Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 08:27:02


Post by: nordsturmking


I started collecting them because of how super elite they where in 7th ed. And now don't really want to play my custodes ATM. All the stats creep in space marines and especially this years dataslates, made Custodes play like golden marines. A deathwing terminator army plays more like Custodes than the ten thousand them self. A leman russ has better armor than a Custodes landraider. I know SM and AM needed buffs but and Custodes were too good when the codex came out this year. But the way GW did it is just bad game design.
Lore wise a space marine is to a Custodes what a guardsman is to a space marine. That not is represented in the rules anymore. When I started my golden Legion in back 7th a guardian had 2 wounds and a normal space marine had 1 and there where no T5 marines. The massive deviation from the background really started when Eradicators came out and hat 3W and T5.

I hope that the horus heresy book when it comes out in October will represent Custodes better than 40k rules do ATM.





Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 08:33:56


Post by: Sumilidon


You are correct. The question GW asks itself is this:

"If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed. Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/06/gw-actually-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-the-40k-balance-dataslate.html


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 08:51:34


Post by: hardcore1six


Sumilidon wrote:
..."If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"...


Uno reverse - As a guard player.. Why is the most expensive army one of the worst? (Yet I still collect plastic crack)


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 09:23:29


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Sumilidon wrote:
Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.


First of all, it's Spikeybits so the chances of them doing anything other than clickbait garbage are about the same as the chances of me winning the lottery, buying GW, and fixing all of these balance issues. Second, even they admit that the dates aren't an infallible source of information. Third, the entire premise doesn't even make any sense. This isn't a case of one datasheet making a major buff that is then reversed by the other, there's no plausible business motive here. It's pure clickbait and you should feel bad for making me visit that dumpster fire of a site.

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed


And yet somehow month after month guard remain both the most expensive army to buy and the worst (or second-worst, thanks admech) at winning games. They even do this despite a new model update coming soon, which means that if GW massively over-buffed guard and sold a bunch of the current kits they'd still have a second opportunity to sell a bunch of stuff when the new releases come out. Meanwhile what have the best armies been? Gold space marines, the definition of low model count low dollar price. Tau, with a list that spams elite models with a great dollars per point ratio. Clown elves, another elite army. Tyranids, where the best units are expensive monsters. Where are these expensive to buy horde armies that are being buffed to the top of the meta?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 nordsturmking wrote:
made Custodes play like golden marines


That's because you are gold marines. You shouldn't even have a codex in 40k, retconning them into a playable army was a horrible decision from a fluff point of view.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 10:33:00


Post by: Ordana


Sumilidon wrote:
You are correct. The question GW asks itself is this:

"If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed. Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/06/gw-actually-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-the-40k-balance-dataslate.html
For one the article is utter bs and just conveniently ignores that you can check the creation date on the pdf, which is june 21st, so the datasheet can't have been uploaded in april unless GW has a time machine.

Secondly GSC is probably the more expensive army to collect, or close to and they received 0, nip nada changes and while not the lowest winrate, they certainly do not perform, and almost no one plays them so GW could make an absolute killing if they catapulted GSC to the best army in the game and get the FOMO crew on it.

GW is not a diabolical genius playing the meta.
Its just a bunch of underpayed and overworked writers putting out the level of content you would expect from underpayed and overworked employees.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 10:20:08


Post by: Apple fox


I think No, not really.
And it’s more a issue off the GW Hype train for super elite soldiers, with super elites within those ranks. And then more on top over the years.
In a game that still is supposed to involve tanks and anti tank weaponry.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 10:52:16


Post by: Blackie


AM is bad despite being expensive only for a reason: they have a very old codex. I'm sure they won't be bottom tier as soon as they get their 9th edition rules.

GSC are in a much worse spot, they are super expensive, pretty mediocre, but with very new rules. Unlike AM they're a minor faction though, and that's why they don't get a lot of attention. AM is a main faction and will have their moment of fame. I expect this to happen very soon since they're now the only faction without a 9th codex.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 10:56:23


Post by: tneva82


 Ordana wrote:

For one the article is utter bs and just conveniently ignores that you can check the creation date on the pdf, which is june 21st, so the datasheet can't have been uploaded in april unless GW has a time machine.


I just created pdf with 30.6.2022 as creation date. Do I own time machine? Somebody explain how I can get lottery win with my time machine

Altering file you create and you have access is actually super easy. Altering WP dates isn't easy enough that I know how to do.

Either the PDF date has been altered or WP date has been altered.

Of course it's possible spikey bits is full of bs. Not trustworthy source as such. However the point they did about WP dates is good and if there's no reasonable alternative explanation then it's plausible. GW using rule changes as marketing tool is hardly a secret anyway. Shifting imbalance sells way more than balance.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 11:14:17


Post by: Boosykes


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.


First of all, it's Spikeybits so the chances of them doing anything other than clickbait garbage are about the same as the chances of me winning the lottery, buying GW, and fixing all of these balance issues. Second, even they admit that the dates aren't an infallible source of information. Third, the entire premise doesn't even make any sense. This isn't a case of one datasheet making a major buff that is then reversed by the other, there's no plausible business motive here. It's pure clickbait and you should feel bad for making me visit that dumpster fire of a site.

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed


And yet somehow month after month guard remain both the most expensive army to buy and the worst (or second-worst, thanks admech) at winning games. They even do this despite a new model update coming soon, which means that if GW massively over-buffed guard and sold a bunch of the current kits they'd still have a second opportunity to sell a bunch of stuff when the new releases come out. Meanwhile what have the best armies been? Gold space marines, the definition of low model count low dollar price. Tau, with a list that spams elite models with a great dollars per point ratio. Clown elves, another elite army. Tyranids, where the best units are expensive monsters. Where are these expensive to buy horde armies that are being buffed to the top of the meta?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 nordsturmking wrote:
made Custodes play like golden marines


That's because you are gold marines. You shouldn't even have a codex in 40k, retconning them into a playable army was a horrible decision from a fluff point of view.
this about sums it up, though I will say from a lore perspective custards are just slightly better than a marine as in they get beaten by marines one on one all the time, also primaris would be as strong if not stronger then custodes, even though primaris are themselfs Teri ally written into the lore.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 11:15:11


Post by: Thairne


To the original topic:
Yes. So much yes.
I've been griping about that on the BSData server for a long time now.
Custodes are losing more and more of their faction identity with every balance dataslate and every marine release.
The new codex made it only worse and is probably the unfluffiest of the entire bunch.... you can almost see the checklists in codex design they checked off with Katars.
The army of warriors, not soldiers, which fight as individuals in opposition to marines which fight as coherent units, suddenly has army wide stances.
I too picked up custodes to scratch the marine itch, but not dive into the, imo, terrible primaris. And now we have marines outclassing custodes. Not in WR%, but... in feel.
I'd gladly pay more pts per model to get rules representing the superiority of a custodian over a marine. More attacks, more wounds, something like the blade champ has to show the supreme melee prowess of even a "simple" custodian guard.
Custodes should be the most expensive, but most powerful single models in the infantry category.
Currently, we only get the former.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 11:16:19


Post by: Boosykes


Also I will add lore wise chaos space marines should be by far the strongest single combatants.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 11:24:24


Post by: Sumilidon


hardcore1six wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
..."If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"...


Uno reverse - As a guard player.. Why is the most expensive army one of the worst? (Yet I still collect plastic crack)


That's simple, they don't have a codex yet.

In the early days of 8th, you may remember that Guard were horrendously overpowered. The smaller sized games that favoured shooting was a real game changer for them but this was not intentional, as evident by that fact they never kept that dominance, it was simply a convenient consequence of the new way of playing.

Now what do you want to bet that when they get a codex, they become stupidly good?

As for those saying Spikeybits is talking gak, you should look at the evidence. Wordpress is not an easy thing to fake or fix. If that thing says it was uploaded in April, then that is when it was uploaded. Even if you could fake it to show as April when it's currently June, what would be the point in doing so? As for the pdf creation date however, that's really easy. Change your PC's clock, create the pdf, correct your PC clock. Why would you do this? To hide the fact you actually made it months before.

I get the fanboys rushing to the defence but you are defending the indefensible here. You're a cash-cow, at least acknowledge that you're being led down the path by choice, rather than by ignorance.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 11:38:02


Post by: Blndmage


In looking at Custodes so I can run a SoS force.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 13:00:49


Post by: Karol


hardcore1six wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
..."If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"...


Uno reverse - As a guard player.. Why is the most expensive army one of the worst? (Yet I still collect plastic crack)

It is expensive and few people want to buy it. While there are expensive armies, with a much faster turn over, which are bought by more people, and that is why those get updated more often.

But yeah the idea that someone could buy 4-5 boxs of anything and have a finished army, is a horror for GW. Unless those boxs are priced like knights.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 15:02:23


Post by: Dai


Such a horror that they...released such factions for both flagship games.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 16:10:34


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
hardcore1six wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
..."If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"...


Uno reverse - As a guard player.. Why is the most expensive army one of the worst? (Yet I still collect plastic crack)

It is expensive and few people want to buy it. While there are expensive armies, with a much faster turn over, which are bought by more people, and that is why those get updated more often.

But yeah the idea that someone could buy 4-5 boxs of anything and have a finished army, is a horror for GW. Unless those boxs are priced like knights.


Horus Heresy folks can spend $254 for something like 1500 points. GW knows people will always want more stuff. You just need to get them hooked.



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 19:39:22


Post by: Hecaton


Given the stats creep in marines, we need more stats creep in factions like Necrons and Chaos Demons to make them the match for Astartes that they're supposed to be. Custodes can be Marines +1, that's fine; thematically they're very different, as the soullessly loyal button men to an absentee genocidal leader; the Astartes have more free will and humanity.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 20:06:47


Post by: Thairne


I'd rather say that while Astartes are reliable, mass produced, simple but effective weapons (bolters), Custodes are the more advanced, hand crafted and very expensive to create and maintain version (volkites).

Basically, an astartes is what you get when you order Custodes from Wish


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 20:55:38


Post by: Dysartes


Blackie wrote:I expect this to happen very soon since they're now the only faction without a 9th codex.

Unless I've missed an announcement - and even ignoring Votann and World Eaters - Chaos Daemons says hi...

Boosykes wrote:Also I will add lore wise chaos space marines should be by far the strongest single combatants.

No, Custodes should outclass CSM, especially if we're talking the "average" trooper from each faction.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 21:29:28


Post by: Hecaton


 Thairne wrote:
I'd rather say that while Astartes are reliable, mass produced, simple but effective weapons (bolters), Custodes are the more advanced, hand crafted and very expensive to create and maintain version (volkites).


In the setting, boltguns are not simple or particularly reliable. They take extensive maintenance and support, but they are *very* effective.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 21:38:15


Post by: Backspacehacker


As a thousand sons player that loves rubrics, and has had to deal with GW showing goat men in my face for near 2 editions the only think i can think of is this.



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/28 22:56:20


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Sumilidon wrote:
That's simple, they don't have a codex yet.


But why does that matter? Make basic guardsmen 3ppm in the point update, it's a major buff that requires buying a ton of models to use it. If updates are being used to push sales as you claim then that's the kind of thing we should see, but we don't.

As for those saying Spikeybits is talking gak, you should look at the evidence.


I did. When I looked at the evidence I found multiple things:

1) Spikeybits is clickbait trash so everything they say needs to be taken with a whole ocean of salt.

2) GW has no incentive to make the balance dataslate in advance because none of its contents really align with any coherent sales motive. They didn't buff an army only to nerf it back down after they clear out their inventory, and they didn't make any changes that feel obviously out of place with the actual tournament meta. A conspiracy theory requires a coherent motive and there just isn't one.

3) Even if GW was being dishonest with the balance changes they have no reason to upload the finished pdf months before its publication date. What would be the point of that, other than creating the possibility that someone stumbles on it early and leaks the changes?

The obvious conclusion here is that Spikeybits is once again trash, and if the dates mean anything it's almost certainly a boring maintenance thing like uploading a blank template pdf to check that your link works. But Spikeybits doesn't care about plausibility or coherent theories, they just want you to click on the GW SUCKS clickbait and put another set of views on their page full of ads.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 06:49:39


Post by: Blackie


 Dysartes wrote:

Unless I've missed an announcement - and even ignoring Votann and World Eaters - Chaos Daemons says hi...


I thought Squats, WE and Daemons were just part of the AM and Chaos Space Marines codexes.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 07:10:10


Post by: Tiberias


Oh this thread is going to turn into a gak show within two pages....

Apparently a lot of people have some skewed view of custodes lore. They are heaps and bounds above a single astartes, doesn't matter if it's chaos, primaris or old marines.
This is supported not only in codex lore, but also in many black library publications (the emperors legion, regents shadow, master of mankind, valdor birth of the imperium, blood games) one horribly written book (outcast dead) doesn't change that....an unarmed world eater punching(!) through power armor, any power armor, is fething stupid, hence why most people ignore that garbage piece of writing.

On the tabletop the golden boys don't feel as they should right now. Which is not to say that they are a bad army right now, but the feel of playing a hyper elite, super low model count, expensive force is a bit lost when there are other space marine factions who do it better. GW removed some balance levers like weapon skill values and initiative, that could have been used to differentiate custodes from marines a bit more, which is why I'm hoping for the new horus heresy book for custodes.

Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 07:28:37


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:
Oh this thread is going to turn into a gak show within two pages....

Apparently a lot of people have some skewed view of custodes lore. They are heaps and bounds above a single astartes, doesn't matter if it's chaos, primaris or old marines.


The best Astartes are better than the average Custodes. The rules reflect this.

Tiberias wrote:
This is supported not only in codex lore, but also in many black library publications (the emperors legion, regents shadow, master of mankind, valdor birth of the imperium, blood games) one horribly written book (outcast dead) doesn't change that....an unarmed world eater punching(!) through power armor, any power armor, is fething stupid, hence why most people ignore that garbage piece of writing.


A lot of gak can be accomplished with the rage of Khorne and waaay too many space steroids.

Tiberias wrote:
On the tabletop the golden boys don't feel as they should right now. Which is not to say that they are a bad army right now, but the feel of playing a hyper elite, super low model count, expensive force is a bit lost when there are other space marine factions who do it better. GW removed some balance levers like weapon skill values and initiative, that could have been used to differentiate custodes from marines a bit more, which is why I'm hoping for the new horus heresy book for custodes.


Nah, I think the current differentiation in power levels is fine, just the balance could use a little tweaking. Custodes represent "hyper elite" just fine; it seems you get upset when other factions' elite troops aren't effortlessly defeated one-on-one by yours. That's a problem, but it's a problem with your attitude, not the game.

Tiberias wrote:
Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Well, the point is if Custodes are just "Astartes, but better" then they don't need to exist as a faction. Hence why I said they're soulless button men; that works better to differentiate them from the Astartes, who are like classical heroes, with emotions and flaws and actual heroism and all that.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 07:36:23


Post by: Blackie


Tiberias wrote:


Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Yes, of course such comment would be too harsh but... Custodes were introduced at the very end of 7th, when there were tons of imperium subfactions already and even before gravis/primaris some of them (Space wolves with TWC, termies, dreads and wulfen or Deathwing/Ravenwing) were already very elite oriented with low model count. Custodes didn't really have their niche even when they were released, other than being shiny new golden knight looking marines.

I personally would hate a faction that is even more elite than custodes. It would mean 20 models at 2000 points or just 10 at 1000.... which is almost imperial knights territory. I'm not a custodes player but I think the faction is fine as it is, it's still very elite oriented but has finally the option of getting cheaper bodies as well.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 07:44:58


Post by: Dysartes


Blackie wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Unless I've missed an announcement - and even ignoring Votann and World Eaters - Chaos Daemons says hi...


I thought Squats, WE and Daemons were just part of the AM and Chaos Space Marines codexes.

Thank you for confirming you have no clue what you're talking about.

Hecaton wrote:Well, the point is if Custodes are just "Astartes, but better" then they don't need to exist as a faction. Hence why I said they're soulless button men; that works better to differentiate them from the Astartes, who are like classical heroes, with emotions and flaws and actual heroism and all that.

They fact that they're not - within the setting, at the very least - "Astartes, but better" confirms that people arguing that they shouldn't exist have no ground to stand upon.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 07:57:39


Post by: Tiberias


Just when I say this thread is going to turn into a gak show Hecaton comes out of the woodwork. Haven't had enough chances lately to inevitably derail a thread and call all imperium players literal fascists?

Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Oh this thread is going to turn into a gak show within two pages....

Apparently a lot of people have some skewed view of custodes lore. They are heaps and bounds above a single astartes, doesn't matter if it's chaos, primaris or old marines.


The best Astartes are better than the average Custodes. The rules reflect this.


Yes there are outliers like Dante or Sigismund back in 30k. That was not what I was talking about and you know it. There was a comment a few posts up, claiming that chaos marines would just be straight up better or that there is basically no real gulf between a custodes and a primaris, and that is just not correct.


Tiberias wrote:
This is supported not only in codex lore, but also in many black library publications (the emperors legion, regents shadow, master of mankind, valdor birth of the imperium, blood games) one horribly written book (outcast dead) doesn't change that....an unarmed world eater punching(!) through power armor, any power armor, is fething stupid, hence why most people ignore that garbage piece of writing.


A lot of gak can be accomplished with the rage of Khorne and waaay too many space steroids.


Of course you would defend that crap. Tell me, where do we draw the line there? If an unarmed world eater is enraged enough, he can punch through a primarch in 30k bare fisted? Why the hell not? After all, a lot of gak can be accomplished with rage and space steroids, right?

When can we all collectively admit that this particular piece of writing is objectively bad and only happend because the author in all likelyhood didn't do proper research. Punching through ANY power armor bare fisted as an astartes is objectively stupid.


Tiberias wrote:
On the tabletop the golden boys don't feel as they should right now. Which is not to say that they are a bad army right now, but the feel of playing a hyper elite, super low model count, expensive force is a bit lost when there are other space marine factions who do it better. GW removed some balance levers like weapon skill values and initiative, that could have been used to differentiate custodes from marines a bit more, which is why I'm hoping for the new horus heresy book for custodes.


Nah, I think the current differentiation in power levels is fine, just the balance could use a little tweaking. Custodes represent "hyper elite" just fine; it seems you get upset when other factions' elite troops aren't effortlessly defeated one-on-one by yours. That's a problem, but it's a problem with your attitude, not the game.


Not a single custodes player asked for an I-win button for their units whenever they hit anything, that was absolutely not the point. It's more in the same ballpark as people being annoyed that the baneblade didn't have a better save than the leman russ and rightly so. It just breaks immersion. We are also not talking about balance here at all. I am quite positive that most custodes players would be fine for their infantry units to go up in points significantly if they just gained an extra attack and wound for example. A small possible change within the current rules framework that would put a bit of a gap between them and gravis marines for example or deathshroud terminators.


Tiberias wrote:
Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Well, the point is if Custodes are just "Astartes, but better" then they don't need to exist as a faction. Hence why I said they're soulless button men; that works better to differentiate them from the Astartes, who are like classical heroes, with emotions and flaws and actual heroism and all that.



The point is that they are distincly not "Astartes, but better". The latest black library publications as well as their two codices established this quite well. I can only encourage you to read some books about them by Chris Wraight for example, they are really quite good.




Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 08:14:25


Post by: Blackie


 Dysartes wrote:

Thank you for confirming you have no clue what you're talking about.



