highest in the box (so probably T8 for the dread). 

Plausible! Though I can't help but wonder whether space was that tight in the booklet that they absolutely had to shave those final columns off. And if not, why create the entirely unnecessary confusion by having different-looking tables in the booklet vs the BRB? Perhaps just a lack of forethought. 

[Captain Idaho]

Cor I hope they go higher than T8. Spartans getting wounded in 3s by Lascannons and heavy bolters on 6s will be painful, even with like 20 wounds.

[Marshal Rohr]

4 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Cor I hope they go higher than T8. Spartans getting wounded in 3s by Lascannons and heavy bolters on 6s will be painful, even with like 20 wounds.

They’d solve a lot of problems by just raising vehicle AVs across the board on every facing. 

[Captain Idaho]

Agreed, but I'll bet 30 bolt shells that AV is going away 

[Vassakov]

17 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Agreed, but I'll bet 30 bolt shells that AV is going away 

 

Given the Hearsay website joked about Dreadnoughts getting back armour facings, they're keeping templates and they've said nothing about AV going away, I'm going to put this marked in the box "doomposting for the sake of doomposting."

 

Vehicles do need help though, and honestly I think the simplest thing to do is delete "Sunder" as a special rule, or at the very least take it off Lascannons.

[Captain Idaho]

Them saying on stream that the higher damage of lascannons makes them more adept at targeting vehicles, so perhaps not so much doomposting as cynically observant.

 

I do like Doom, so I'll take that as a compliment and totally misunderstand it though. 

[Fire Golem]

1 hour ago, Brother Kraskor said:

Plausible! Though I can't help but wonder whether space was that tight in the booklet that they absolutely had to shave those final columns off. And if not, why create the entirely unnecessary confusion by having different-looking tables in the booklet vs the BRB? Perhaps just a lack of forethought. 

Well the booklet already doesn’t have the extra profile stuff (the extra mental characteristics) so it definitely seems a more streamlined intro thing that is only for the models in the box. I doubt you’re meant to use the booklet for the full game at all. 

[Gorgoff]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Cor I hope they go higher than T8. Spartans getting wounded in 3s by Lascannons and heavy bolters on 6s will be painful, even with like 20 wounds.

That they still have the known qound table tells me that vehicles with T values is off the table. Like you said there is no way that S only having T8 and Titans ahould also have more than ten. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Giving vehicles Toughness values instead of AV didn’t help them become more survivable in 40k. They died super quick because everything had loads of AP and damage. All it meant was weapons like melta became ubiquitous because they were good against pretty much everything.

 

Vehicles do need some help though. I was hoping they’d increase the hull points and AV of many vehicles as well as rework the vehicle damage table so it was less punishing. For example, needing AP1 to be able to get the explodes result. 

[Stitch5000]

Have I missed something? Why do people think Vehicles might have Toughness/Wounds?

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Giving vehicles Toughness values instead of AV didn’t help them become more survivable in 40k. They died super quick because everything had loads of AP and damage. All it meant was weapons like melta became ubiquitous because they were good against pretty much everything.

 

Vehicles do need some help though. I was hoping they’d increase the hull points and AV of many vehicles as well as rework the vehicle damage table so it was less punishing. For example, needing AP1 to be able to get the explodes result. 

It has helped to a large degree, a singular lascannon isn't popping a tank t1 any more, it often takes 3 or so successful wounds to have enough of an impact on anything big and that's with an anti tank weapon.

 

As you note the AV system is fine if tanks can't go poof from a stray missile or las round due to chance.

[Cactus]

25 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Have I missed something? Why do people think Vehicles might have Toughness/Wounds?

Just the usual pessimism. Some people seem to think that weapons having damage values = vehicles have T rather than AV.

[jaxom]

It could also be that damage interacts with the Glance/Pen tables. Like get a roll for each damage and keep the highest.