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.

hobojebus wrote:
Sob were not around until m36, it'd be one Hell of a retcon to have them in the HH.

Sisters of Silence, not Sisters of Battle.

 Brennonjw wrote:
Not specifically dedicated towards you, but it's still a thing that happens way to much with this community. One thing is done that people dislike (point in case: people are already whining on facebook about a lack of xenos releases a week or 2 after an entire xenos army launches), and the dam bursts with complaints, I just question why.

on a 30k side note: 30k has lots of marines, yes, but also: knights, daemons, 3-4 different kinds of mechanicum, 2 different kinds of IG, Custodes, and sisters as a small army (not rumored. they will be part of the next HH book). 18 legions (that most all play fairly differently) and 10 other armies, and a cheaper buy-in than 40k (40 for the codex, 150 for either BaC or Prospero) isn't just "more of just the same"

Fair, but that puts it at an only slightly better lot of imperial armies or chaos. Neither are my thing. (I like mechanicus and all, but damn their models are ugly. And I'm predominantly a painter, so loving the models is important to me.) And the $150 buy in for models is only if you play marines

Also, people are whining about there "being no xenos releases" on GW's FB? Lol, that's hilarious. Typical Internet hyperbole

Anyway, saw somebody mention the difference in the rules between the 30k and 40k Custodes, and the 30k rules look a lot more sensible.

I'm gonna assume at some point both will get some formation that lets you take them unbound. I have no interest in the custodes, but as a marine player i'd love to ally in a SOS squade 75 points for bolter babes, who can all take flamers. 85 points buy them a FA rhino and rush them forward.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Good to know they're unbound only, but that seems a little odd, I suppose. Cant think of anything else that has been unbound only.

This confuses me as well. I'm not sure why GW would do this since pretty much all 40k players and TO's loathe unbound. Why would they hamper the sale of their box by doing such a thing? (Well, besides the obvious make you buy the rest of the army/rules when they cone out.)

GW doesnt really have a hand in or care about events they dont run, even if thats 99% of events. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is no less acceptable than anything else, and the rules dont matter anyway.

...thanks GW

Well GW can hardly be blamed for players having this ridiculous "no unbound" attitude when unbound is hardly even broken thing. Only idiot would take unbound list to competive tournament and expect to do well. Unbound is strictly for making unusual lists for fun you can't make battle forged. But as competive option? Forget it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Unbound is part of the rules and therefore legal. I don't understand the issue.

Nobody was saying the rules werent "legal". The point was that amongst the playerbase there is a heavy aversion to Unbound (right or wrong) and basically zero events outside of Warhammer world that allow Unbound. It's another case of GW writing rules for units that dont take into account the realities of how the game is actually played by most people..

tneva82 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Good to know they're unbound only, but that seems a little odd, I suppose. Cant think of anything else that has been unbound only.

This confuses me as well. I'm not sure why GW would do this since pretty much all 40k players and TO's loathe unbound. Why would they hamper the sale of their box by doing such a thing? (Well, besides the obvious make you buy the rest of the army/rules when they cone out.)

GW doesnt really have a hand in or care about events they dont run, even if thats 99% of events. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is no less acceptable than anything else, and the rules dont matter anyway.

...thanks GW

Well GW can hardly be blamed for players having this ridiculous "no unbound" attitude when unbound is hardly even broken thing. Only idiot would take unbound list to competive tournament and expect to do well. Unbound is strictly for making unusual lists for fun you can't make battle forged. But as competive option? Forget it.

Unbound is still very abusable (a list that is only the best units in the game is still better then a list that had to take some less effective units as a requirement). The difference though is that GW has released a few specific detachments that give a greater advantage then simple removing the requirement to take inferior units.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Unbound is still very abusable (a list that is only the best units in the game is still better then a list that had to take some less effective units as a requirement). The difference though is that GW has released a few specific detachments that give a greater advantage then simple removing the requirement to take inferior units.

You forget formation bonuses...