About chaos and squats? There's no shame in admitting that, I've never been interested in that stuff as I loathe the models and the lore .


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 12:39:37


Post by: tneva82


 Blackie wrote:
Tiberias wrote:


Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Yes, of course such comment would be too harsh but... Custodes were introduced at the very end of 7th, when there were tons of imperium subfactions already and even before gravis/primaris some of them (Space wolves with TWC, termies, dreads and wulfen or Deathwing/Ravenwing) were already very elite oriented with low model count. Custodes didn't really have their niche even when they were released, other than being shiny new golden knight looking marines.

I personally would hate a faction that is even more elite than custodes. It would mean 20 models at 2000 points or just 10 at 1000.... which is almost imperial knights territory. I'm not a custodes player but I think the faction is fine as it is, it's still very elite oriented but has finally the option of getting cheaper bodies as well.


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 14:25:15


Post by: cuda1179


Custodes are supposed to be as far beyond marines as marines are beyond normal humans.

Right now Custodes have the WORST vehicles in the Imperium, and that's just wrong. The faction as a whole needs something that they didn't get in the Balance Update. Including them in Armor of Contempt might just do it.

I still think they need to be a couple points more per model, but also have +1 attack on the charge/being charged.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 16:37:36


Post by: Thairne


Hecaton wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
I'd rather say that while Astartes are reliable, mass produced, simple but effective weapons (bolters), Custodes are the more advanced, hand crafted and very expensive to create and maintain version (volkites).


In the setting, boltguns are not simple or particularly reliable. They take extensive maintenance and support, but they are *very* effective.


Unfortunately, Volkite Weapons of the various types were difficult to manufacture, even for the most able of the ancient Mechanicum's forges, and the demands of the expanding Great Crusade in the late 30th Millennium swiftly overwhelmed the supply of these relic-weapons.
Once relatively common within the fledgling Space Marine Legions and the military forces of the pre-Heresy Mechanicum, Volkite Weapons had fallen largely from favour by the time the Horus Heresy began in the early 31st Millennium and had been superseded by the far more flexible and utilitarian Terran bolter.


https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Volkite_Weapons

Volkites are superior in every way, but far more expensive to craft and maintain. Bolters are "flexible and utilitarian". The reason marines got bolters in the first place is that the fledgling imperium couldnt provide enough volites to equip the marines, so the "lesser" Bolter became the standard gear.
Its just the same with Custodes vs Marines, which is why I drew upon that.. erh.. metaphor.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 19:57:13


Post by: Hecaton


 Dysartes wrote:

They fact that they're not - within the setting, at the very least - "Astartes, but better" confirms that people arguing that they shouldn't exist have no ground to stand upon.


I think the majority of the Custodes fanbase sees them that way. Their attraction to them seems to be that they're more elite, more heroic, smarter, better, etc than Astartes.

It's the "bigger Batman" analogy that's used with Primaris so often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


In the fluff, yes, but they didn't have rules.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 20:09:57


Post by: CadianSgtBob


tneva82 wrote:
Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


They existed in the lore. They did not exist in the game. It should have stayed that way.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 02:01:28


Post by: Hecaton


 cuda1179 wrote:
Custodes are supposed to be as far beyond marines as marines are beyond normal humans.


I think that's an exaggeration.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Right now Custodes have the WORST vehicles in the Imperium, and that's just wrong. The faction as a whole needs something that they didn't get in the Balance Update. Including them in Armor of Contempt might just do it.


You still have an above-50% win rate. I think that's cool.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I still think they need to be a couple points more per model, but also have +1 attack on the charge/being charged.


Nah, Angels of Death/Shock Assault is an Astartes rule. Jealous that Astartes have something you don't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thairne wrote:

Volkites are superior in every way, but far more expensive to craft and maintain. Bolters are "flexible and utilitarian". The reason marines got bolters in the first place is that the fledgling imperium couldnt provide enough volites to equip the marines, so the "lesser" Bolter became the standard gear.
Its just the same with Custodes vs Marines, which is why I drew upon that.. erh.. metaphor.


I don't think the metaphor works as well for Custodes and Astartes, because a soldier is basically limited to carrying one longarm... the Imperium will field as many soldiers as its resources allow, so if you can field 3 Astartes for every Custodes, it might be better to field Astartes, but if you could field 3 boltguns for every volkite, it might be better to field volkites still since each soldier can only carry one longarm.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 21:16:27


Post by: Thairne


You can field a hellofalot Guardsman for each Astartes...
Dont overanalyze, it was a metaphor to just say "Custodes are master crafted, Astartes are mass produced"


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/29 22:09:38


Post by: Hecaton


 Thairne wrote:

Dont overanalyze, it was a metaphor to just say "Custodes are master crafted, Astartes are mass produced"


No, a lot of effort and skill goes into making and training each individual Astartes as well. Plus, you know, they've done more to protect and safeguard the Imperium than the Custodes ever have.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 05:20:03


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

Dont overanalyze, it was a metaphor to just say "Custodes are master crafted, Astartes are mass produced"


No, a lot of effort and skill goes into making and training each individual Astartes as well. Plus, you know, they've done more to protect and safeguard the Imperium than the Custodes ever have.


The hell is even your point? Thairne just basically said that it is more difficult to produce a Custodes than it is to produce an Astartes in comparison. Nobody claimed that no skill is involved training Astartes or that they haven't achieved monumental tasks in defending the imperium since the heresy.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 05:52:26


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:

The hell is even your point? Thairne just basically said that it is more difficult to produce a Custodes than it is to produce an Astartes in comparison. Nobody claimed that no skill is involved training Astartes or that they haven't achieved monumental tasks in defending the imperium since the heresy.


By saying that Astartes are mass-produced, they *are* implying that no skill is involved in creating them.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 06:32:22


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:

The hell is even your point? Thairne just basically said that it is more difficult to produce a Custodes than it is to produce an Astartes in comparison. Nobody claimed that no skill is involved training Astartes or that they haven't achieved monumental tasks in defending the imperium since the heresy.


By saying that Astartes are mass-produced, they *are* implying that no skill is involved in creating them.


In COMPARISON to custodes. Purposefully thick as always, right?

Edit: also implying that mass production requires no skill is a complete non-sequitur. There can be a lot of skill involved in setting up mass-productions, but there is a clear difference to something being hand crafted.

There is nobody here who claimed that creating astartes isn't a laborious and difficult process, only that in comparison to custodes its like they are mass produced. There is a reason that there are only 10000 custodes and a million astartes.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 06:34:07


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:

The hell is even your point? Thairne just basically said that it is more difficult to produce a Custodes than it is to produce an Astartes in comparison. Nobody claimed that no skill is involved training Astartes or that they haven't achieved monumental tasks in defending the imperium since the heresy.


By saying that Astartes are mass-produced, they *are* implying that no skill is involved in creating them.


In COMPARISON to custodes. Purposefully thick as always, right?


This just reinforces the idea to me that Custodes fans specifically like their faction because it comparatively devalues Astartes.

Also, "mass production" as an idea is not strictly speaking about rate of production, but about the amount of attention given to each individual piece - by calling Astartes "mass produced" it's devaluing them.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 06:57:04


Post by: Blackie


tneva82 wrote:


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


I know, but they were completely absent in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and pretty much the entire 7th. Which means at least 20 years of absence. Pre 3rd edition 40k was a completely different game with a lot of stuff that was axed at the end of 2nd, basically like comparing AoS to WHFB. And I'm not even sure if they had rules in 2nd, I never saw any, let alone models. So yeah, Custodes were actually introduced in the game at the very end of 7th, like I said.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 07:13:29


Post by: aphyon


Nords 30K may be the place for you now, i am not sure, the old school 30K players are a bit put off by GW corporates eye upon what Alan Bligh managed to create with love and passion.

I have heard mixed reviews, they like some changes and hate others, as you will with GW, when they change editions.

The only custodes i have are more for display with the 3rd party model of the emperor i have. i managed to use them once as a retinue in a game of 30K using some very old rules for the emperor. it was silly fun, but then my approach to 40K isn't what most players are after since i despise everything about 9th edition and have gone back to playing 5th. In the end it depends on what you want out of the game and what the community is like where you play.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 07:33:51


Post by: ccs


 Blackie wrote:
tneva82 wrote:


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


I know, but they were completely absent in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and pretty much the entire 7th. Which means at least 20 years of absence. Pre 3rd edition 40k was a completely different game with a lot of stuff that was axed at the end of 2nd, basically like comparing AoS to WHFB. And I'm not even sure if they had rules in 2nd, I never saw any, let alone models. So yeah, Custodes were actually introduced in the game at the very end of 7th, like I said.


Waaay back in RT days they had a mini or two based on some crap art in one of the books. I'm betting they had a stat block in some WD or something of the time.
And I could swear they had several models released as an LE set in the Skulls promo circa 2001 (3e era) or so. But I couldn't find a pic.




Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 09:09:26


Post by: WisdomLS


In response to the OP, yes I feel the same and don't particularly want to play with my golden boys in 40K atm.

There are a few issues, when the codex came out it was demonstrably too good, I didn't lose a game with it.

That said it felt really fluffy as I went around killing their lesser mortals and being immune to all but their most concerted attacks.

Sadly that isn't good for game balance so they smashed all our survivability strats, greatly reduced our flexibility strats and took away our obsec.
I'd have much preferred points increases!

Without the strats we just don't feel at all survivable given our tiny number of models and the amount of anti tank guns in the game.

Now the nerfs had the desired effect and reduced our win rate to around 55% which is still good and in the balanced zone GW are no doubt aiming at - sadly the win rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Removing obsec from our infantry has had a really bad effect on our list building, I understand the need to remove it from characters but removing it from all our infantry was a really badly thought out move.
Our book was designed to have obsec on infantry as a base rule, the units are balanced with that in mind and we have none of the usual Relics/traits/strats that other factions have to spread out obsec - why would we, everything already has it.
Without obsec our terminators, wardens and other no troop infantry have become void choices - they don't really do anything that we can't do with our troop options and certainly don't anything that is worth paying more points for and losing obsec. We have thus lost various base codex units from consideration.
Instead all our successful list have just doubled down on the problem units which are forgeworld vehicles and dreads, they don't really use most of the stuff in the codex and are just flat great datasheets so they nicely sidestep GWs attempts to nerf them.

Hopefully GW will notice their error and give back obsec in a future dataslate, I'd really like a little army building versatility but I'm not holding my breath.







Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 09:28:44


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:

The hell is even your point? Thairne just basically said that it is more difficult to produce a Custodes than it is to produce an Astartes in comparison. Nobody claimed that no skill is involved training Astartes or that they haven't achieved monumental tasks in defending the imperium since the heresy.


By saying that Astartes are mass-produced, they *are* implying that no skill is involved in creating them.


In COMPARISON to custodes. Purposefully thick as always, right?


This just reinforces the idea to me that Custodes fans specifically like their faction because it comparatively devalues Astartes.

Also, "mass production" as an idea is not strictly speaking about rate of production, but about the amount of attention given to each individual piece - by calling Astartes "mass produced" it's devaluing them.


It is truly amazing to witness how you always just know what people are thinking, even though they clarified their stance to you. It must be great having such an awsome talent.

If you compare a pagani zona with a top of the line mercedes and come to the conclusion that more care and time went into the construction of the pagani, it doesn't devalue the (probably) very good build quality of the mercedes. It just means even greater care and time went into the pagani, hence why their are more expensive and exist in fewer numbers.

You just cling to the assumption that custodes players/fans get off on the idea that a single custodes is in all likelyhood quite a bit more powerful than a single astartes (exceptions exist as we have established, with 30k Sigismund being a prime example) when this is just a fact in 30k and 40k lore. And when that fact is not really that well represented in the rules due to 9th ed power creep, it breaks immersion for a lot of people. That's it.

Just regarding the lore it's similar to saying: in 40k an astartes is on average taller and stronger than an unaugmented human. Does that devalue imperial soldiers as a whole? No, it's just simply a fact.....it even elevates the imperial guard to an extent because they hold their ground in a galaxy full of horrors without augmentation or power armor.

Consequently if the lore doesn't matter at all in rules representation why dont we go ahead and have grots of guardsmen at S5, T5? Why don't we include lore where a sororitas just punches through power armor or terminator armor bare handed? After all, a lot is possible with rage and warp juice, right? If the lore doesn't matter then any continuity is lost and anything goes. Which is why we have such terrible examples like in the outcast dead where the author just didn't do proper research and as a result people are arguing about a ridiculously stupid scene that shouldn't have been written they way it was and wasn't even a super crucial part of the book.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 09:33:06


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Blackie wrote:
I expect this to happen very soon since they're now the only faction without a 9th codex.


Daemons.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 10:35:26


Post by: tneva82


 Blackie wrote:
tneva82 wrote:


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


I know, but they were completely absent in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and pretty much the entire 7th. Which means at least 20 years of absence. Pre 3rd edition 40k was a completely different game with a lot of stuff that was axed at the end of 2nd, basically like comparing AoS to WHFB. And I'm not even sure if they had rules in 2nd, I never saw any, let alone models. So yeah, Custodes were actually introduced in the game at the very end of 7th, like I said.


If only things that deserve to be in 40k are the things that had model from the get-go...

Well basically tactical marines. Nothing else. No eldar. No tyranid. No IG. No Ad mech. Everything but marines(and not much of them). Gone. poof. don't deserve to be in the game.

Model lines are expanded. Deal with it.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 12:35:04


Post by: Thairne


Hecaton wrote:


This just reinforces the idea to me that Custodes fans specifically like their faction because it comparatively devalues Astartes.

Also, "mass production" as an idea is not strictly speaking about rate of production, but about the amount of attention given to each individual piece - by calling Astartes "mass produced" it's devaluing them.


This just reinforces the idea to me that astartes fans specifically like their faction because it comparatively devalues Guard and SoB.

By calling basic humans "mass produced" its devalueing them.


I get it, you dont like custodes for whatever reason.
That does not change the fact that Custodes lost their faction identity this edition, which this topic is about. Not if they should exist as an army, when they started existing or anything else.
Heck, AdMech didnt exist until 6th.
You're making up arguments and derailing the threat in bad faith, please stop.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 12:39:35


Post by: Blackie


tneva82 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
tneva82 wrote:


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


I know, but they were completely absent in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and pretty much the entire 7th. Which means at least 20 years of absence. Pre 3rd edition 40k was a completely different game with a lot of stuff that was axed at the end of 2nd, basically like comparing AoS to WHFB. And I'm not even sure if they had rules in 2nd, I never saw any, let alone models. So yeah, Custodes were actually introduced in the game at the very end of 7th, like I said.


If only things that deserve to be in 40k are the things that had model from the get-go...

Well basically tactical marines. Nothing else. No eldar. No tyranid. No IG. No Ad mech. Everything but marines(and not much of them). Gone. poof. don't deserve to be in the game.

Model lines are expanded. Deal with it.


Excuse me what? Custodes were in the lore since decades, had a handful of limited edition models but no rules or line of models as an actual playable faction for another couple of decades. They weren't a faction before late 7th, this is facts, accept that and deal with it. It didn't take two decades to expand model lines, let alone to provide their first official plastic kits, for any of the factions you mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thairne wrote:

That does not change the fact that Custodes lost their faction identity this edition, which this topic is about. Not if they should exist as an army, when they started existing or anything else.


But the point is they really never had it. When custodes were released deathwing armies were already popular, so were SW armies that were based on wulfen and TWC. And those SW bespoke units were already multiwounds with strong invuln and extremely good in melee.

Custodes really didn't add anything in terms of faction's diversity, not even at their first official release. They just were a shiny new line of models. Like the snagga guys compared to the already existing orks, they didn't add anything to the game, just new models to use and with slightly different stats/tactics than something that existed already. Or primaris compared to firstborn. Even Harlequins didn't really add anything, they're not that different than possible builds from both cousins, Craftworld and Drukhari.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 19:57:02


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:


It is truly amazing to witness how you always just know what people are thinking, even though they clarified their stance to you. It must be great having such an awsome talent.


I mean, I've seen all this bs before.

Tiberias wrote:
If you compare a pagani zona with a top of the line mercedes and come to the conclusion that more care and time went into the construction of the pagani, it doesn't devalue the (probably) very good build quality of the mercedes. It just means even greater care and time went into the pagani, hence why their are more expensive and exist in fewer numbers.


In the context of the Custodes, though, it's also that they emphatically get higher performance.

Tiberias wrote:
You just cling to the assumption that custodes players/fans get off on the idea that a single custodes is in all likelyhood quite a bit more powerful than a single astartes (exceptions exist as we have established, with 30k Sigismund being a prime example) when this is just a fact in 30k and 40k lore. And when that fact is not really that well represented in the rules due to 9th ed power creep, it breaks immersion for a lot of people. That's it.


It's quite well represented in the rules.

Tiberias wrote:
Just regarding the lore it's similar to saying: in 40k an astartes is on average taller and stronger than an unaugmented human. Does that devalue imperial soldiers as a whole? No, it's just simply a fact.....it even elevates the imperial guard to an extent because they hold their ground in a galaxy full of horrors without augmentation or power armor.


Yeah but the Guard are individually mechanically weaker than Astartes, just like Astartes are of Custodes. What's the problem?

Tiberias wrote:
Consequently if the lore doesn't matter at all in rules representation why dont we go ahead and have grots of guardsmen at S5, T5? Why don't we include lore where a sororitas just punches through power armor or terminator armor bare handed? After all, a lot is possible with rage and warp juice, right? If the lore doesn't matter then any continuity is lost and anything goes. Which is why we have such terrible examples like in the outcast dead where the author just didn't do proper research and as a result people are arguing about a ridiculously stupid scene that shouldn't have been written they way it was and wasn't even a super crucial part of the book.


This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 20:24:23


Post by: Thairne


 Blackie wrote:


But the point is they really never had it. When custodes were released deathwing armies were already popular, so were SW armies that were based on wulfen and TWC. And those SW bespoke units were already multiwounds with strong invuln and extremely good in melee.

Custodes really didn't add anything in terms of faction's diversity, not even at their first official release. They just were a shiny new line of models. Like the snagga guys compared to the already existing orks, they didn't add anything to the game, just new models to use and with slightly different stats/tactics than something that existed already. Or primaris compared to firstborn. Even Harlequins didn't really add anything, they're not that different than possible builds from both cousins, Craftworld and Drukhari.


Oh they did. In times when Marines were T4 1W 3+.
Even Terminators were, at best, T4 2w 2+/4++.
Custodes were T5 and 3W. 2+/3++ with similar loadout.

More S, more T, more WS, more BS, better invul, more wounds. And a pricetag to match.

Now though, with Gravis Armour, Permatranshuman Terminators, Primaris Grav vehicles etc. Custodes lost their identity. Because Marines took their design space in its entirety, not only some elite specialist units like TWC.
They had it, they lost it and the players that got the army to play THAT faction want it back. Its not that hard of a concept, really.

Also its also not about diversity, but IDENTITY. Different words.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 20:56:04


Post by: Insectum7


Marines have gobbled up many faction identities over time. It's tiresome.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 21:21:30


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
If you compare a pagani zona with a top of the line mercedes and come to the conclusion that more care and time went into the construction of the pagani, it doesn't devalue the (probably) very good build quality of the mercedes. It just means even greater care and time went into the pagani, hence why their are more expensive and exist in fewer numbers.


In the context of the Custodes, though, it's also that they emphatically get higher performance.


The pagani also has higher performance than a mercedes since it's purpose built sports car, does it not? The point was, again, just to illustrate that saying Astartes are mass produced in comparison to Custodes does not necessarily devalue them.


Tiberias wrote:
You just cling to the assumption that custodes players/fans get off on the idea that a single custodes is in all likelyhood quite a bit more powerful than a single astartes (exceptions exist as we have established, with 30k Sigismund being a prime example) when this is just a fact in 30k and 40k lore. And when that fact is not really that well represented in the rules due to 9th ed power creep, it breaks immersion for a lot of people. That's it.


It's quite well represented in the rules.


Perfectly valid stance to take on this point, I just personally disagree.


Tiberias wrote:
Just regarding the lore it's similar to saying: in 40k an astartes is on average taller and stronger than an unaugmented human. Does that devalue imperial soldiers as a whole? No, it's just simply a fact.....it even elevates the imperial guard to an extent because they hold their ground in a galaxy full of horrors without augmentation or power armor.


Yeah but the Guard are individually mechanically weaker than Astartes, just like Astartes are of Custodes. What's the problem?


There is no problem? That's just part of the custom made/mass produced argument. I was just trying to lay out why it doesn't necessarily devalue Astartes when saying that they are mass produced in comparison to Custodes, that's all.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/06/30 21:41:55


Post by: Togusa


Personally, I don't think they ever should have been added to the game as anything, save for a single unit imperium armies could buy in the elite slot.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 03:50:19


Post by: Wyldhunt


Insectum7 wrote:Marines have gobbled up many faction identities over time. It's tiresome.

You're not wrong, but I feel like the issue here is that marine players and custodes players were both sold on the same sales pitch. Both want to be the super duper elite heavily-armored transhumans with ultra mega awesome training where each dude is worth a whole squad of guardsmen. But if marines successfully fill that niche, then you have to make custodes individually powerful to the point of feeling mechanically awkward. And if you put the custodes in that niche instead and tone down marines, then marines feel like pale comparisons.

It's the Dragonball thing. Going super saiyan goes from being awesome to being cute once the protagonist can unlock super saiyan god mode++ with extra cheese.

Togusa wrote:Personally, I don't think they ever should have been added to the game as anything, save for a single unit imperium armies could buy in the elite slot.

This. Absolutely this. If custodes had to be added as playable models, they should have been a single unit (maybe even a single model) that you can splash one of into your imperial army. That way, you can make individual custodes as powerful as you want without having to balance that statline as an entire army, AND it would make the custodes feel more rare/special. There are so few of them spread so thin that you literally can't field a whole army of them but the couple of dudes that did show up are hugely inspiring badasses.

Remember in late 7th/early 8th when you could field a custodes with a banner that impacted all IMPERIAL units? That's the direction I was hoping they'd go in.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 08:58:10


Post by: Blackie


 Thairne wrote:


Oh they did. In times when Marines were T4 1W 3+.
Even Terminators were, at best, T4 2w 2+/4++.
Custodes were T5 and 3W. 2+/3++ with similar loadout.



And Wulfen were T4 2W 3++/5+++, TWC were T5 2W 3++ if both equipped with shields. And in combat they were both beasts, Wulfen could even fight twice in an era in which such abilities weren't common or didn't even exist. Competitive SW used to run tons of those units. I ran between 16 and 25 of them in 7th.

So yeah, slightly different stats aside, there was no need of an imperium army of dudes that were more elite than standard marines because people were already running them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote:
If custodes had to be added as playable models, they should have been a single unit (maybe even a single model) that you can splash one of into your imperial army. That way, you can make individual custodes as powerful as you want without having to balance that statline as an entire army, AND it would make the custodes feel more rare/special. There are so few of them spread so thin that you literally can't field a whole army of them but the couple of dudes that did show up are hugely inspiring badasses.



I agree. Like knights and IMHO harlequins, they should simply have been a new small line of units for an already existing faction. Agents of Imperium was released in that period, they could have been part of that books. Like what beastsnagga units are for the ork roster.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 09:10:37


Post by: Hecaton


Wyldhunt wrote:
]
You're not wrong, but I feel like the issue here is that marine players and custodes players were both sold on the same sales pitch. Both want to be the super duper elite heavily-armored transhumans with ultra mega awesome training where each dude is worth a whole squad of guardsmen. But if marines successfully fill that niche, then you have to make custodes individually powerful to the point of feeling mechanically awkward. And if you put the custodes in that niche instead and tone down marines, then marines feel like pale comparisons.


Yeah that's the issue, there's significant identity overlap between Astartes and Custodes even without getting into power levels. I kind of feel like if they wanted to play something different Custodes players should have chosen a different faction.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 09:11:41


Post by: Thairne


 Blackie wrote:


And Wulfen were T4 2W 3++/5+++, TWC were T5 2W 3++ if both equipped with shields. And in combat they were both beasts, Wulfen could even fight twice in an era in which such abilities weren't common or didn't even exist. Competitive SW used to run tons of those units. I ran between 16 and 25 of them in 7th.

So yeah, slightly different stats aside, there was no need of an imperium army of dudes that were more elite than standard marines because people were already running them.


Like I said, except some select elite units that could match the basic troops of custodes. Custodes elite could slap around the elite units of other factions with a price point to match, and this is where they should be. The army exists. You're not getting rid of them now. That line of discussion cannot lead to a conclusion, so even following that line is... strange.
I get the feel that you're just afraid of your astartes not being the best, so you're just doing the same the OP and other custodes players are doing, which makes it quite hyporcritical.

That was their identity. Marines stole that. Marines stole everything from everyone at this point.
If anything, marines need to shrink so they're not encroaching on everyone elses space instead of killing other armies as you'd prefer it.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 09:31:14


Post by: Blndmage


Do folks play pure Sisters of Silence?

I'm super into the idea. They remind me of Pariahs. Also really intrigued by their stats. Making lists is frustrating with things only being in 3PL chunks. For larger games (here 25PL is a big game, most are 6-12PL), I'm considering rhinos.

Modelwise, they cost a fortune and finding appropriately kick-ass third party models is hard.

This would be my first imperial army in... yikes almost 20yrs of playing.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 09:37:34


Post by: Blackie


Oh I know they exist and they'll stay I just think they were a mistake since day 1. I don't believe they ever had room, that's my point.

If custodes players feel bad, I'm sorry but I can't see why. Their army is doing good, and even assuming that there was room for them when they were launched, they were still a super niche faction. Can't expect to receive the same support and attention of the main ones, and I'm talking Drukhari, Tyranids, AM... let alone the posterboys.

And marine players were complaining since ages that their models weren't tanky enough, so a buff on their stats was to be expected at some point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 10:55:39


Post by: cuda1179


I'm not on board with the whole "Custodes are so rare they shouldn't be a faction" argument. There are 10,000 Custodes, that's way more than any marine chapter.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 11:15:43


Post by: Lord Damocles


 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm not on board with the whole "Custodes are so rare they shouldn't be a faction" argument. There are 10,000 Custodes, that's way more than any marine chapter.

Especially in a game where we've literally had Codex: 100 Dudes.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 11:24:32


Post by: Thairne


I dont think pure SoS is a valid main army.
As small detachment of them I think could work, but you'll really struggle with anything over 500pts.
They have no AT, no speed, no heavy weapons, are quite expensive pts wise and basically only have mediocre melee, weak bolters and okish flamers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Oh I know they exist and they'll stay I just think they were a mistake since day 1. I don't believe they ever had room, that's my point.

If custodes players feel bad, I'm sorry but I can't see why. Their army is doing good, and even assuming that there was room for them when they were launched, they were still a super niche faction. Can't expect to receive the same support and attention of the main ones, and I'm talking Drukhari, Tyranids, AM... let alone the posterboys.

And marine players were complaining since ages that their models weren't tanky enough, so a buff on their stats was to be expected at some point.


Noone in this thread asked for the same support.
What "we" want is make custodes feel like custodes, not golden marines.
If I wanted that, I'd just play blood Angels.
I dont know why this is such a hard statement to understand; "the army shouldnt exist", "they have no room" either doesnt help or is factually false.
Its just that GW is stuck in their ultra narrow stat blocks that stems from D6 and even then is unwilling to use the values they have while at the same time upping everything marine which evened the field.
Custodes were defined by a few things - higher stats, higher cost, better, rare and arcane technology. Both in lore and in the rules.
Marines took all that with Primaris, Gravis and CawlTech (tm) on a broad scale. Naturally there were marine units that came even to custodes. Both in rules and the lore, but that was also conceded with examples like Sigismund.
Marines moved into the Custodes design space, both in lore and rules again, and now Custodes never had space?? Its the other way around.
Aditionally, now a freakin' Leman Russ is more durable than a Telemon Dreadnought point for point if you get him hulldown.
If you think a "rugged" WW1 style tank and a DaoT heavy Dreadnought should have the same level of resilience I don't even know how to engage that point anymore...


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 12:17:03


Post by: Pyroalchi


 Thairne wrote:

Aditionally, now a freakin' Leman Russ is more durable than a Telemon Dreadnought point for point if you get him hulldown.
If you think a "rugged" WW1 style tank and a DaoT heavy Dreadnought should have the same level of resilience I don't even know how to engage that point anymore...


Except it isn't... it's more or less as durable.

A Telemon is W14, T8, 2+,4++,6+++ and has -1 Damage for 260 points
a Leman Russ is 145 at its absolute cheapest (Eradicator canon + Heavy Bolter) and has W12, T8, 2+, AoC

A Lascanon hit takes of 12.9 points of Telemon and 14.1 points of Leman Russ
A Multimelta hit in half range takes 17.4 points of Telemon and 22.1 points of Leman Russ


And mind that this is a really bad load out for the Leman Russ and the LR is also no Tank commander.



Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the sentiment, that Custodes should feel very special, but saying "my DaoT Dreadnaught is as resilient as two Leman Russ (because looking at the points difference above, that's more or less it), that cost more in points, that is not enough" feels a bit weird.
Being more elite should not mean cheaper, just fewer models for comparable resilience/output, right?
Or to turn that question around: if you (a general you, not a specific one) would feel better if that dreadnaught would be as resilient as 3 or 4 Leman Russ, would you also feel comfortable with dropping the LR cost (or increasing the Telemons) to reflect that for each DN there are 3-4 LRs?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 13:14:29


Post by: Voss


Aditionally, now a freakin' Leman Russ is more durable than a Telemon Dreadnought point for point if you get him hulldown.
If you think a "rugged" WW1 style tank and a DaoT heavy Dreadnought should have the same level of resilience I don't even know how to engage that point anymore...

Out of curiosity, why?

What makes the space magic dreadnought notably resilient? Isn't 'as tough as a rugged tank (plus weapons and the ability to move)' magic enough?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 13:43:43


Post by: tneva82


 Blackie wrote:

So yeah, slightly different stats aside, there was no need of an imperium army of dudes that were more elite than standard marines because people were already running them.

.


Of course marines never been described as most elite imperium has...that's your basic mistake. Assuming marines is the elite of imperium. Never been despite marine fanboys like you.

Even heresy marines were chosen over 2 more elite solutions due to being easier to build larger armies. So marines were lower quality larger number solution. Doesn"t scream elite...

Face it. Marines aren't peak of imperium. Never has.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 13:57:57


Post by: Tiberias


Voss wrote:
Aditionally, now a freakin' Leman Russ is more durable than a Telemon Dreadnought point for point if you get him hulldown.
If you think a "rugged" WW1 style tank and a DaoT heavy Dreadnought should have the same level of resilience I don't even know how to engage that point anymore...

Out of curiosity, why?

What makes the space magic dreadnought notably resilient? Isn't 'as tough as a rugged tank (plus weapons and the ability to move)' magic enough?


If you're just asking for lore differences, the Custodes dreadnoughts have access to older technology (which basically means better tech given how stagnant the imperium is), antomantic shielding (which is a force field represented by an invuln) and most notably: Auramite, which is a material really nobody else in the imperium has access to and which provides better protection than ceramite or steel. It's just that the Leman russ basically has a better armor save now than the telemon, which from a balance perspective makes total sense and I'm glad GW is throwing guard a bone until they finally get their long overdue codex, but considering the context we've just established it doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people. Just like people were thrown off that the freaking baneblade tank had a worse armor save than the leman russ for the longest time.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 14:08:26


Post by: Pyroalchi


The Leman Russ has a better save against AP-1 and -2. Above that the Telemons Inv. Sv kicks in. And even at those AP values the Telemon still has it's 6+++ right?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 14:09:33


Post by: Thairne


My point was, and I admit I erred in that while writing, that the dreadnought does not feel superior in surivability, as it absolutely should. Its the elitest (Telemon) of the elite (dreadnoughts) of the elite (transhumans).
A LR with Hull Down has essentially the same save as a Telemon. That feels wrong, as Tiberias eloquently has put it.

Bringing "point for point" into it was my mistake. But to use the aforementioned argument, having russes having the same, if not superior, save, devalues Custodes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
The Leman Russ has a better save against AP-1 and -2. Above that the Telemons Inv. Sv kicks in. And even at those AP values the Telemon still has it's 6+++ right?


If you go hull down, which I added to the equation via orders etc., you end up with a 0+ save, which means that up and including AP-4, the Russ has a better save for -1, -2 and -3, pulls even on -4 and only "suffers" on -5. But -5 is such a rare occasion and you can count the number of weapons in the game on 2, maybe even 1, hand.
Yes, the -1D and 6+++ exist. But ignoring 2 points of AP is VERY powerful and arguably better.
So a Russ feels significantly suffer than a DAOT Dreadnought and that is wrong.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 14:17:11


Post by: Voss


I wasn't even thinking in a points perspective.

Its just that, to me, a tank is a heavily armored thing with guns. Being durable is the point.

A dreadnought (or any kind of walker) being compared to a 'rugged real world tank' is innately at a disadvantage. Tanks work. Walkers are, frankly, space magic bullcrap.

Getting them to move with any agility and armed with lots of weapons requires space magic to pass _any_ sort of real world comparison test. So making them as armored and durable as a tank (even a century old tank) on top is just taking the piss. The 'feels wrong' is definitely on the other foot to me.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 14:47:44


Post by: Thairne


Then we have entirely different expecations from the game and further discussion is basically pointless.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 15:22:30


Post by: Voss


Alright then.

Seems odd, since dreads have been 'medium armor' pretty consistently (usually (some exceptions) AV12 vs 14, or fewer wounds in the modern system to the point that most don't even have degrading profiles), but ok.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 15:38:12


Post by: Dysartes


How does the Telemon compare to the Leviathan these days, either in 40k or HH (if the Telemon profile has been released for HH 2.0 yet)?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 15:43:02


Post by: Pyroalchi


Hull down is a super heavy tank ace... Leman Russ CAN'T take that... and even if they could it you would compare your dread to a HQ with basically a Warlord trait.

That's a bit unfair


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 18:12:19


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I'll be honest, I started my Custodes in the middle of 8th, because I wasn't very good at remembering all the rules and abilities, and wanted a Baby's first Army. It was relatively simple, none of the confusing phases, need for multiple detachments, complicated abilities. Comparable to my other first attempt at 40k (Guard) this was a much easier way to transition into 40k for me. Also it required FAR less of an investment. Now, I feel like Custodes are utter crap. They are a complicated mess comparably, list building is now somehow more complicated, which is odd because everything costs the same, and there are no really "great" units to build around now. Also, half the game is lost when even starting to play, because it's so stupidly easy to kill us now.

So yeah, I hate playing my custodes, and I feel like I'm finally well experienced enough to go into a new, more difficult, but possibly more rewarding, faction. I chose Blood Angels. Now I have to learn how to do Decals, and paint much smaller models (Comparably). But I will maybe someday go back to my Golden Boys, when 12th ed roles them back into Imperial Forces with Inquisition, GK, and Assassins. Like they should be.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/01 18:14:37


Post by: Hecaton


 Thairne wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


And Wulfen were T4 2W 3++/5+++, TWC were T5 2W 3++ if both equipped with shields. And in combat they were both beasts, Wulfen could even fight twice in an era in which such abilities weren't common or didn't even exist. Competitive SW used to run tons of those units. I ran between 16 and 25 of them in 7th.

So yeah, slightly different stats aside, there was no need of an imperium army of dudes that were more elite than standard marines because people were already running them.


Like I said, except some select elite units that could match the basic troops of custodes. Custodes elite could slap around the elite units of other factions with a price point to match, and this is where they should be. The army exists. You're not getting rid of them now. That line of discussion cannot lead to a conclusion, so even following that line is... strange.
I get the feel that you're just afraid of your astartes not being the best, so you're just doing the same the OP and other custodes players are doing, which makes it quite hyporcritical.

That was their identity. Marines stole that. Marines stole everything from everyone at this point.
If anything, marines need to shrink so they're not encroaching on everyone elses space instead of killing other armies as you'd prefer it.


No, there is a massive ampunt of overlap between Custodes and Astartes, thematically. The Astartes didn't steal much from the Custodes that they didn't already have.

In my experience it's the Custodes players who are more obsessed with being the best, both in fluff and in terms of game mechanics.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 00:46:32


Post by: Blndmage


 Thairne wrote:
I dont think pure SoS is a valid main army.
As small detachment of them I think could work, but you'll really struggle with anything over 500pts.
They have no AT, no speed, no heavy weapons, are quite expensive pts wise and basically only have mediocre melee, weak bolters and okish flamers.


I did mention looking to max out at 25PL. They seem good at that range I think.

Just for fun, you can run 2 patrols, 3 Knight-Centura, 3*9 Prosecutors, then 3*10 Vigilators and 3*10 Witch seekers, 9 Rhinos, 1 with missile for 99PL/1999 points


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 00:58:32


Post by: Wyldhunt


Hecaton wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

That was their identity. Marines stole that. Marines stole everything from everyone at this point.
If anything, marines need to shrink so they're not encroaching on everyone elses space instead of killing other armies as you'd prefer it.


No, there is a massive ampunt of overlap between Custodes and Astartes, thematically. The Astartes didn't steal much from the Custodes that they didn't already have.

In my experience it's the Custodes players who are more obsessed with being the best, both in fluff and in terms of game mechanics.

That's the thing. Marines have come to step on a lot of toes. In recent memory, they've been better at ambushes than GSC, basically as fast as eldar, and tougher than plague marines and 'crons. There is definitely a case to be made for shrinking them down and keeping them from overshadowing other factions.

That said, I'm not sure you can say they "stole" the gimmick of being elite, transhuman tough guys wearing really good armor from custodes because that's been marines' core concept since like, 3rd edition. And it has also been custodes' core concept since they were introduced in 7th. Both armies are basically trying to give off Movie Marine vibes, and inevitably one is going to do it better than the other and leave the losing faction feeling cranky. Which is why it probably would have been better to leave custodes out of the game or keep them as a single unit per army Agents of the Imperium style.

As-is, how do you want it to feel when a marine player sets up across from a custodes player? Lore-wise, the custodes should be the more elite and individually badass of the two, but being elite and individually badass was the marine army's whole thing. Should the marine player just feel like he's playing guard in comparison to the custodes for that game? My heart goes out to frustrated custodes players, but the "right" way to add them into the game was probably to never make them a full faction in the first place.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 02:09:36


Post by: artific3r


Kinda feeling this with the most recent changes. Custodes are awful into Armor of Contempt. All that AP1 flat 2 damage means that there is very little in the codex that can hurt a dreadnought.