There are tournaments with unbound allowed. Why then unbound lists don't rule them? Because it's not worth losing all the free bonuses you get!

As it is regular CAD army would be better of facing whatever unbound list you can think of than maxed up bound army.

Complaining about unbound being broken makes no sense when it's battleforged lists that are the kings...So if you want to ban unbound you should obviously ban the more powerful options as well. Otherwise you aren't trying to reduce power level so are banning just arbitarilly.

tneva82 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Unbound is still very abusable (a list that is only the best units in the game is still better then a list that had to take some less effective units as a requirement). The difference though is that GW has released a few specific detachments that give a greater advantage then simple removing the requirement to take inferior units.

You forget formation bonuses...

There are tournaments with unbound allowed. Why then unbound lists don't rule them? Because it's not worth losing all the free bonuses you get!

As it is regular CAD army would be better of facing whatever unbound list you can think of than maxed up bound army.

Complaining about unbound being broken makes no sense when it's battleforged lists that are the kings...So if you want to ban unbound you should obviously ban the more powerful options as well. Otherwise you aren't trying to reduce power level so are banning just arbitarilly.

Formations are detachments and they have bonuses which is what i said

But the part you are forgetting is that you can still use formations in Unbound. So what you do is take a bunch of formations and then if you have some points left over but not enough to take another whole formation you just take w/e best units you want. This gives you all the perks of battle forged but none of the drawbacks

 CrownAxe wrote:
Formations are detachments and they have bonuses which is what i said

But the part you are forgetting is that you can still use formations in Unbound. So what you do is take a bunch of formations and then if you have some points left over but not enough to take another whole formation you just take w/e best units you want. This gives you all the perks of battle forged but none of the drawbacks

But not bonuses of decurions etc.

Again: Unbound isn't forbidden on every tournament. If they were the ultimate cheese then those tournaments would be won by unbound lists but instead they are won by battle forged armies.

Why? Answer is extremely simple. While you can break some things with unbound fact is formations already gives enough those and with detachment bonuses the "tax" is so small that the free bonuses actually outweight the tax.

Yea yea yea wraithknight is good. But you don't need unbound to get tons of them and by only taking those you are actually making your list less likely to win tournaments.

The "no unbound" is ancient attitude that has been made invalid by GW that pumps out free rules that you don't want to lose by going into unbound leaving unbound for fluffy and/or fluffy combinations.

If you disagree feel free to prove how unbound armies are dominating tournaments where they are allowed. I'm not going to hold my breath though since I prefer to live

I don't know of any tournament that allows unbound

As a CSM player I am very envious of the sisters of silence, it is amazing to have something that completely obliterates psykers and their crazy deathstars.

Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.
More shot heavy weapons will make even shorter work off them.

They are nice and all, but I suspect will play a bit of kingmaker to non-psychic armies rather than dominate the field. There are simply enough psyless armies on the big league that taking a lot of sisters can backfire, and they are fragile enough that taking a handful will only cause a minor inconvenience to psy heavy lists before they get nuked.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.

8-9 shots.
(9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 1.3 dead Sisters)

Even then, it's not like the Sisters are all that expensive. Even if you never use their abilities against psykers, with the swords they make a reasonable back-field counter-assault unit.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.
More shot heavy weapons will make even shorter work off them.

They are nice and all, but I suspect will play a bit of kingmaker to non-psychic armies rather than dominate the field. There are simply enough psyless armies on the big league that taking a lot of sisters can backfire, and they are fragile enough that taking a handful will only cause a minor inconvenience to psy heavy lists before they get nuked.

Taking 2 units of 5 only takes up around 150 points which considering their equiptment is great.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.

8-9 shots.
(9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 1.3 dead Sisters)

Even then, it's not like the Sisters are all that expensive. Even if you never use their abilities against psykers, with the swords they make a reasonable back-field counter-assault unit.

7 shots=1.037 dead sisters. its 6-7 shots per sister.
With swords they do little, as nothing will charge at them or allow them to charge that cant kill them before they swing. (no grenades means I5 doesn't always count, and they are still easy to gun down.)