The nerfs in conjunction with AoC pretty much gutted the codex. The book went from great to terrible overnight.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 06:16:16


Post by: Pyroalchi


artific3r wrote:

The book went from great to terrible overnight.


From what I heard Custodes still sit on a 55% winrate don't they? So "terrible" seems bit dramatic.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 08:00:19


Post by: Hecaton


 Pyroalchi wrote:
artific3r wrote:

The book went from great to terrible overnight.


From what I heard Custodes still sit on a 55% winrate don't they? So "terrible" seems bit dramatic.


The Custodes fanbase is kinda the worst for demanding being overpowered. Their main FB group was banning people who said their codex wasn't going to be underpowered at release.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 10:13:49


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
artific3r wrote:

The book went from great to terrible overnight.


From what I heard Custodes still sit on a 55% winrate don't they? So "terrible" seems bit dramatic.


The Custodes fanbase is kinda the worst for demanding being overpowered. Their main FB group was banning people who said their codex wasn't going to be underpowered at release.


We get, we get it....you don't like custodes as a faction and you don't like custodes players. Nobody demanded that they be overpowered, if you still think that is the issue after 3 pages, then you kinda missed the point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 10:49:11


Post by: Blackie


tneva82 wrote:


Of course marines never been described as most elite imperium has...that's your basic mistake. Assuming marines is the elite of imperium. Never been despite marine fanboys like you.



Marine fanboys like me? I can't stand SM . That's why I'd never play 30k, regardless of how solid or popular the game is.

I just tolerate a couple of (former, as in 9th edition) standalone chapters because I love a few of their models.

Of course I'm not a fan of custodes as well, or any other super elite faction, I can give you that .


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 10:52:38


Post by: Sim-Life


tneva82 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Tiberias wrote:


Oh and for all the people saying custodes should just not exist, get fethed. I could say the same thing about your main faction and it would be just as stupid and off topic.


Yes, of course such comment would be too harsh but... Custodes were introduced at the very end of 7th, when there were tons of imperium subfactions already and even before gravis/primaris some of them (Space wolves with TWC, termies, dreads and wulfen or Deathwing/Ravenwing) were already very elite oriented with low model count. Custodes didn't really have their niche even when they were released, other than being shiny new golden knight looking marines.

I personally would hate a faction that is even more elite than custodes. It would mean 20 models at 2000 points or just 10 at 1000.... which is almost imperial knights territory. I'm not a custodes player but I think the faction is fine as it is, it's still very elite oriented but has finally the option of getting cheaper bodies as well.


Eh...custodes have existed weeeee bit longer.

Good way of demonstrating ignorance of 40k.

Can't say about 1st ed since never had that but 100% sure they existed in 2nd ed.


You know he meant introduced as their own faction, don't be That Guy.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 10:53:20


Post by: Blackie


 Pyroalchi wrote:
artific3r wrote:

The book went from great to terrible overnight.


From what I heard Custodes still sit on a 55% winrate don't they? So "terrible" seems bit dramatic.


Imagine if they really were super elite compared to other factions, like +1T and +1/2 W vs something like the gravis dudes.... but they had 40-45% win rates. Apparently being elite in power is not enough, they also want to be elite in stats. So constantly 55-60% with 25-30 models, otherwise their faction's identity is lost and GW should burn .


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 14:17:52


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


If Custodes were any more elite, they'd be Armigers and Knights.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 14:38:10


Post by: artific3r


 Pyroalchi wrote:
artific3r wrote:

The book went from great to terrible overnight.


From what I heard Custodes still sit on a 55% winrate don't they? So "terrible" seems bit dramatic.


That win rate is completely propped up by a single build which spams bikes, Forgeworld contemptor dreads, and Forgeworld Caladius grav-tanks. The 90% of the book that has to do with infantry is non functional due to its reliance on AP1 and flat 2 damage. AP1 just can’t get through AoC power armor (especially in cover) and flat 2D obviously breaks when you go against anything with -1D (any dreadnought).

The reason why contemptors/bikes/caladius tanks are the only remaining build is because those are largely the only damage profiles with both AP higher than than 1 and damage higher than 2.

Before the dataslate, we were seeing all sort of neat builds with terminators, infantry, non-Trajann characters, etc… even things like Venatari had an interesting niche when all infantry got double obsec. Then the dataslate hit and all infantry outside the minimum force org requirements became useless. Then AoC dropped and further compounded the problem. AoC was the nail in the coffin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
The Leman Russ has a better save against AP-1 and -2.


Exactly. You actually highlighted one of the major problems with Custodes right here. The Leman Russ has a better save against the vast majority of armor piercing weapons in the game. Not just the Leman Russ but also terminators, paragon warsuits, sanguinary guard, victrix guard and any other 2+ save AoC unit.

The only time Custodes' 2+/4++ can make its points back is against AP4, and guess how many of those exist in 40k? Custodes now pay a massive points premium for a worse save in most cases.

So like I said, nail in the coffin. Losing obsec and defensive strats was bad enough for build variety. AoC on top of that just kills any reason to take anything other than a contemptor, a bike, or a Caladius grav-tank.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 18:12:26


Post by: Hecaton


A Leman Russ *should* be more durable than Custodes jfc, it's a damn tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:

We get, we get it....you don't like custodes as a faction and you don't like custodes players. Nobody demanded that they be overpowered, if you still think that is the issue after 3 pages, then you kinda missed the point.


Custodes as a faction are fine, though certain aspects of the playerbase are suspect. But "super-soldier in power armor" is a space that both Astartes and Custodes exist in so complaining that Astartes intrude into that space is really complaining that Astartes are portrayed as super-soldiers in power armor.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 18:48:33


Post by: artific3r


Against armor piercing weapons....

...a Leman Russ should not be more durable than a custodes tank.

...a space marine dreadnought should not be more durable than a custodes dreadnought.

I think we can all agree on this, even Hecaton.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 18:57:45


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
A Leman Russ *should* be more durable than Custodes jfc, it's a damn tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:

We get, we get it....you don't like custodes as a faction and you don't like custodes players. Nobody demanded that they be overpowered, if you still think that is the issue after 3 pages, then you kinda missed the point.


Custodes as a faction are fine, though certain aspects of the playerbase are suspect. But "super-soldier in power armor" is a space that both Astartes and Custodes exist in so complaining that Astartes intrude into that space is really complaining that Astartes are portrayed as super-soldiers in power armor.


You are just implying that there can't be any differentiation between astartes and custodes because they both are power armor wearing factions. It's a fictional setting for crying out loud so you argument that a Leman Russ should be more tanky than a custodes dreadnought doesn't really follow. What makes you get to that conclusion? Because any type of walker would be less effective or reliable in real life than a tank? Well duh. But I'll let you in on a secret here, 40k is not real life but a fictional setting...so what's important is that this fictional setting is logically coherent within itself and the way it's written by the authors, hence why the scene in the outcast dead is considered to be so stupid.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 19:14:54


Post by: artific3r


Oh jeez, I didn't even realize the Caladius only has a 3+/5++. That's even worse.

So against AP1, Leman Russ gets 2+, Caladius gets 4+.

Against AP2, Russ gets 3+, Caladius gets 5+.

Against AP3, Russ gets 4+, Caladius gets 5+.

Against AP4, Russ gets 5+, Caladius gets 5+.

Against AP5, Russ gets 6+, Caladius gets 5+.

So the Caladius has worse armor than a Russ until you reach AP5. That is quite frankly, absurd.

We can repeat this for terminators too. It's not until you hit AP4 before a Custodes terminator has better armor than a space marine terminator. And against AP1 and AP2 (the vast, vast majority of AP weapons in the game) Custodes terminators have worse armor. Worse!

Does that sound right to you? While I agree that the Custodes player base attracts a higher proportion of younger/budget gamers who tend to get a little whiney, in this particular case, between the first and second Balance Dataslates, it is fully justified.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 19:51:24


Post by: Pyroalchi


artific3r wrote:
Oh jeez, I didn't even realize the Caladius only has a 3+/5++. That's even worse.




The Callidus is a T7 flyer... the Leman Russ is a T8 tank...
The fair comparison would be against a Vendetta (a T7 flyer) and yes, the Vendetta does get AoC, so against AP-1 and -2 it is slightly better of than the Callidus.


Edit: just to clarify: I understand the general point of the pro Custodes faction in this discussion is making, I just find some of the comparisons towards IG tanks a bit... weird.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 19:58:52


Post by: Thairne


I think you're interchanging AIRCRAFT and FLY here?
The Calladius has FLY. Its not an aircraft.
It is also literally called the Calladius Grav-Tank and has the Hover Tank rule.
Its about as much a flyer as a Repulsor.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 20:01:51


Post by: artific3r


 Pyroalchi wrote:
artific3r wrote:
Oh jeez, I didn't even realize the Caladius only has a 3+/5++. That's even worse.




The Callidus is a T7 flyer... the Leman Russ is a T8 tank...
The fair comparison would be against a Vendetta (a T7 flyer) and yes, the Vendetta does get AoC, so against AP-1 and -2 it is slightly better of than the Callidus.


Edit: just to clarify: I understand the general point of the pro Custodes faction in this discussion is making, I just find some of the comparisons towards IG tanks a bit... weird.


Wrong, on both accounts.

The Callidus is a shapeshifting assassin of the Officio Assassinorum. The Caladius is a T7 grav-tank.

You may be thinking of the Orion Assault Dropship or the Ares Gunship as those are the only two Custodes flyers. The Caladius is a tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, even going with your example, the fact that a Vendetta, an Imperial guard FLYER, has better armor than a Custodes TANK, against most AP weapons in the game... that's ridiculous. This shows just how much AoC dumpstered the external balance of the Custodes book.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 20:25:54


Post by: Pyroalchi


Fair enough. My point was (or was intended to be) that it seemed weird to compare an IG battle tank to a hover tank with fly. Yes it is not a flyer, it still seemed to be a weird comparison, especially if there is a (in my opinion) much better comparison in the form of a similarly priced unit with the same wounds and toughness that is equally useful to bring across your point: that it is strange that a comparable IG unit has a better armor save against AP-1 und AP -2.


But before I derail the topic, just for the sake of the argument: lets assume Custodes would get AoC too, would this - in your opinion (again a general "you" not a specific one) - improve things?



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 20:37:56


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I stopped caring when Blade Guard became better Custodes, for half the cost. Blood Angel Blade Guard became downright stupid compared to even our terminators, which is just dumb.

There was a time when playing Custodes felt like you actually couldn't be stopped. Sadly, they've pretty much gutted what makes them Custodes, and given them a new set of over complicated shifting stances in return.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 20:55:19


Post by: artific3r


Custodes getting AoC would also break the game. AoC units with base 2+ saves are incredibly difficult to deal with given the current spread of armor piercing weapons -- many factions (like Custodes) simply don't have enough AP4 or higher weapons to punch through that.

Consider that AP4 against a 2+ AoC unit means that the unit still gets a 5+ save. That's the same save as a 5+ invuln, which an edition ago would have seemed bonkers applied to just about every Imperium unit (minus Custodes, Knights, etc). Functionally, AoC gave every affected unit a 5++ save, for free. But it's actually way better than a 5++ because it works on AP1 and AP2 as well.

At a broad level, AoC was an excellent addition to the game. Space marines now feel like space marines without necessarily being too strong. A Leman Russ actually gets to feel tough, just the way tanks should feel.

But when you get down to the details, some factions got disproportionately boosted by the change (Sisters) while others got shafted (Custodes). With Custodes it's especially bad because AoC came right after the first Balance Dataslate which massively nerfed their durability and objective control.

GW should keep AoC, but roll back the nerfs from the first dataslate. Start by giving obsec back to all Custodes infantry so there is a reason to take infantry other than troops. Give back their counts-as-two-models for obsec so that even though Custodes are proportionately less durable in a post-AoC world, they at least have some minor edge in objective control. Finally, remove the INFANTRY requirement for Emperor's Auspice so that Custodes dreads are back to being more durable than space marine dreads. If these three changes aren't enough to make non-troop infantry useful again, then consider rolling back the once-per-game limits on Emperor's Auspice, Martial Discretion, and Esteemed Amalgam.

With these changes, Custodes infantry will still be unable to kill marines efficiently in shooting (AP1 is not getting through AoC power armor, marines get to feel tough, the way marines should feel, etc), but at least they will have some play with their obsec tricks and (once-per-game) durability strats. Right now, Custodes have none of that, and their external balance really suffers for it.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:11:01


Post by: Tiberias


 Pyroalchi wrote:
But before I derail the topic, just for the sake of the argument: lets assume Custodes would get AoC too, would this - in your opinion (again a general "you" not a specific one) - improve things?



It would improve things, but GW would have to be smart enough to increase their model cost at the same time, otherwise they would be too strong simply from a game balance standpoint.

A quite a bit higher unit cost and +1 wound and attack on codex release would have been a good way to differentiate them from marines just a bit more. In that case they shouldnt even need or want AoC, because their additional toughness is represented in their higher wound count.

Edit: so in summary if I was the one making the decision I would definitely leave AoC for marines and sisters exclusively, make all Custodes infantry more expensive and give them +1 Attack and wounds while also keeping the nerfs from the dataslate (maaaybe giving infantry their obsec back)


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:35:04


Post by: artific3r


AoC on base 2+ save units is absolutely insane. It single handedly turned a C-tier competitive faction, Blood Angels, into an A-tier faction, all because you can take 3 fat units of Sanguinary Guard. It also made Sisters go from B-tier to S-tier -- they also have quite a few excellent base 2+ save units, and being a mere T3 suddenly doesn't matter anymore when shooting AP3 at them only reduces their save to a 5+. It's like they all got 5+ invulns for free, because, really, how much AP4 is there in 40k?

But back to Custodes, yes, it would be a mistake to give an entire faction a 2+ save with AoC. That's going too far. More raw stat power is not interesting nor is it sustainable. Instead, fix Custodes by giving them back all those unique tricks that are written right there in the codex.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:39:40


Post by: RealAndTrue


Sumilidon wrote:
You are correct. The question GW asks itself is this:

"If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed. Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/06/gw-actually-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-the-40k-balance-dataslate.html


The people who don't understand that this is a business first and a game second aren't going to make it. Anyone who is actually taking this game seriously is either new or completely out-of-touch.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:40:40


Post by: Hecaton


artific3r wrote:
Against armor piercing weapons....

...a Leman Russ should not be more durable than a custodes tank.

...a space marine dreadnought should not be more durable than a custodes dreadnought.

I think we can all agree on this, even Hecaton.


No. Why? Tanks aren't made of meat. Custodes might have the toughest meat, but vehicles are not tougher because someone on waaay too many space steroids is sitting inside.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:51:46


Post by: Pyroalchi


Hecaton wrote:


No. Why? Tanks aren't made of meat. Custodes might have the toughest meat, but vehicles are not tougher because someone on waaay too many space steroids is sitting inside.


Risking to sound schizophrenic by taking the other side: Indeed I think a Custodes tank should - on a unit by unit basis - be sturdier. Not because if the supersoldier inside, but because of better materiels used, shield generators etc.

Guard tanks should feel like tanks, but they are produced from significantly different materials.

I do not think that Custodes tanks should be more resilient on a points by points basis though, but that's just my opinion.


Regarding Fezziks comment: I understand the sentiment but I assume you also understand why "I miss when we felt unstoppable" raises opposition.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:56:19


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
artific3r wrote:
Against armor piercing weapons....

...a Leman Russ should not be more durable than a custodes tank.

...a space marine dreadnought should not be more durable than a custodes dreadnought.

I think we can all agree on this, even Hecaton.


No. Why? Tanks aren't made of meat. Custodes might have the toughest meat, but vehicles are not tougher because someone on waaay too many space steroids is sitting inside.


Wait, what? The point is that, according to every lore source regarding this, the armor materials used on custodes tanks and dreadnoughts especially are more durable than what the imperial army or marines have access to, namely due to it being auramite. What does that even have to do with whoever sits inside that tank/dreadnought?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 21:59:15


Post by: artific3r


Hecaton wrote:
artific3r wrote:
Against armor piercing weapons....

...a Leman Russ should not be more durable than a custodes tank.

...a space marine dreadnought should not be more durable than a custodes dreadnought.

I think we can all agree on this, even Hecaton.


No. Why? Tanks aren't made of meat. Custodes might have the toughest meat, but vehicles are not tougher because someone on waaay too many space steroids is sitting inside.


It's not just the toughest meat, it's the toughest everything. The most advanced weapons and wargear the Imperium has to offer, the most powerful and arcane technologies and materials pulled straight out of the Dark Age of Technology. Are you really going to argue that a Leman Russ should be tougher than a Custodes Land Raider?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 22:03:25


Post by: CadianSgtBob


artific3r wrote:
Does that sound right to you?


Yep. The LRBT is a solid brick of armor, the gold marine tanks are grav tanks with a bunch of exposed bits. Compare them to something like a Tau skimmer, their closest equivalent, and they look a lot better.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 22:13:40


Post by: artific3r


Oh I see. A few people in this thread dislike the entire concept of Custodes as playable faction. That explains a lot about some of these responses.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 23:15:21


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


So, again, how is a Blade Guard Vet being 2+ with AoC not game breaking, but a Custodes Guardian suddenly is? FOR TWICE THE COST!


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 23:45:03


Post by: ihockert


I don't think giving Custodes AoC is a good idea because it basically invalidates Shield Guard, as units with shields don't benefit from AoC. Honestly, AoC should probably be reworked. I've seen some suggestions that it should only reduce the AP of AP 1 and 2 weapons. It is awkward that Custodes units feel/are less durable than significantly cheaper marine units as a result of this rule. The other big issue of this change was that Castellan Axes were invalidated by this change (unless you play Dread Host) and a lot of people modeled the Terminators/Wardens/Shield Captains with those weapons.

A larger issue though is that the obsec change basically invalidated every infantry unit that isn't a troop choice in the army and unfortunately without either reverting that change, or cramming some additional rules on those units, or both, there is no good way to fix them. You can't do much with points unless you also reduce the cost of regular Custodian guard because it doesn't feel right to have elites that are cheaper than the baseline troops. Wardens with obsec would still be a unit to consider because for 5 more pts than a guard you get an extra attack and a 6+++ but they are elites. Terminators would either need obsec back or you could give them the old Auramite and Admantium strat as a permanent rule allowing them to treat AP 1 and 2 attacks as AP 0. Aquilons would still need some point changes, but I think Terminators as a whole could be pretty ok with something like that.

When you consider that the Art of War guys (some of the higher end competitive players) are looking at this faction with the idea of playing mostly Dreadnaughts (of which some will be Forge World) and Forge World grav vehicles, and ignoring most of the units that use Katahs, while also not caring about starting a game at 0 cp because a lot of the stratagems have been gutted and you probably don't need the interrupt ones till turn 2 anyway, it shows that the faction has severe internal issues.

I also know a lot of people talk about Custodes having a strong win-rate, but it is also true that since the previous dataslate the Custodes have not won a tournament with significant participation. It remains to be seen how they will do in the new season.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/02 23:55:45


Post by: artific3r


Simply reverting the two obsec nerfs (counts-as-two-models and obsec-on-all-infantry) would do a lot to help uncripple the book. I'm ok with Custodes terminators being hardly different from guardians in terms of offense/defense. Min size units of 1 and built-in deep strike are useful enough on their own, as long as they can actually contest objectives.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 00:40:12


Post by: JNAProductions


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, again, how is a Blade Guard Vet being 2+ with AoC not game breaking, but a Custodes Guardian suddenly is? FOR TWICE THE COST!
BGV don’t benefit from AoC. They have Shields.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 02:40:18


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:


Wait, what? The point is that, according to every lore source regarding this, the armor materials used on custodes tanks and dreadnoughts especially are more durable than what the imperial army or marines have access to, namely due to it being auramite. What does that even have to do with whoever sits inside that tank/dreadnought?


Well, sure, but the Cutodes bring hovering tanks with wacky old-school weapons, whereas the IG are bringing Leman Russes, Baneblades, etc. The Custodes might have access to better armor tech, but they're not gearing up for massive-scale war like the IG are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
artific3r wrote:

No. Why? Tanks aren't made of meat. Custodes might have the toughest meat, but vehicles are not tougher because someone on waaay too many space steroids is sitting inside.


It's not just the toughest meat, it's the toughest everything. The most advanced weapons and wargear the Imperium has to offer, the most powerful and arcane technologies and materials pulled straight out of the Dark Age of Technology. Are you really going to argue that a Leman Russ should be tougher than a Custodes Land Raider?


No, but I'd argue that a Custodes Land Raider shouldn't be tougher than anyone else's Land Raider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
artific3r wrote:
Oh I see. A few people in this thread dislike the entire concept of Custodes as playable faction. That explains a lot about some of these responses.


I only dislike Custodes as a playable faction if their playerbase things they are more deserving of the theme of "power armored supersoldiers" than anyone else.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 03:00:01


Post by: CadianSgtBob


artific3r wrote:
Simply reverting the two obsec nerfs (counts-as-two-models and obsec-on-all-infantry) would do a lot to help uncripple the book. I'm ok with Custodes terminators being hardly different from guardians in terms of offense/defense. Min size units of 1 and built-in deep strike are useful enough on their own, as long as they can actually contest objectives.


Or not. Why should gold marines be the only faction that doesn't have to choose between the best stat line vs. obsec?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 06:07:26


Post by: ihockert


But "Gold Marines" aren't the only faction that can have some of their best stat lines be obsec. Death Guard, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons all have or can have obsec Terminators, which are arguably some of their best stat line units. Tyranids can make their monsters obsec, and Necrons can have their entire army be obsec. Not to mention Custodes best stat line unit are bikes and they aren't obsec. If you are referring to a unit like Wardens, compare them to Deathshroud Terminators out of Death Guard. Wardens have a slightly higher movement characteristic, are somewhat more lethal, are way less durable to anything other than mortals (if they are Emperor's Chosen) but don't have obsec while the Deathshroud Terminators do. Both of these units are the same exact number of points.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 06:24:05


Post by: Blackie


artific3r wrote:
Oh I see. A few people in this thread dislike the entire concept of Custodes as playable faction. That explains a lot about some of these responses.


No, we dislike the concept of a 25 models unkillable and unstoppable army. Custodes are definitely fine as they are rule wise, if not even still a bit too strong, and before the recent dataslate/FAQs they definitely needed to be toned down. But some complains about custodes players really do explain a lot.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 06:46:24


Post by: CadianSgtBob


ihockert wrote:
But "Gold Marines" aren't the only faction that can have some of their best stat lines be obsec. Death Guard, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons all have or can have obsec Terminators, which are arguably some of their best stat line units. Tyranids can make their monsters obsec, and Necrons can have their entire army be obsec. Not to mention Custodes best stat line unit are bikes and they aren't obsec. If you are referring to a unit like Wardens, compare them to Deathshroud Terminators out of Death Guard. Wardens have a slightly higher movement characteristic, are somewhat more lethal, are way less durable to anything other than mortals (if they are Emperor's Chosen) but don't have obsec while the Deathshroud Terminators do. Both of these units are the same exact number of points.


Obsec terminators =/= the entire codex is obsec. And even Necrons have to spend their faction trait to get it. Sorry if you don't like having to play by the same rules as everyone else but having your whole army be obsec for free and never having to use your basic troops is terrible design.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 06:52:31


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:


Wait, what? The point is that, according to every lore source regarding this, the armor materials used on custodes tanks and dreadnoughts especially are more durable than what the imperial army or marines have access to, namely due to it being auramite. What does that even have to do with whoever sits inside that tank/dreadnought?


Well, sure, but the Cutodes bring hovering tanks with wacky old-school weapons, whereas the IG are bringing Leman Russes, Baneblades, etc. The Custodes might have access to better armor tech, but they're not gearing up for massive-scale war like the IG are.


You are really reaching now, what's your point here? That custodes vehicles are not as tough as guard vehicles because they are not gearing up for full scale war? Even though it's indisputable that custodes vehicles have better armor materials and tech?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
artific3r wrote:
Oh I see. A few people in this thread dislike the entire concept of Custodes as playable faction. That explains a lot about some of these responses.


I only dislike Custodes as a playable faction if their playerbase things they are more deserving of the theme of "power armored supersoldiers" than anyone else.


There can be multiple factions with the theme "power armored supersoldiers" and there can still be differences between those factions, as is the case with custodes and marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianSgtBob wrote:
ihockert wrote:
But "Gold Marines" aren't the only faction that can have some of their best stat lines be obsec. Death Guard, Dark Angels, and Thousand Sons all have or can have obsec Terminators, which are arguably some of their best stat line units. Tyranids can make their monsters obsec, and Necrons can have their entire army be obsec. Not to mention Custodes best stat line unit are bikes and they aren't obsec. If you are referring to a unit like Wardens, compare them to Deathshroud Terminators out of Death Guard. Wardens have a slightly higher movement characteristic, are somewhat more lethal, are way less durable to anything other than mortals (if they are Emperor's Chosen) but don't have obsec while the Deathshroud Terminators do. Both of these units are the same exact number of points.


Obsec terminators =/= the entire codex is obsec. And even Necrons have to spend their faction trait to get it. Sorry if you don't like having to play by the same rules as everyone else but having your whole army be obsec for free and never having to use your basic troops is terrible design.


Vehicles and bikes never had obsec only infantry and characters so at least get the facts straight. In 8th custodes had even more units that were obsec and nobody batted an eye (namely bikes). But now you are coming on like custodes players want special treatment when their infantry having obsec has been part of their thing for years....
The comparison to necrons also doesn't hold, because custodes have significantly fewer datasheets that could benefit from this.

Edit: so I get it, a lot of people in this thread really hate custodes and dislike custodes players, fine I don't really care about that, but the arguments to justify that stance have been fething weak up until this point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 07:07:21


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
Even though it's indisputable that custodes vehicles have better armor materials and tech?


Better materials but also a completely different design concept. The fact that a gold marine hover tank has armor even close to a LRBT is a demonstration of superior tech, with anything less than gold marine advanced tech those tanks would be T5/4+.

There can be multiple factions with the theme "power armored supersoldiers" and there can still be differences between those factions, as is the case with custodes and marines.


Not when those differences are "gold marines are better at everything than any other color of marines". That's just lazy fanboy design.

But now you are coming on like custodes players want special treatment when their infantry having obsec has been part of their thing for years....


And every army can say the same thing about rules they've lost or had changed. Obsec on all of your infantry was bad design and it needed to go.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 07:24:37


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Even though it's indisputable that custodes vehicles have better armor materials and tech?


Better materials but also a completely different design concept. The fact that a gold marine hover tank has armor even close to a LRBT is a demonstration of superior tech, with anything less than gold marine advanced tech those tanks would be T5/4+.


Even the custodes venerable land raider has a worse armor save against most things. Still a different design concept? Also why does a hover tank have to have a worse save?


There can be multiple factions with the theme "power armored supersoldiers" and there can still be differences between those factions, as is the case with custodes and marines.


Not when those differences are "gold marines are better at everything than any other color of marines". That's just lazy fanboy design.


First of all I like how douchebaggy you are about them being gold marines, when they are not both in lore and tabletop, but go ahead. Secondly they are not better at everything both in lore and on the tabletop and nobody here wanted custodes to be op or unkillable. I've even given examples how GW could have differentiated them a bit more from marines in 9th, which would have constituted rather small changes accompanied by a points increase across the board, but you only care about painting custodes players as wanting an unkillable op army. Good job.


But now you are coming on like custodes players want special treatment when their infantry having obsec has been part of their thing for years....


And every army can say the same thing about rules they've lost or had changed. Obsec on all of your infantry was bad design and it needed to go.



What a bogus argument. So because dark eldar lost a lot of hq options for example custodes can lose obsec on infantry because GW has done the same thing to other codices? Also demonstrate why it was bad design and needed to go? They had it during 8th and massed obsec infantry wasn't winning custodes games in 9th. The only non-troop infantry that had obsec and was a problem for a time were Wardens. Why? Because of the old bodyguard rule, which GW has subsequently changed completely. Demonstrate to me for example how Venatari having obsec has been a problem in 9th, ever.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 07:29:56


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:

You are really reaching now, what's your point here? That custodes vehicles are not as tough as guard vehicles because they are not gearing up for full scale war? Even though it's indisputable that custodes vehicles have better armor materials and tech?


A top-of-the-line F1 car is higher tech than a T-34, but if I was being shot at with firearms I know what I'd rather be inside. Or a modern tech jeep/MRAP vs. a T-34 if you want them both to be military vehicles.

Tiberias wrote:
There can be multiple factions with the theme "power armored supersoldiers" and there can still be differences between those factions, as is the case with custodes and marines.


Yes, but fundamentally the complaint about Astartes stats falls into the kind of "Only we get to be *super*" complaints I talked about.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 07:44:23


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:

You are really reaching now, what's your point here? That custodes vehicles are not as tough as guard vehicles because they are not gearing up for full scale war? Even though it's indisputable that custodes vehicles have better armor materials and tech?


A top-of-the-line F1 car is higher tech than a T-34, but if I was being shot at with firearms I know what I'd rather be inside. Or a modern tech jeep/MRAP vs. a T-34 if you want them both to be military vehicles.


What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?

Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.


Tiberias wrote:
There can be multiple factions with the theme "power armored supersoldiers" and there can still be differences between those factions, as is the case with custodes and marines.


Yes, but fundamentally the complaint about Astartes stats falls into the kind of "Only we get to be *super*" complaints I talked about.



Aaaand we're back on the old "custodes being individually better devalues astartes" argument, which I've debunked for you two pages ago. Come up with a better argument at least.
Nobody is saying custodes are the only ones getting to be "super" (whatever the hell that exactly means) and them being individually better than astartes does not devalue the marines and I've given you a couple examples why that is, which you all ignored.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:08:58


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:

What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?


Nothing I said contradicts the lore. Custodes typically aren't fighting pitched battles on a massive scale.

Tiberias wrote:
Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.


I used an extreme example first and then a more restrained one second. Go read the rest of my post again, then get back to me.

Tiberias wrote:


Aaaand we're back on the old "custodes being individually better devalues astartes" argument, which I've debunked for you two pages ago. Come up with a better argument at least.
Nobody is saying custodes are the only ones getting to be "super" (whatever the hell that exactly means) and them being individually better than astartes does not devalue the marines and I've given you a couple examples why that is, which you all ignored.


You haven't debunked gak. There are Custodes players in this thread who are salty about Astartes getting 2w; they said as much.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:19:28


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:

What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?


Nothing I said contradicts the lore. Custodes typically aren't fighting pitched battles on a massive scale.


So what the hell does that have to do with their vehicles not being as tough? You are purposefully missing my point here and you are not fooling me or anyone else.


Tiberias wrote:
Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.


I used an extreme example first and then a more restrained one second. Go read the rest of my post again, then get back to me.


This is reaching hilarious levels. So you are low key acknowledging that your f1 example was gak. Problem is you second comparison is still crap because you are equating custodes tanks with non tanks in your real life comparison. Now let the backpaddeling commence because even you can't defend that position, even with your staggering amounts of intellectual dishonesty.


Tiberias wrote:


Aaaand we're back on the old "custodes being individually better devalues astartes" argument, which I've debunked for you two pages ago. Come up with a better argument at least.
Nobody is saying custodes are the only ones getting to be "super" (whatever the hell that exactly means) and them being individually better than astartes does not devalue the marines and I've given you a couple examples why that is, which you all ignored.


You haven't debunked gak. There are Custodes players in this thread who are salty about Astartes getting 2w; they said as much.


I did, with multiple examples. Please read my posts and then refer back to me.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:28:08


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
Even the custodes venerable land raider has a worse armor save against most things.


Shrug. It's not like land raiders from any other color of marines are getting used either.

Also why does a hover tank have to have a worse save?


Because aircraft have to worry a lot more about weight limits and armor is heavy. The fact that a gold marine grav tank can still fly while carrying enough armor for even close to a LRBT's level of durability is a miracle of superior technology.

First of all I like how douchebaggy you are about them being gold marines, when they are not both in lore and tabletop, but go ahead.


They're gold marines. They're power armored soldiers with bolters, terminators, land raiders, etc.

I've even given examples how GW could have differentiated them a bit more from marines in 9th, which would have constituted rather small changes accompanied by a points increase across the board, but you only care about painting custodes players as wanting an unkillable op army.


I don't need to paint anything. You do it yourself by complaining that a LRBT, a tank whose primary attribute is "really durable" is in fact more durable than your gold marine tanks. It's very clear that your issue is not balance, it's that you don't get to be the best at everything.

So because dark eldar lost a lot of hq options for example custodes can lose obsec on infantry because GW has done the same thing to other codices?


Yep. Every other faction has to deal with having their rules change, you can cope with it too. Or do Tau need stacking markerlights back? Guard need platoons back? Etc.

Also demonstrate why it was bad design and needed to go?


Because obsec is supposed to be a choice between taking your basic troops and your fancy toys. If you take too many characters, tanks, etc, you lose on primary VP. Giving obsec everywhere negates that choice and removes all reason to take troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.


Fine, let's do a better one. The LRBT is a T-34, the gold marine "tank" is a helicopter gunship. Is a modern production AH-64 armed with radar homing anti-tank missiles that it can fire from behind a hill a vastly more advanced and lethal unit? Sure. But which one would you rather be sitting inside if someone opens fire on you with a 20mm cannon?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:40:17


Post by: ihockert


Obsec terminators =/= the entire codex is obsec. And even Necrons have to spend their faction trait to get it. Sorry if you don't like having to play by the same rules as everyone else but having your whole army be obsec for free and never having to use your basic troops is terrible design.


Even at the time where Custodes was one of the broken factions, Custodes players mostly took battalions which still required three troop choices. With the Nephilim rules, they'll still take a battalion because they will want the CP to spend on relics/WL Traits/Eternal Penitent. The idea that Custodes players never used their troop choice is bunk. Those other infantry units having obsec made them useful. Why would anyone take a Warden for 50pts when I can take a Custodian Guard for the same or lower price when the guard has Obsec and the Warden has a minor increase in offense and survivability? They won't. For 5 more points than a Warden squad, you can take a Venerable Contemptor with a Multi-Melta. For the same points you can take a unit of Saggitarum or a unit of Shield Guard, both of which have obsec. If Wardens still had obsec, I'm still not sure whether I would take them over the Dread/Shield Guard/Saggitarum, but I would at least consider it.

When it comes to units pretty much everything comes down to points and those points have to make sense in a lot of ways. If Wardens were cheaper, could they be a good option even without Obsec? Sure, but it would be weird if an elite Custodian unit was the same points or less than basic Custodian Guard.

As far as design-wise what the big difference between Custodes and Marines should be is that Custodes are warriors, while Marines are soldiers. Custodes should be a faction that should be extremely limited in terms of buffs (Which they already are to a great extent) but they have really good stats and good, relatively versatile wargear. Marines on the other hand would have far more specialization in terms of unit choices and the ability to buff their units through Chaplains/Librarians/Stratagems and the like. Also if Custodes have better stats than but are priced appropriately to reflect that, what is the issue?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:53:43


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Even the custodes venerable land raider has a worse armor save against most things.


Shrug. It's not like land raiders from any other color of marines are getting used either.


Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.



Also why does a hover tank have to have a worse save?


Because aircraft have to worry a lot more about weight limits and armor is heavy. The fact that a gold marine grav tank can still fly while carrying enough armor for even close to a LRBT's level of durability is a miracle of superior technology.

First of all I like how douchebaggy you are about them being gold marines, when they are not both in lore and tabletop, but go ahead.


You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.


They're gold marines. They're power armored soldiers with bolters, terminators, land raiders, etc.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.


I've even given examples how GW could have differentiated them a bit more from marines in 9th, which would have constituted rather small changes accompanied by a points increase across the board, but you only care about painting custodes players as wanting an unkillable op army.


I don't need to paint anything. You do it yourself by complaining that a LRBT, a tank whose primary attribute is "really durable" is in fact more durable than your gold marine tanks. It's very clear that your issue is not balance, it's that you don't get to be the best at everything.


So me advocating for increasing the cost across the board and giving Infantry +1wound and attack is wanting them to be best at everything? When I specifically said I don't want custodes to be op or unkillable, just better differentiated from Marines.


So because dark eldar lost a lot of hq options for example custodes can lose obsec on infantry because GW has done the same thing to other codices?


Yep. Every other faction has to deal with having their rules change, you can cope with it too. Or do Tau need stacking markerlights back? Guard need platoons back? Etc.


That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.


Also demonstrate why it was bad design and needed to go?


Because obsec is supposed to be a choice between taking your basic troops and your fancy toys. If you take too many characters, tanks, etc, you lose on primary VP. Giving obsec everywhere negates that choice and removes all reason to take troops.


Says who? Especially for a codex with that limited amounts of Infantry datasheets as custodes.
You also conveniently left out my question when custodes infantry being obsec was every actually a problem? And I know why: because you and Hecaton are trying to pick and choose your battles in this discussion because you know the thrust of your argument is just that you have a hate boner against custodes and lesser so against custodes players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.


Fine, let's do a better one. The LRBT is a T-34, the gold marine "tank" is a helicopter gunship. Is a modern production AH-64 armed with radar homing anti-tank missiles that it can fire from behind a hill a vastly more advanced and lethal unit? Sure. But which one would you rather be sitting inside if someone opens fire on you with a 20mm cannon?



Please just stop, this is starting to become sad. You and Hecaton are desperately trying to find a real life equivalent of a custodes hover tank to concoct an example of how a leman russ has to be tougher. You can't because there is no such thing. You are stuck because you have to acknowledge that auramite in lore is tougher than steel or ceramite. Custodes hover tanks are made auramite plating. You also haven't even touched on how a land Rader made of auramite plating has a worse save other than coming up with the hilariously bad "nobody takes land raiders anyway" argument.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 08:55:11


Post by: CadianSgtBob


ihockert wrote:
The idea that Custodes players never used their troop choice is bunk.


Only using your troops because of mandatory detachment slots is proving my point, thanks.

Why would anyone take a Warden for 50pts when I can take a Custodian Guard for the same or lower price when the guard has Obsec and the Warden has a minor increase in offense and survivability?


Sounds like a great situation to me: you can either have obsec or you can have better stats. If the unit with better stats also had obsec why would you take the basic troops?