Reavas wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.
More shot heavy weapons will make even shorter work off them.

They are nice and all, but I suspect will play a bit of kingmaker to non-psychic armies rather than dominate the field. There are simply enough psyless armies on the big league that taking a lot of sisters can backfire, and they are fragile enough that taking a handful will only cause a minor inconvenience to psy heavy lists before they get nuked.

Taking 2 units of 5 only takes up around 150 points which considering their equiptment is great.

I doubt said 2 units will do much before they are getting gunned down. their equipment may be great, the T3 is still an issue.

Overall, I'd ratehr invest 150 in advancing my strategy, than doing a soft counter to something that may or may not even be there.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'm gonna assume at some point both will get some formation that lets you take them unbound. I have no interest in the custodes, but as a marine player i'd love to ally in a SOS squade 75 points for bolter babes, who can all take flamers. 85 points buy them a FA rhino and rush them forward.

GW's Draft FAQ says no sharing transports during deployment.

 Mr Morden wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'm gonna assume at some point both will get some formation that lets you take them unbound. I have no interest in the custodes, but as a marine player i'd love to ally in a SOS squade 75 points for bolter babes, who can all take flamers. 85 points buy them a FA rhino and rush them forward.

GW's Draft FAQ says no sharing transports during deployment.

That is not particular problem with rhino's. Deploy sisters behind rhino, load up, move. Unlikely you would be on disembark position after first movement anyway

Oh, look! Sigmarines! Oh, and Sigmarinettes....

The figures are - there's nothing WRONG with them, but they don't particularly float my boat.

They're a bit OTT, and I can see them going into the bits box for future captains/librarians. Sisters heading towards Dark Eldar conversions maybe. Rest of the box will fit pretty neatly into my Chaos / Space Wolf armies under construction.

Fluff and play wise, I would hope that the Custodian Guard WOULD be elite/better than an "ordinary" Terminator: Emperor's last line of defence and all that.

As for unbound, that suits. How often would you expect Custodes to turn up on Planet Zog, sorting out alien infestation 54924? In 40K, I would expect to see them once in a blue moon, like superheavies or gargantuans. Oh, wait...

In summary, the models don't inspire me to start a new whatever, but I'll buy the box, as there's plenty I CAN use at that price.

Pretty indifferent to them tbh. No real interest in seeing them in games of 40K (yet another super-elite force that makes the 40K universe seem smaller rather than bigger imo, not to mention the direct contradiction with long-standing, established background material) and 30K doesn't really do it for me. But I can quite see there's a segment of the 40K/30K fanbase who'll be well into this, so fair play to them; I'll just sit this lot out and catch up on my painting backlog.

As an aside, it's nice to see some decent sculpts of women for 40/30K but it's a shame they're for such a niche faction – would be way more interested in SoB, or even female IG. And I'm pretty tired of ludicrous topknots.

Rules aside (haven't read them, don't play), I'll say this...I actually like the way the models look. This is coming from someone who hates the over-silliness of most GW lines. The custodes match the original artwork very well, and are...as ridiculous as the art. No complaints.

Reavas wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except their defensive stats means anything with a reasonable shot count will obliterate them due to simply forcing saves.

Even simple BS4 bolter shots, only takes 6-7 shots per sister.
More shot heavy weapons will make even shorter work off them.

They are nice and all, but I suspect will play a bit of kingmaker to non-psychic armies rather than dominate the field. There are simply enough psyless armies on the big league that taking a lot of sisters can backfire, and they are fragile enough that taking a handful will only cause a minor inconvenience to psy heavy lists before they get nuked.

Taking 2 units of 5 only takes up around 150 points which considering their equiptment is great.

The best part is, you could take 1 unit of 10 if you wanted. even upgrading one to a superior and taking them all with flamers is only 180 points. That's actually fairly cheap for a force nobody will want to charge and you can spread them wide enough with ten units to block a significant space against psychic powers.

stroller wrote:
Sisters heading towards Dark Eldar conversions maybe.