As far as design-wise what the big difference between Custodes and Marines should be is that Custodes are warriors, while Marines are soldiers. Custodes should be a faction that should be extremely limited in terms of buffs (Which they already are to a great extent) but they have really good stats and good, relatively versatile wargear. Marines on the other hand would have far more specialization in terms of unit choices and the ability to buff their units through Chaplains/Librarians/Stratagems and the like.


"My army should have all of the buffs built into the basic unit stats so I don't need to spend points on buff units" is terrible design.

Also if Custodes have better stats than but are priced appropriately to reflect that, what is the issue?


The issue is that it makes them feel like something out of a 14 year old's terrible fanfiction. "MY GOLD MARINES ARE EVEN MORE GOLD THAN YOUR BLUE MARINES SO THEY HAVE BETTER STATS AT EVERYTHIGN LOL".


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:04:07


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:


The issue is that it makes them feel like something out of a 14 year old's terrible fanfiction. "MY GOLD MARINES ARE EVEN MORE GOLD THAN YOUR BLUE MARINES SO THEY HAVE BETTER STATS AT EVERYTHIGN LOL".


I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Edit: this thread is also focusing on vehicles but nobody can really justify as to why a terminator with AoC has a better save than a custodes terminator.
This is why +1wound and attack would have been a good choice because that way it changes efficiency breakpoints in a lot of weapons like dmg2 weapons and dmg3+d3 weapons against custodes terminators. That way marines can keep their AoC, which is a bandaid that they needed, but there is still an appropriate differentiation between custodes terminator and marine terminator


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:05:19


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.


I acknowledge it. I don't care about it. Land raiders of all colors suck so I'm not concerned about whether or not the gold one sucks.

You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.


It is consistent within the setting. It has miraculous armor for a vehicle that has to fly. It just isn't consistent with your headcanon where gold marines are the best at everything because gold marines are the best.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.


Read the lore, fell asleep trying to care about it. They're space marines with gold armor and boring fluff. And the fact that GW somehow managed to make the game's least interesting faction have an even less interesting variant is impressive.

That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.


No, but that's not the point. You complained that they need to keep obsec because they had it in the past, I corrected your argument by pointing out some of the other examples of rules that have changed over time. "I used to have this in a previous codex" is not an argument that GW cares about.

Says who?


Says anyone who understands game design. Obsec is supposed to be given only to relatively simple basic troops to make it a tradeoff between scoring and raw killing power. Giving army-wide obsec removes any need to take more than the bare minimum troops to fill your detachment slots.

You and Hecaton are desperately trying to find a real life equivalent of a custodes hover tank to concoct an example of how a leman russ has to be tougher.


It's hardly desperate, it's what the tank is. It's functionally identical to a helicopter gunship. And because it has god-level tech it has the firepower of a tank and armor almost as good as a tank.

You are stuck because you have to acknowledge that auramite in lore is tougher than steel or ceramite.


Sure. Which is why the gold marine tanks can have near-LRBT levels of armor protection within the weight constraints of a flying vehicle. Gold marine armor is way stronger per ton so even the limited amount the tanks can carry is almost as good as a barely-mobile brick of conventional armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.


Says the guy playing marines +2 (silver marines are marines +1) and complaining that he doesn't get to play marines +3.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:10:22


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.


I acknowledge it. I don't care about it. Land raiders of all colors suck so I'm not concerned about whether or not the gold one sucks.

You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.


It is consistent within the setting. It has miraculous armor for a vehicle that has to fly. It just isn't consistent with your headcanon where gold marines are the best at everything because gold marines are the best.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.


Read the lore, fell asleep trying to care about it. They're space marines with gold armor and boring fluff. And the fact that GW somehow managed to make the game's least interesting faction have an even less interesting variant is impressive.

That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.


No, but that's not the point. You complained that they need to keep obsec because they had it in the past, I corrected your argument by pointing out some of the other examples of rules that have changed over time. "I used to have this in a previous codex" is not an argument that GW cares about.

Says who?


Says anyone who understands game design. Obsec is supposed to be given only to relatively simple basic troops to make it a tradeoff between scoring and raw killing power. Giving army-wide obsec removes any need to take more than the bare minimum troops to fill your detachment slots.

You and Hecaton are desperately trying to find a real life equivalent of a custodes hover tank to concoct an example of how a leman russ has to be tougher.


It's hardly desperate, it's what the tank is. It's functionally identical to a helicopter gunship. And because it has god-level tech it has the firepower of a tank and armor almost as good as a tank.

You are stuck because you have to acknowledge that auramite in lore is tougher than steel or ceramite.


Sure. Which is why the gold marine tanks can have near-LRBT levels of armor protection within the weight constraints of a flying vehicle. Gold marine armor is way stronger per ton so even the limited amount the tanks can carry is almost as good as a barely-mobile brick of conventional armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.


Says the guy playing marines +2 (silver marines are marines +1) and complaining that he doesn't get to play marines +3.


Yeah I mean come on, this response just really hammers home my point as to how you are unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?
Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?

You can't answer those questions aside from saying I want to play an op faction. I mean do realize how ridiculous you come across here?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:13:23


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?


For the same reason that a land raider made out of ceramite has the same durability as a LRBT. You get no sympathy for this argument when every other color of marines has the exact same problem with the unit.

Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?


Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save. But how about this: you can have AoC but in exchange your infantry are all bumped down to W2/W3 like other marines.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:33:10


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?


For the same reason that a land raider made out of ceramite has the same durability as a LRBT. You get no sympathy for this argument when every other color of marines has the exact same problem with the unit.

That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.



Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?


Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save. But how about this: you can have AoC but in exchange your infantry are all bumped down to W2/W3 like other marines.



Great now we're finally getting somewhere. My argument that I've made multiple times now and what was the original message from this thread, is that due to ap and dmg increases across the board on 9th custodes wound counts (which were fine in 8th) don't hold up that well anymore. So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th. This would change efficiency breakpoints for custodes terminators against dmg 2 weapons and dmg 3+d3 weapons and against dmg3 weapons for other infantry.
That's it. I've laid out the argument multiple times and proposed a imo reasonable solution. Now explain to me while how my only argument is that I want to play an op faction?

I have the feeling you really don't like the general concept that custodes are individually more powerful than astartes (on average). Well tough, that's like riding on knights players for wanting to play a powerful big robot. What's wrong with that

Also since you don't even bother reading custodes lore, but still like hating on them let me cue you in how they are different from astartes, and not in a good way. They are passive to a fault with a few exceptions, they are arrogant and view the imperium as lesser which makes them hypocrites because they could have helped improve it the last 10000 years. They are individually almost perfect, but are basically slaves to a megalomaniac. They have the cognitive abilities to disagree with the emperor (in 30k for example), but can never actually act against him. That is what makes them interesting.....but all Custodes players just want an op faction....


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:35:22


Post by: Hecaton


Also, let's keep in mind that Armor of Contempt is not a fluffy rule; it's purely a game-balance patch for tournaments, and it *only* applies in Matched Play. In Narrative Play it does not.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:40:27


Post by: ihockert


A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do. I guess this means my Wardens should have 5 wounds as they are 50 points to represent their durability,
Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save
right?

Custodes have been totally shortchanged on wounds per model this entire time.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:44:53


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.


It doesn't need to make sense to you, it's simple reality. Land raiders suck. They've sucked for multiple editions. They will almost certainly continue to suck because they have an incoherent design concept that doesn't fill any desirable role. GW has clearly abandoned the unit and has no interest in making it work so there is no point in arguing about the precise ways in which one particular color of land raider sucks. Or do we need to spend time arguing about why a destroyer tank hunter has only a 3+ save despite being built on the same hull as a LRBT?

(Hint: it has a 3+ save because it's a legends unit that GW never bothered to update, it has nothing to do with fluff.)

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.


"I need +1 attack to demonstrate their toughness."

No.

Now explain to me while how my only argument is that I want to play an op faction?


Because your faction is currently sitting at a nice balanced ~50% win rate and does not need buffs.

Also since you don't even bother reading custodes lore, but still like hating on them let me cue you in how they are different from astartes, and not in a good way. They are passive to a fault with a few exceptions, they are arrogant and view the imperium as lesser which makes them hypocrites because they could have helped improve it the last 10000 years. They are individually almost perfect, but are basically slaves to a megalomaniac. They have the cognitive abilities to disagree with the emperor (in 30k for example), but can never actually act against him. That is what makes them interesting.....but all Custodes players just want an op faction....


Yawn. And despite this "interesting" fluff the codex is just over and over again "look how much better they are than everyone else" marines +1 nonsense. And their personality flaws have nothing to do with their tabletop stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ihockert wrote:
A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do.


Wounds per point =/= wounds. Gold marines have more wounds to demonstrate their raw durability, how efficient they are is irrelevant from a fluff point of view because points do not exist in the fluff.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:52:04


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.


It doesn't need to make sense to you, it's simple reality. Land raiders suck. They've sucked for multiple editions. They will almost certainly continue to suck because they have an incoherent design concept that doesn't fill any desirable role. GW has clearly abandoned the unit and has no interest in making it work so there is no point in arguing about the precise ways in which one particular color of land raider sucks. Or do we need to spend time arguing about why a destroyer tank hunter has only a 3+ save despite being built on the same hull as a LRBT?

(Hint: it has a 3+ save because it's a legends unit that GW never bothered to update, it has nothing to do with fluff.)

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.


"I need +1 attack to demonstrate their toughness."

No.

Now explain to me while how my only argument is that I want to play an op faction?


Because your faction is currently sitting at a nice balanced ~50% win rate and does not need buffs.

Also since you don't even bother reading custodes lore, but still like hating on them let me cue you in how they are different from astartes, and not in a good way. They are passive to a fault with a few exceptions, they are arrogant and view the imperium as lesser which makes them hypocrites because they could have helped improve it the last 10000 years. They are individually almost perfect, but are basically slaves to a megalomaniac. They have the cognitive abilities to disagree with the emperor (in 30k for example), but can never actually act against him. That is what makes them interesting.....but all Custodes players just want an op faction....


Yawn. And despite this "interesting" fluff the codex is just over and over again "look how much better they are than everyone else" marines +1 nonsense. And their personality flaws have nothing to do with their tabletop stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ihockert wrote:
A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do.


Wounds per point =/= wounds. Gold marines have more wounds to demonstrate their raw durability, how efficient they are is irrelevant from a fluff point of view because points do not exist in the fluff.


Cmon I really tried to engage you in good faith. You pick and chose what you respond to, to further your argument without engaging with the actual points raised. You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:53:18


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.


Look in the mirror someday.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that you don't get a point-by-point response to every single word you posted but the reality is you play a faction with a nice balanced ~50% win rate and do not need any buffs.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 09:55:00


Post by: Thairne


That's why I stopped chiming in and said there's literally no value to the discussion anymore.
Noone is gonna change its mind about this topic,neither the custodes players nor, especially, the custodes haters. They've made that point clear from the first post when it was said that the army shouldn't exist in the first place.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 10:02:20


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.


Look in the mirror someday.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that you don't get a point-by-point response to every single word you posted but the reality is you play a faction with a nice balanced ~50% win rate and do not need any buffs.


That's not the point you dingleberry. I also always said that a change in stats has to be accompanied by an appropriate points increase, so don't throw winrates in my face when those are prepped up by a single build that doesn't even use any of the units we are talking about (namely dreads and bikes, with sagittarum being a slight exception).

You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?

You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument? And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag? I mean can you get even more intellectually dishonest?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 10:04:19


Post by: Pyroalchi


Picking up a point from somewhat earlier in the discussion: someone (sorry, I don't remember who) mentioned that after the last changes Custodes only have one build that keeps up their winrate above 50%.

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?


Edit: apart from that: nobody is helped by calling other ones douchbag... And it surely doesn't help in getting taken seriously


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 10:06:32


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Also, let's keep in mind that Armor of Contempt is not a fluffy rule; it's purely a game-balance patch for tournaments, and it *only* applies in Matched Play. In Narrative Play it does not.


That's just my personal opinion, but I think it fits both astartes and sisters quite well from a lore standpoint. With them being fanatical, psycho indoctrinated supersoldiers. Which is also why I don't think custodes should get it...not only from a balance standpoint, but because it doesn't really fit them. They are not armed with contempt, most of them are too passive for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
Picking up a point from somewhat earlier in the discussion: someone (sorry, I don't remember who) mentioned that after the last changes Custodes only have one build that keeps up their winrate above 50%.

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?


Edit: apart from that: nobody is helped by calling other ones douchbag... And it surely doesn't help in getting taken seriously


I will concede the point about calling others out, but my patience only can take so much when getting bombarded by demonstrably false claims or logically incoherent arguments and comparisons.

Edit: just to make this aspect clear aswell. If Hecaton and CadianSgtBob just simply said they personally don't like custodes and/or custodes players and think that they should be in no way differnt from marines or should not exist at all because they just can't stand them....fine. I can totally respect that position, but rationalizing that position with fallacious arguments, whataboutisms and really bad comparisons just won't fly with me.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 13:57:54


Post by: artific3r


 Pyroalchi wrote:

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?


It is impossible to say. Competitive stats simply tell us that Custodes went from high build diversity to dreads/bikes/Caladius essentially overnight. These remaining mechstodes builds don’t win events either by the way — you’ll see them occasionally in top 10s but that’s as far as it goes. Power-wise I think mechstodes is in a fine place. It’s just obviously no fun to have Forgeworld vehicle spam be the only functional build.

Tiberias, you are not going to have a productive discussion with people who don’t play Custodes, dislike the entire concept of Custodes, and are here solely to see them fail. Their goal isn’t to change your mind. Their goal is to waste your time. It’s the internet equivalent of blocking your path and going, “nuh-uh!” to whatever you’re trying to do. Make use of the wonderful features of this forum and save your energy for those who are willing to engage in good faith.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 14:18:22


Post by: SemperMortis


Sumilidon wrote:
You are correct. The question GW asks itself is this:

"If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed. Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/06/gw-actually-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-the-40k-balance-dataslate.html


I mean, that just isn't really a valid point. GW just revamped a huge swathe of the ork model line. They upped the price of boyz ($$$) significantly...but then wrote such god awful rules for them for the better part of a year that nobody buys them. BTW you need 10 boxes of boyz to make 1 full squad of shootas (9 if you use big shootas/rokkitz) or if you go slugga/choppa boyz and use special weapons you can get buy with a mere...6 boxes of boyz to make 1 full mob. That works out to $228 per mob of boyz for choppas and $342 for 1 of shootas.

GW follows only 1 single trend in all its long history, and that is making ZERO sense when it comes to business decisions. GW finally gave orkz new plastic Kommando models, I immediately bought 3 boxes because they are beautiful and I had refused to buy the old crappy ones that didn't look nearly as good. But right before GW released the new models what did they do? nerfed Kommandos You would think they would at least wait like a month or two after releasing a new kit before hitting a unit with a hefty points increase, especially when it wasn't game breaking or dominating the meta.

So to summarize, to say that GW is nerfing custards because they don't sell as well as other armies...that just isn't true and its provably not true since GW never does anything on purpose to drive sales


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 17:28:47


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:

That's just my personal opinion, but I think it fits both astartes and sisters quite well from a lore standpoint. With them being fanatical, psycho indoctrinated supersoldiers. Which is also why I don't think custodes should get it...not only from a balance standpoint, but because it doesn't really fit them. They are not armed with contempt, most of them are too passive for that.


I don't. It puts thel far out of wack with units they should be as durable as (like Necron Warriors).


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 18:14:04


Post by: Pyroalchi


[never mind, read something completely wrong]


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 19:14:06


Post by: Salt donkey


SemperMortis wrote:
Sumilidon wrote:
You are correct. The question GW asks itself is this:

"If we make the cheapest army also one of the best, are we failing the shareholders?"

As such, the armies that are the most expensive or for which the stock has been sitting on the shelves for a long time, need to be buffed. Spikeybits did a great piece recently about the balance datasheet, showing clear evidence that GW purposefully unbalanced the game to sell more product.

https://spikeybits.com/2022/06/gw-actually-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-the-40k-balance-dataslate.html


I mean, that just isn't really a valid point. GW just revamped a huge swathe of the ork model line. They upped the price of boyz ($$$) significantly...but then wrote such god awful rules for them for the better part of a year that nobody buys them. BTW you need 10 boxes of boyz to make 1 full squad of shootas (9 if you use big shootas/rokkitz) or if you go slugga/choppa boyz and use special weapons you can get buy with a mere...6 boxes of boyz to make 1 full mob. That works out to $228 per mob of boyz for choppas and $342 for 1 of shootas.

GW follows only 1 single trend in all its long history, and that is making ZERO sense when it comes to business decisions. GW finally gave orkz new plastic Kommando models, I immediately bought 3 boxes because they are beautiful and I had refused to buy the old crappy ones that didn't look nearly as good. But right before GW released the new models what did they do? nerfed Kommandos You would think they would at least wait like a month or two after releasing a new kit before hitting a unit with a hefty points increase, especially when it wasn't game breaking or dominating the meta.

So to summarize, to say that GW is nerfing custards because they don't sell as well as other armies...that just isn't true and its provably not true since GW never does anything on purpose to drive sales


A company doesn’t accidentally make record profit year over year. Yes that is changing now, but everybody is getting hit due to our current economic situation. Why is this happening if GW has no business sense when writing rules?

The truth is they do, you’re just naive to notice it. If they simply gave every new model/codex OP rules, anyone with half a brain would notice it. That would lead to mass player exudes and dwindling profits. The key is GW wants trick people into thinking they care about balance. It’s much better for GW if people think they are simply failing in keeping the game balanced. After all, it’s possible to improve your game design ability. However, if you are just simply making bad balance for profits, we all know that’s never going to change

Additionally, when you (GW) lead with OP rules for new models, you are limiting their major short term real sales window to their release month. This is bad when you don’t have enough stock of said product to fulfill demand, as You won’t be able to use future rules buff to sell more anytime soon.

So in your orks example it’s likely that A) GW may have had less new ork product in stock due to supply shortages and B) knew people would buy new orks anyway, as you yourself did.

In fact it’s weird to me that you are making this argument that GW has no business sense, while also admitting to spending a hefty amount on their product. Do you think you’re some sort of special snowflake for buying models just for their appearance? Ork players by in large have been doing this for decades.

But don’t worry, I’m sure ork boyz/kommandos will be getting major buffs by the time 10th Ed (or sooner) rolls around. After all at this point GW will have more stock of them and will be able to sell them again while claiming to bring balance.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 19:37:45


Post by: Hecaton


Nah, the issue with Orks is there's no Ork fanboys on the design team.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 19:57:36


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?


It is relevant because you keep failing to understand why the land raider is weaker than the LRBT. GW isn't making a fluff argument that it should have worse stats, they simply don't care enough to update the datasheet. So all of your arguments about how a coat of gold spray paint makes it 100000000% more durable in the fluff are completely irrelevant. The only difference between the land raider and the destroyer is that one of these abandoned units is technically still in the codex while the other is explicitly put into the "we don't care" document.

You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument?


I ignored it because I was highlighting your dishonesty in saying "gold marines need to be more durable, therefore also give them +1 attack".

And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag?


That's exactly what I'm telling you to do, and the fact that you keep saying things like this is only proving my point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 20:58:27


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?


It is relevant because you keep failing to understand why the land raider is weaker than the LRBT. GW isn't making a fluff argument that it should have worse stats, they simply don't care enough to update the datasheet. So all of your arguments about how a coat of gold spray paint makes it 100000000% more durable in the fluff are completely irrelevant. The only difference between the land raider and the destroyer is that one of these abandoned units is technically still in the codex while the other is explicitly put into the "we don't care" document.


Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.


You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument?


I ignored it because I was highlighting your dishonesty in saying "gold marines need to be more durable, therefore also give them +1 attack".


We could have had a conversation on whether +1 attack was appropriate alongside a cost increase , but that was only half of my proposition and the less important half for this particular discussion, which is why you chose to ignore it. Not really arguing in good faith here, are we?


And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag?


That's exactly what I'm telling you to do, and the fact that you keep saying things like this is only proving my point.



Considering the way you've framed your arguments across the last five pages, it really doesn't.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 21:33:26


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.


I haven't come up with that argument because I've never attempted to argue that it should have a worse save. I've just pointed out that the land raider, regardless of color, is an abandoned unit and it doesn't matter what stats it has. GW is not making or listening to fluff arguments on the subject.

But answer this: why does the land raider matter so much to you? Would giving gold land raiders AoC make them a viable choice? No. Would giving them AoC and a second copy of AoC and a third copy of AoC so they have a -1+ save make them a viable choice? No. You'd still have a unit with no coherent purpose that nobody takes. So why do you keep bringing it up?

We could have had a conversation on whether +1 attack was appropriate alongside a cost increase , but that was only half of my proposition and the less important half for this particular discussion, which is why you chose to ignore it. Not really arguing in good faith here, are we?


Not really arguing in good faith, says the person who tried to dishonestly slip a +1 attack buff into an argument about durability.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 22:00:32


Post by: Thairne


I think the Land Raider is being used for one simple reason - both armies have access to it.
Its not relevant if its a used unit, shelved or totally broken.
The threat went from LRBT over Valkyres to LRs and Telemons to Calladius...
Factually the Custodes LR is worse than the marine LR, which is the core issue - Custodes feel weaker than marines.
That's why he's bringing it up. And now you're deflecting again as to why one should care about the LR at all.
That is not relevant to the discussion or topic at hand, which is what Tiberius has critizised you multiple times for already. That's where the bad faith also stems from.

"slip in" is a bit of a weird accusation though, no?
What Tiberius (and almost all Custodes players that didnt pick the army because it was FOTM) wants is more wounds and more attacks with a corresponding price increase. He made that pretty clear.
Why? Because Custodes got designcrept by marines.
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/03 23:21:55


Post by: Salt donkey


@ Tiberius and @Thairne not sure why you 2 are arguing with trolls over whether or not custodes should exist. The army sells well so custodes aren’t going anywhere. Therefore there’s no point of arguing with people who are going to say dumb nonsense in order to prove a dead ideal.

As far as your argument over why the army should be more elite, welll… Custodes already sold well when they were OP. Therefore. GW’s only interests lies in making sure the army isn’t too broken and that it’s best options are expensive/hard to get forgeworld units. They couldn’t care less whether are not the army feels like it should based on the fluff. It’ a product already sold , so they’ll only buff things once they want the sales to continue. It also goes without saying that more expensive/better units is directly against GW’s interest, since fewer units in a list mean fewer product sold for GW.

In conclusion you’re arguing for something that’s never going to happen. In other news I think it would be great if everyone had enough to eat and people didn’t screw others over for their own profit,


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 00:44:32


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 Thairne wrote:
Its not relevant if its a used unit, shelved or totally broken.


It's absolutely relevant how used or abandoned it is. You can't make a fluff argument about how gold armor needs to be stronger than any other color and then use an abandoned unit as your example. Gold land raiders aren't less durable because GW is making a fluff point about each army's durability, they're less durable because GW doesn't care about keeping that datasheet updated.

"slip in" is a bit of a weird accusation though, no?


Not really. Read the sentence that quote is from, it's a dishonest attempt to argue about durability and then slip in an extra attack buff without any justification.

They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.


Sorry, but no. They were always gold marines and a boring as hell faction. You're just salty that they're marines +1 instead of marines +10 like in your fanfiction.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 01:56:27


Post by: SemperMortis


Salt donkey wrote:

A company doesn’t accidentally make record profit year over year. Yes that is changing now, but everybody is getting hit due to our current economic situation. Why is this happening if GW has no business sense when writing rules?

The truth is they do, you’re just naive to notice it. If they simply gave every new model/codex OP rules, anyone with half a brain would notice it. That would lead to mass player exudes and dwindling profits. The key is GW wants trick people into thinking they care about balance. It’s much better for GW if people think they are simply failing in keeping the game balanced. After all, it’s possible to improve your game design ability. However, if you are just simply making bad balance for profits, we all know that’s never going to change

Additionally, when you (GW) lead with OP rules for new models, you are limiting their major short term real sales window to their release month. This is bad when you don’t have enough stock of said product to fulfill demand, as You won’t be able to use future rules buff to sell more anytime soon.

So in your orks example it’s likely that A) GW may have had less new ork product in stock due to supply shortages and B) knew people would buy new orks anyway, as you yourself did.

In fact it’s weird to me that you are making this argument that GW has no business sense, while also admitting to spending a hefty amount on their product. Do you think you’re some sort of special snowflake for buying models just for their appearance? Ork players by in large have been doing this for decades.

But don’t worry, I’m sure ork boyz/kommandos will be getting major buffs by the time 10th Ed (or sooner) rolls around. After all at this point GW will have more stock of them and will be able to sell them again while claiming to bring balance.


First things first, way to take the point being made and turn it into something completely different Kudos on that level of effort in misdirection.

Secondly, yes, GW has recorded good profits year after year inspite of itself rather than because of itself. They are "First in best dressed". A host of other games exist with better models or better rules and in some cases both. The difference is that they are the oldest and as such have the biggest fan base. Go to an average game store and try to find a game, easy enough, now do that with almost any other table top game. If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games. And if you still think they are business geniuses i'll politely disagree.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 02:05:45


Post by: CadianSgtBob


SemperMortis wrote:
If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games.


Sorry, but no. GW issued C&D letters to people who let their greed get in the way of common sense and tried to monetize their illegal derivative works. That's basic IP law and something that virtually every IP owner is going to do. Every content creator knows the basic rule of making fan works is that as soon as you try to make money from it you're going to get shut down.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 05:00:57


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:
Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.


He already has. It was part of a balance patch. It's entirely right to direct it at GW because *GW MADE THE DECISION.*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thairne wrote:
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.


No, they kinda always were golden marines. You'll notice they tried the whole "they have the Emperor's gene-seed" that used to be a thing for the Grey Knights in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianSgtBob wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games.


Sorry, but no. GW issued C&D letters to people who let their greed get in the way of common sense and tried to monetize their illegal derivative works. That's basic IP law and something that virtually every IP owner is going to do. Every content creator knows the basic rule of making fan works is that as soon as you try to make money from it you're going to get shut down.


That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 05:30:34


Post by: Salt donkey


SemperMortis wrote:


First things first, way to take the point being made and turn it into something completely different Kudos on that level of effort in misdirection.

Secondly, yes, GW has recorded good profits year after year inspite of itself rather than because of itself. They are "First in best dressed". A host of other games exist with better models or better rules and in some cases both. The difference is that they are the oldest and as such have the biggest fan base. Go to an average game store and try to find a game, easy enough, now do that with almost any other table top game. If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games. And if you still think they are business geniuses i'll politely disagree.


If you are claiming that I used strawman please point out where/how I twisted your words.

Now as far as addressing your arguments I see 2 points in your post. By all means please respond if you think I’m putting words in your mouth here.

1) GW is successful because it’s the oldest name in tabletop wargames

2) GW going after content creators is a sign of incompetence.

For point 1, I somewhat agree, but have good reason to believe GW would have failed if ran poorly. This reason is they where heading in that direction during 7th edition. During this time their profits stagnated and Tom Kirby the CEO was demoted to being a chief shareholder. You could see this at a ground level as well with tons of players defecting to games like warmachine/hordes and X-wing. Even with newer models in the form of knights, Ad-mech, GSC, and Tsons didn’t completely increase profits. It wasn’t until GW released 8th and started rapid rules updates that they started making hand over fist. Oh and Tom Kirby was against putting much effort into the game aspect of warhammer, so them canning him and then focusing a rule updates should tell you something.

For point 2 I think you need to realize that companies need to weigh “free advertising” against the value of their brands. If it was always profitable for people to use your IP then you wouldn’t see movie and music companies go after content creators in the way they do. GW has probably come to the conclusion that companies will pay much less for their licensing deals if they allow free reign on their IPs. I’m not saying this is right but businesses always will weigh what they believe will make them the most profit, and in this case GW clearly believes bringing the hammer will make them money.

Finally I would like to reiterate that GW would rather you believe that their incompetent and not malicious. Your confidence in them is higher now than if they where to come out and say “Yeah we make balancing decisions purely to make you buy the most models possible.”


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 06:42:36


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.


I haven't come up with that argument because I've never attempted to argue that it should have a worse save. I've just pointed out that the land raider, regardless of color, is an abandoned unit and it doesn't matter what stats it has. GW is not making or listening to fluff arguments on the subject.

But answer this: why does the land raider matter so much to you? Would giving gold land raiders AoC make them a viable choice? No. Would giving them AoC and a second copy of AoC and a third copy of AoC so they have a -1+ save make them a viable choice? No. You'd still have a unit with no coherent purpose that nobody takes. So why do you keep bringing it up?


It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.


We could have had a conversation on whether +1 attack was appropriate alongside a cost increase , but that was only half of my proposition and the less important half for this particular discussion, which is why you chose to ignore it. Not really arguing in good faith here, are we?


Not really arguing in good faith, says the person who tried to dishonestly slip a +1 attack buff into an argument about durability.



Really?! I mean, really? I literally said that the +1 attack was just half of my proposition and that we could have a conversation about that, but this discussion was about durability which is why the other half of my proposition (namely +1 wound on infantry with an appropriate points increase) is the important one right now. And now you dismiss my argument entirely because you don't like the half of it that is not that relevant for this specific discussion? And you have the gall calling me dishonest for it?

I mean even a child can see that you are completely out of your depth here and that you are reaching for any straw so that you can keep your face in this discussion. Well, I can tell you that you have failed to do so, miserably.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 06:45:40


Post by: Dai


I think GW barely look at rules when it comes to sales. They believe that models largely sell themselves and they are probably right when you look at comments and reactions outside of more competitive centred echo chambers.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 06:45:40


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thairne wrote:
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.


No, they kinda always were golden marines. You'll notice they tried the whole "they have the Emperor's gene-seed" that used to be a thing for the Grey Knights in 8th.


I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 07:22:42


Post by: Pyroalchi


Just out of interest:


Assuming that the Grav-Tank fills the same "tank" role as the Leman Russ and is made of sturdier material etc. I completely understand that on this basis it should be sturdier on a model by model basis. I would be interested though how much sturdier it would have to be in the opinion of the Custodes players in the sense of the first post, so that Custodes "feel right"?
Are we talking twice the amount of firepower to bring one down? 3 times?

And in parallel the proposition mentioned for the infantry (more wounds, more points), if the rules would reflect lets say a Grav tank soaking up twice the damage a Leman Russ can take, would you agree on increasing its points cost to being 2x that of a Leman Russ (or whatever is necessary to make it similarly resilient on a points by points basis)?
Of course some adjustment might be necessary to reflect the better weapons and BS+ of the Custodes tank, but the general spirit of the question should be clear.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 07:39:52


Post by: Gabe Lincoln


Hecaton wrote:Nah, the issue with Orks is there's no Ork fanboys on the design team.


Which is weird because there's so many people out there that are Ork fans to one extent or another. Like, you pick 10 people out of a room of 40k players and at least 8/10 are gonna like Orks. Maybe not love, or even like enough to buy models of, but like Orks enough to want them to be a cool tabletop faction definitely.

Hecaton wrote:
That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.


I think TTS sits in a grey area in terms of being a transformative work. Like most fan works do. But I will also point out that the TTS crew didn't actually receive any sort of C&D as far as I'm aware.

On the topic at hand, there's only so much Spacier you can make Space Marines without making them immensely frustrating to fight and play and almost impossible to balance. There's only so much you can do to make an army more elite. 40k only has so much design space after all. There's only so many things you can do with the game's ruleset before you run into problems. Especially considering that they want all armies to be playable in 500 point games.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 07:44:06


Post by: Hecaton


Tiberias wrote:
I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?


I'm quite knowledgeable about Custodes, I'm just providing a blunt summary of the idea.

No, sorry, Custodes are golden marines, and unfortunately the setting doesn't go into enough detail often enough to differentiate them. And I think if they *did*, it would bother Custodes players, because flaws are part of what makes factions interesting, and they don't want a faction with flaws.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 08:11:53


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Hecaton wrote:
That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.


No, it's straightforward IP law. Illegal derivative works are not permitted without a license from the IP holder. You can't make a space marine fan film just because you really want one, and if you're dumb enough to try to monetize it and force GW to notice you're going to get shut down.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.


TTS did not get a C&D letter, even the creator admits this.

(He did try to blame fear of GW, but given the lack of recent updates and comments about personal life obligations it was pretty clear that he just wanted to take a break from it and "GW will shut me down" was an easy way to deflect blame from the entitled fans who would have thrown a rage fit over not getting more content.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.


Your argument fails because pointing out that the land raider is less tough means nothing. It isn't tough because GW made a fluff argument that it should be weaker, it's less tough because the land raider is an abandoned unit that GW isn't bothering to update. You can't dig up units with obsolete rules and try to draw conclusions about the modern game from them.

Really?! I mean, really? I literally said that the +1 attack was just half of my proposition and that we could have a conversation about that, but this discussion was about durability which is why the other half of my proposition (namely +1 wound on infantry with an appropriate points increase) is the important one right now. And now you dismiss my argument entirely because you don't like the half of it that is not that relevant for this specific discussion? And you have the gall calling me dishonest for it?


I call you dishonest because you are dishonest. Read your own words:

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.

Justification: "marines got AoC".

Justification: "to hammer home their toughness".

Proposal: "give them +1 attack".

Sorry, but +1 attack has nothing to do with the things you try to claim as justification for your proposal.

I mean even a child can see that you are completely out of your depth here and that you are reaching for any straw so that you can keep your face in this discussion. Well, I can tell you that you have failed to do so, miserably.


Even a child can see that you think insults are a substitute for a valid argument. Please stop doing this.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 09:00:21


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.


Your argument fails because pointing out that the land raider is less tough means nothing. It isn't tough because GW made a fluff argument that it should be weaker, it's less tough because the land raider is an abandoned unit that GW isn't bothering to update. You can't dig up units with obsolete rules and try to draw conclusions about the modern game from them.


I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.


Really?! I mean, really? I literally said that the +1 attack was just half of my proposition and that we could have a conversation about that, but this discussion was about durability which is why the other half of my proposition (namely +1 wound on infantry with an appropriate points increase) is the important one right now. And now you dismiss my argument entirely because you don't like the half of it that is not that relevant for this specific discussion? And you have the gall calling me dishonest for it?


I call you dishonest because you are dishonest. Read your own words:

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.

Justification: "marines got AoC".

Justification: "to hammer home their toughness".

Proposal: "give them +1 attack".

Sorry, but +1 attack has nothing to do with the things you try to claim as justification for your proposal.


This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against. I've even made relevant parts bold so maybe you can understand this time and people can see who the one arguing in bad faith is here.
Also accusing me of slipping anything into the argument is another dishonest tactic because my proposition has been the same since the start, I've made this exact proposal in other threads aswell and it has always stayed the same.
Edit: But to spell it out for you because you seem to have trouble with this: the +1 Attack half of the proposition is meant to further distinguish them from marines and has obviously(!) nothing to do with durability
You are not doing yourself any favors here.


I mean even a child can see that you are completely out of your depth here and that you are reaching for any straw so that you can keep your face in this discussion. Well, I can tell you that you have failed to do so, miserably.


Even a child can see that you think insults are a substitute for a valid argument. Please stop doing this.



Not an insult when it's just an observation on how you conduct your arguments, using staggering amounts of intellectual dishonesty, especially when you are obviously losing.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 09:07:17


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Tiberias wrote:
I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.


Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back. The datasheet is technically still in the codex but it's very obvious that GW doesn't care about giving them functioning rules. So no, the fact that this abandoned joke of a unit doesn't have the durability the fluff says it should have is not relevant.

This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against.


I left out the honest half of your proposal because the specific quote you keep complaining about was about the dishonest half. The fact that I object to your dishonesty does not mean I'm obligated to comment on every single piece of everything you have ever said.

And I absolutely have an argument about your toughness buff. Your codex has an adequate win rate, the fact that you're only marines +1 instead of marines +10 doesn't mean you need more buffs. Sorry, but 40k is not obligated to follow your personal headcanon about how cool gold marines are.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 09:28:40


Post by: Thairne


 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just out of interest:


Assuming that the Grav-Tank fills the same "tank" role as the Leman Russ and is made of sturdier material etc. I completely understand that on this basis it should be sturdier on a model by model basis. I would be interested though how much sturdier it would have to be in the opinion of the Custodes players in the sense of the first post, so that Custodes "feel right"?
Are we talking twice the amount of firepower to bring one down? 3 times?

And in parallel the proposition mentioned for the infantry (more wounds, more points), if the rules would reflect lets say a Grav tank soaking up twice the damage a Leman Russ can take, would you agree on increasing its points cost to being 2x that of a Leman Russ (or whatever is necessary to make it similarly resilient on a points by points basis)?
Of course some adjustment might be necessary to reflect the better weapons and BS+ of the Custodes tank, but the general spirit of the question should be clear.


Well it would help if the Calladius e.g. would get a base save comparable to the russ.
Currently it is effectively a 3+ vs a 1+ save and thats a HUGE difference as was already established up until AP-5.
So "just" upping the save of the Calladius to be at least equal to the Russ would be a good start. While the Calladius is then not tougher per se since it is only T7, it has way more mobility which would set it apart from the Russ in quality.

Soaking twice the amount of wounds would not warrant a doubling in price, since the firepower provided would be pitiful for the points. If you "double everything", doubling the points would probably be adequate for the "feel" of the model. But then you run into the issue of not being able to play the game anymore since you lack critical board control due to a lack of models.
So this level of improvement is unfeasible in game terms and also a bit much even for a custodes tank in the lore. The correct percentage is hard to determine - probably along the lines of 25-30%? A hypothetical Custodes MBT should then cost around... whats it? 250 base loadout with a 1+ save, T8 and 14-16W and appropriate gun. Sounds ridiculous, but that is basically what russes are right now if you "custodes" it.
But yes, I think most custodes players (I certainly) would accept an increase in points to get an increase in power - which in a perfect world would maintain the WR% but increase the "custodesness" of custodes.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 09:30:53


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.


Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back. The datasheet is technically still in the codex but it's very obvious that GW doesn't care about giving them functioning rules. So no, the fact that this abandoned joke of a unit doesn't have the durability the fluff says it should have is not relevant.

Still a non argument in the context of this discussion like it was two pages ago.


This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against.


I left out the honest half of your proposal because the specific quote you keep complaining about was about the dishonest half. The fact that I object to your dishonesty does not mean I'm obligated to comment on every single piece of everything you have ever said.