You know, I like that idea, and I've been looking for a good squad to use for Baronesses... with a head swap and an equipment swap, they would suit the bill quite nicely.

Thanks for the idea

Whilst I find the models very poorly designed, I am purchasing ten Sisters of Silence, mainly because my guard really need some anti-psyker abilities.
I just hope that conversion and greenstuff can save them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Good to know they're unbound only, but that seems a little odd, I suppose. Cant think of anything else that has been unbound only.

This confuses me as well. I'm not sure why GW would do this since pretty much all 40k players and TO's loathe unbound. Why would they hamper the sale of their box by doing such a thing? (Well, besides the obvious make you buy the rest of the army/rules when they cone out.)

GW doesnt really have a hand in or care about events they dont run, even if thats 99% of events. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is no less acceptable than anything else, and the rules dont matter anyway.

...thanks GW

Well GW can hardly be blamed for players having this ridiculous "no unbound" attitude when unbound is hardly even broken thing.

Well, lets not lie to ourselves, it is very broken, the only reason it doesn't appear as broken in comparison is because of some obscene formation bonuses that are even more egregious.

Regardless, the point was that there's widespread bias against "unbound", and releasing unit rules that can *only* be played that way belies either a stark ignorance of the customer base or simply an uncaring laziness as it dramatically limits the ability to use such units for many players.

Most players? I would wager that tournament players are actually minority of players. Tournament players tend to be also active forum talkers but even then every forum member isn't tournament player and forum members are minority in the hobby.

I don't believe I specified "tournament players" or even "most players" (though I'd be more than comfortable taking that stance as well), only that there is a heavy aversion to such in the community (even if not universal), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority of events (tournament or otherwise), the stuff that actually energizes and organizes the playerbase, don't allow Unbound armies.

Consider that my "standard of beauty' is a Kasrkin or a Shadow Spectres model.

Said this, albeit I am not interested I think the models fit the original art. I prefer to see stuff like this than to see another Magnus. Eeeuuugh.

Not sure about the custodes but even if the current GW overdesigns, with Custodes is not out of place.
The stats fit the fluff IMHO.

I think that with sisters they can go crazier but as we have seen with Secutarii, FW can push already good models even forward. Furthermore, I think that Sisters could still reappear in 40k. They are not required to stay in one place like custodes. In a new SoB codex one could imagine them join as a separated anti-witch unit (not as member, think about MT/ST and AM/IG)

For the BG, I find sisters more interesting, for the similarity with the Culexus. BTW, I miss the Pariah from the OldCrons

The point cost is perhaps low but one could argue that is other models being overpriced.

I am generally very critic of GW but I can understand why the lack of detachments. It kinda kills the fluff seeing Custodes being encouraged to join 40k armies.

As some one who fields a lot of deathwing and raven wing....

My deathwing feel emasculated.....more so then normal

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As some one who fields a lot of deathwing and raven wing....

My deathwing feel emasculated.....more so then normal

That's because Deathwing is garbage in the first place.

I like the models, but without a transport, I can't see them getting on a list of mine. Other than for funsies.

 kronk wrote:
I like the models, but without a transport, I can't see them getting on a list of mine. Other than for funsies.

This has been mentioned a couple times, but what's wrong with deep striking? It's potentially risky, and exposes you to enemy fire for a turn, but that doesn't stop people from doing it with far, FAR less durable units.

Yeah, DSing with T5 W2 EW 2+sv models, potentially with 3++ on top, doesnt sound like an awful deployment option to me.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I like the models, but without a transport, I can't see them getting on a list of mine. Other than for funsies.

This has been mentioned a couple times, but what's wrong with deep striking? It's potentially risky, and exposes you to enemy fire for a turn, but that doesn't stop people from doing it with far, FAR less durable units.

About the only time I deepstrike now is with sternguard meltas in a drop pod unit that I know won't be there the next turn.

Deepstriking 5 Custodians could work, but I have had too many mishaps to ever rely on such a pricey unit going POP!