And I absolutely have an argument about your toughness buff. Your codex has an adequate win rate, the fact that you're only marines +1 instead of marines +10 doesn't mean you need more buffs. Sorry, but 40k is not obligated to follow your personal headcanon about how cool gold marines are.



Oh would you look at that, the front is starting to crack.
We were not talking about winrates in the context of the discussion and you were trying to justify your stance through bad comparisons and misconceptions about the lore, now you are throwing winrates into the ring in a desperate attempt to save face.

Hate to break it to you, but nobody, not a single person was advocating for custodes having to have a higher winrate. Also the winrate you are mentioning is prepped up by a single build that mostly uses dreads and bikes, none of these units were part of the discussion(with saggitarum being a slight exception).

Citing winrates in this context is also a non argument, because the proposition was as follows: +1attAck and wound alongside an APPROPRIATE points increase. Meaning less models on the board, but more powerful ones which was the whole point from the start when Thairne said that custodes infantry in particular should feel a bit more distinct. This a way to achieve that without skewing balance.

But hey, you are apparently not able to engage with this argument in good faith.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 09:47:18


Post by: Dolnikan


About the whole Caladius and Russ comparison there is one thing that I just didn't see noted anywhere. The Caladius might be made out of better materials, but the Russ is a proper brick and the weaker materials could still be used in far greater thickness to create better armour. I mean, aluminum foil isn't strong, but if you make it an inch thick, you're not going to punch through it. Whereas steel is much stronger, but if it's thinner, it can still be weaker. I don't recall anything about armour thicknesses that would make that a huge difference.

One problem that Custodes is only part of is that 40k has a pretty small design space, especially because it is a game about elites (say what you want, but Marines, Eldar, and all those things are pretty elite). We also don't use a large part of the stat range there could be, with infantry stats for things like toughness basically going from 3 to 5 (above that you're at either monsters or vehicles). So that doesn't give much differentiation. Add to that that the basic armour of the most common faction has been put at 3+, which means that there basically is only one 'slot' for better armour, and things end up very, very compressed.

At the same time, you can't really widen the range too much because of the scale of the game. It tries to model both guardsmen and titans in the same ruleset, and that makes things hard. You can't really make the much more expensive monsters (including ultra-elites) much more expensive because otherwise, they stand no chance against hordes because they can't kill nearly enough. At the same time, you don't want to give them huge piles of attacks because that in turn makes combat between elites incredibly silly.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 10:44:12


Post by: Thairne


 Dolnikan wrote:
About the whole Caladius and Russ comparison there is one thing that I just didn't see noted anywhere. The Caladius might be made out of better materials, but the Russ is a proper brick and the weaker materials could still be used in far greater thickness to create better armour. I mean, aluminum foil isn't strong, but if you make it an inch thick, you're not going to punch through it. Whereas steel is much stronger, but if it's thinner, it can still be weaker. I don't recall anything about armour thicknesses that would make that a huge difference.

One problem that Custodes is only part of is that 40k has a pretty small design space, especially because it is a game about elites (say what you want, but Marines, Eldar, and all those things are pretty elite). We also don't use a large part of the stat range there could be, with infantry stats for things like toughness basically going from 3 to 5 (above that you're at either monsters or vehicles). So that doesn't give much differentiation. Add to that that the basic armour of the most common faction has been put at 3+, which means that there basically is only one 'slot' for better armour, and things end up very, very compressed.

At the same time, you can't really widen the range too much because of the scale of the game. It tries to model both guardsmen and titans in the same ruleset, and that makes things hard. You can't really make the much more expensive monsters (including ultra-elites) much more expensive because otherwise, they stand no chance against hordes because they can't kill nearly enough. At the same time, you don't want to give them huge piles of attacks because that in turn makes combat between elites incredibly silly.


this is all true and I especially agree with your 2 latter paragraphs. The former was adressed sometime on the previous pages, but it is easy to miss it since the thread has become rather big at this stage.
Thing is though - that design space WAS there, slim as it was. In 7th and most of 8th, it worked out. The entire point of this thread is, though, that things kept creeping up on the design space. Statcreep is a real thing - remember when Marines were T4 1W, Terminators went T4 2W and that was pretty much the epitome of marine infantry stat sans characters?
At that time, a custodes was as today - T5 3W. That is a massive difference as even a Custodian Guard outclassed a marine in TDA by a good margin. Nowadays a Gravis Marine is equal in stats, better armed (and cheaper, although that isnt that relevant for the "feel") than a Custodian and that is the problem. Marines escalated wildly while Custodes stayed the same.
Which begs the question NOW - why have Custodes at all? What is their faction identity? They had it at some point, but not anymore as it was "stolen" by marines. And this is what Custodes players want back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Salt donkey wrote:
@ Tiberius and @Thairne not sure why you 2 are arguing with trolls over whether or not custodes should exist. The army sells well so custodes aren’t going anywhere. Therefore there’s no point of arguing with people who are going to say dumb nonsense in order to prove a dead ideal


TBH I dont anymore. I've moved them to the ignore list and am now trying to engage in civil discussion with the people that make fair arguments, are open minded and willing to shift their POV.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:12:41


Post by: a_typical_hero


As an uninvolved bystander, I have to say the whole thread feels like people talking past each other or wilfully misinterpreting what was said.

OP and a bunch of others lament that rules don't reflect the fluff enough on the tabletop for Custodes to be fun to play. Players are missing the right feeling.

Some want to argue wether Custodes should be a standalone army in the first place. Which has nothing to do with OP's post.

Others want to argue that they are fine because of winrates.
---
With that out of the way... Take away 2 from each stat that Custodes have and make them cost 1p each. I bet the winrate would skyrocket, but that doesn't mean the army is fun to play or fulfills it's own faction fantasy. Away from tournament results, if the internal balance is crap, you won't have fun with it on a casual level, either.

Personally I disliked the mini dexes of GW back in 7th edition. Releasing 2 kits and calling it an army never sat right with me. (Looking at you, Scions! Why split what obviously belonged together?)
Instead of deleting that faction again, though, I would rather see it expanded with more priority. Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Grey Knights (not Scions, they are IG) and Custodes should get enough to call it a full range.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:25:49


Post by: Tiberias


Hecaton wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?


I'm quite knowledgeable about Custodes, I'm just providing a blunt summary of the idea.

No, sorry, Custodes are golden marines, and unfortunately the setting doesn't go into enough detail often enough to differentiate them. And I think if they *did*, it would bother Custodes players, because flaws are part of what makes factions interesting, and they don't want a faction with flaws.


It's really funny how in this very thread I listed the in lore flaws custodes have and how that actually makes them interesting (at least to me), but you just ignore it and CadianSgtBob just handwaves it away as boring. Considering this, please demonstrate how custodes players en large don't want a faction with any flaws.

a_typical_hero wrote:As an uninvolved bystander, I have to say the whole thread feels like people talking past each other or wilfully misinterpreting what was said.

OP and a bunch of others lament that rules don't reflect the fluff enough on the tabletop for Custodes to be fun to play. Players are missing the right feeling.

Some want to argue wether Custodes should be a standalone army in the first place. Which has nothing to do with OP's post.

Others want to argue that they are fine because of winrates.
---
With that out of the way... Take away 2 from each stat that Custodes have and make them cost 1p each. I bet the winrate would skyrocket, but that doesn't mean the army is fun to play or fulfills it's own faction fantasy. Away from tournament results, if the internal balance is crap, you won't have fun with it on a casual level, either.

Personally I disliked the mini dexes of GW back in 7th edition. Releasing 2 kits and calling it an army never sat right with me. (Looking at you, Scions! Why split what obviously belonged together?)
Instead of deleting that faction again, though, I would rather see it expanded with more priority. Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Grey Knights (not Scions, they are IG) and Custodes should get enough to call it a full range.


I understand your sentiment completely and I would agree, but Hecaton and CadianSgtBob went out of their way purposefully misinterpreting, constantly shifting goalposts and arguing in bad faith to win an argument here and I am sure as hell not letting them get away with it.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:33:05


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I'll be honest, I JUST want my bikes to be treated like other bikes, my dreads to get the same treatment as other dreads, and my faction to get a simple and easy under 200pt transport. Right now, there is literally nothing I can use to "transport" my guys around the board without wasting CP, blowing Relic slots, or using a quarter of my list points on a semi-worthless transport. Even our "rhino-like" is over twice the cost of other like models. With the idea of Custodes being hyper mobile and able to be anywhere at any time, we sure have crud in the transport department.

I said back when our 9th codex was still forming, I would be HAPPY to give up a lot to get a little.

I said let's drop the 4++ standard, to a 5++ and give us 3d axes. Let's kick Wardens up to 60ppm and give them something unique.

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles. Hell, I'd love to see them lose their charge rule, and get better spears.

Custodes are a faction that simply does not belong anymore. 9th dropped and made us literal crappier Golden Astartes. We have doctrines now, worthless damage, and "Premium Elite Costs". Then they restricted our Captains to one per list. Which is a silly restriction no one else has.

Right now I'm hoping we get rolled into a sub faction like Agents of the Imperium so we can just forget about us.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:43:49


Post by: Pyroalchi


@ Thairnes response to my question: that sounds sensible to me at least.

I only collect IG and have to say I personally would prefer our normal tanks (except the superheavies) to go back to being 3+ without AoC, but either getting a bit cheaper or getting something else to make them worth taking. In part because I agree that making IG tanks this resilient made the design space for the more elite factions narrower. But that's my opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I do think though that for all their super-eliteness Custodes should struggle with their numbers on the table being rather limited for board control. At least that was my image of Custodes. What is your opinion on that regarding how Custodes should feel?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:44:47


Post by: Tiberias


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'll be honest, I JUST want my bikes to be treated like other bikes, my dreads to get the same treatment as other dreads, and my faction to get a simple and easy under 200pt transport. Right now, there is literally nothing I can use to "transport" my guys around the board without wasting CP, blowing Relic slots, or using a quarter of my list points on a semi-worthless transport. Even our "rhino-like" is over twice the cost of other like models. With the idea of Custodes being hyper mobile and able to be anywhere at any time, we sure have crud in the transport department.

I said back when our 9th codex was still forming, I would be HAPPY to give up a lot to get a little.

I said let's drop the 4++ standard, to a 5++ and give us 3d axes. Let's kick Wardens up to 60ppm and give them something unique.

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles. Hell, I'd love to see them lose their charge rule, and get better spears.

Custodes are a faction that simply does not belong anymore. 9th dropped and made us literal crappier Golden Astartes. We have doctrines now, worthless damage, and "Premium Elite Costs". Then they restricted our Captains to one per list. Which is a silly restriction no one else has.

Right now I'm hoping we get rolled into a sub faction like Agents of the Imperium so we can just forget about us.


Stop with the self loathing Fezzik. Bikes are fine, dreads are fine, general damage output is fine. Infantry needs help regarding internal balance and imo also regarding faction "feel". If custodes get dropped to a 5++ then infantry getting +1 wound is not even a discussion anymore. The game is so lethal that the 4++ keeps custodes afloat.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:45:27


Post by: Ventus


CadianSgtBob wrote:
Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back.


Can confirm, they sucked. The only one that was even marginally impressive was the black templar one because lance weapons didn't slap it down to AV12 so it was genuinely hard to destroy in more matchups.

Most lists deleted them on a budget (anything eldar, anything with melta, anything with a MC etc)


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:52:07


Post by: Tiberias


 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Thairnes response to my question: that sounds sensible to me at least.

I only collect IG and have to say I personally would prefer our normal tanks (except the superheavies) to go back to being 3+ without AoC, but either getting a bit cheaper or getting something else to make them worth taking. In part because I agree that making IG tanks this resilient made the design space for the more elite factions narrower. But that's my opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I do think though that for all their super-eliteness Custodes should struggle with their numbers on the table being rather limited for board control. At least that was my image of Custodes. What is your opinion on that regarding how Custodes should feel?


Definitely would prefer a bit less models, but individually just a bit more powerful. To underpin my proposition with some points: give Custodes infantry +1 Wound and Attack and make them 10-20p more expensive per model (depending on unit). 75-80p per model terminators sound about right for a toughness boost of +1wound in addition to an extra attack. Of course this would have to be playtested, because as has clarified ad nauseam the goal of that exercise is NOT to make custodes more powerful from a faction winrate standpoint.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 13:55:09


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


It's not self loathing. Do you remember the wish listing for our faction pre-codex? Here's a few I remember:

D4 axes and d3 spears
Bike Spears get d4 on the charge
Spear and Axe Bolters go to S5 ap1.
All Infantry get +2 wounds across the board


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 14:01:44


Post by: Tiberias


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's not self loathing. Do you remember the wish listing for our faction pre-codex? Here's a few I remember:

D4 axes and d3 spears
Bike Spears get d4 on the charge
Spear and Axe Bolters go to S5 ap1.
All Infantry get +2 wounds across the board


You don't remember it quite correctly to be honest. The hope was that axes get flat 3dmg, and infantry get +1 wound, +2 wound was never on the table. Regarding interceptor lances the hope was they get flat 3dmg on the charge exclusively.

In hindsight, the flat 3 on axes would have been nice, but wasn't necessary. Because even though -1dmg hurts custodes infantry with their dmg2 weapons, that can be compensated by the dreadnoughts, characters and salvo launchers.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 14:06:15


Post by: addnid


I guess GW should just have redone squats instead of releasing Custodes. Custodes belong to the "unsubstantiated" lore, to the realm of pictures and imagination.
This battle was bound to be lost. GW aint completely stupid, by design Custodes would be the cheapest army, so why incentivise players towards it ?
GW is a company, etc. as was said a thousand times, so making the golden boyz not that elite was obviously a move they were gonna make.
Super elite is for new model ranges, sell sell sell.

It's why flash gitz were so good upon relase. Oh wait...

GW has just no logic, feth what I wrote, and feth me in my mega armoured butt.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 14:12:04


Post by: Thairne


 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Thairnes response to my question: that sounds sensible to me at least.

I only collect IG and have to say I personally would prefer our normal tanks (except the superheavies) to go back to being 3+ without AoC, but either getting a bit cheaper or getting something else to make them worth taking. In part because I agree that making IG tanks this resilient made the design space for the more elite factions narrower. But that's my opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I do think though that for all their super-eliteness Custodes should struggle with their numbers on the table being rather limited for board control. At least that was my image of Custodes. What is your opinion on that regarding how Custodes should feel?


IMO russes should not define themselves via a high armour save.. They are not high quality tanks that deflect all blows, they are machines that... just dont break. You can blow a track off, fix it right up. Hit to the engine? Yeah, thats nice, but instead of crashing, it smoulders and grinds on at half the speed. Took a melta to the front and the driver is vaporized? Tough luck, the commander can kick aside the remains and use a steel rod as a steering wheel. A Custodes tank is tough as nails as well, but via a hard as feth to penetrate shell, but way more complex innards so once a shell goes through, it suffers way more than a russ would.
So instead of having a 1+ save, give russes a change to ignore damage or more wounds to show that they are a metal brick that just keeps rolling. Rugged.

Custodes do feel like that already though in that part. I mean yes, thats exactly what a super elite army is. If I lose a unit of the.. 7-8 units I have, I start to have to think about what unit now is supposed to claim which objective. You have no redundancy. If you lose your guardian squad that sits on the backfield objective to, say, a flying hive tyrant, you suddenly are in the gaks because you dont have the numbers to engage the midfield, press the enemy backline AND defend your own. I have to reroute Trajann to that objective to swat at the tyrant instead of using him to dominate the midfield and provide rerolls there, e.g. Decisions get really tricky really fast, especially late in the game when your ressources dwindle.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 14:14:25


Post by: artific3r


Let's stop engaging the trolls and get back to talking about the current ruleset.

Tiberias wrote:

Bikes are fine, dreads are fine, general damage output is fine. Infantry needs help regarding internal balance and imo also regarding faction "feel". If custodes get dropped to a 5++ then infantry getting +1 wound is not even a discussion anymore. The game is so lethal that the 4++ keeps custodes afloat.


Yup, the issue pretty much is our infantry doesn't do anything. The profiles on terminators, wardens, and custodian guard are nearly identical. Their shooting is all AP1 which does nothing into Armor of Contempt. Their durability is fine. Their combat is pretty good. So role-wise you have like 50% of the datasheets in the book all shuffling forward 6" a turn hoping get within charge range of an enemy unit. A few of these datasheets have extra movement tricks which gave them niche roles before the nerfs -- terminators, wardens, and venatari. But now that obsec is gone from infantry, none of those movement tricks matter -- being able to move around a little differently serves no purpose when A) you don't have the model count to contest objectives and B) you don't have a damage profile that kills anything different from what your basic troops kill. You'd always rather have more basic troops (for obsec), or more varied damage profiles (contemptors, bikes, forgeworld vehicles) to threaten different types of targets.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 17:07:24


Post by: ccs


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles.


Have you considered that that would make it really difficult for anyone not using FW stuff in the anti-tank department?




Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 18:34:03


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles.


Have you considered that that would make it really difficult for anyone not using FW stuff in the anti-tank department?




Have you considered we also have good anti-tank without FW? Also, please stop with the ultra condescending tone. Your snark does your point no credit.

The Dreads, Terminators, Trajann, and Captains all do good AT work. As does the new BC in Behemor. The MM on the Plastic dread does good work, and the Wardens with Axes can degrade anything with a normal tank profile very quickly for their cost. Also, not going to lie, but HB do better now than the Melta Missiles, properly setup.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 18:51:18


Post by: Thairne


Thats almost all melee work. While true, you essentially have to DS or footslog up the board... none of which is a particularly good idea if you're looking down the.. uh.. "barrels" of a few manticors or demo cannons.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 18:54:45


Post by: Tiberias


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles.


Have you considered that that would make it really difficult for anyone not using FW stuff in the anti-tank department?




Have you considered we also have good anti-tank without FW? Also, please stop with the ultra condescending tone. Your snark does your point no credit.

The Dreads, Terminators, Trajann, and Captains all do good AT work. As does the new BC in Behemor. The MM on the Plastic dread does good work, and the Wardens with Axes can degrade anything with a normal tank profile very quickly for their cost. Also, not going to lie, but HB do better now than the Melta Missiles, properly setup.


All true Fezzik, but the point was, I believe, regarding ranged anti tank shooting. Which is more valuable than melee anti tank potential. Salvo launchers are still the best codex solution for that purpose.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 20:23:57


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 Thairne wrote:
TBH I dont anymore. I've moved them to the ignore list and am now trying to engage in civil discussion with the people that make fair arguments, are open minded and willing to shift their POV.


"I've blocked everyone who doesn't agree with me because I am obviously right".

Sorry, but being extra salty that your gold marines are only marines +1 instead of marines +10 doesn't mean every reasonable person must agree to support your buff demands.

 Dolnikan wrote:
About the whole Caladius and Russ comparison there is one thing that I just didn't see noted anywhere. The Caladius might be made out of better materials, but the Russ is a proper brick and the weaker materials could still be used in far greater thickness to create better armour. I mean, aluminum foil isn't strong, but if you make it an inch thick, you're not going to punch through it. Whereas steel is much stronger, but if it's thinner, it can still be weaker. I don't recall anything about armour thicknesses that would make that a huge difference.


That was exactly the explanation I was giving for the situation. The gold marine tank has armor that is vastly stronger per unit of weight but it has very thin and lightweight armor because it needs to be able to fly. The LRBT has inferior armor per unit of weight but, as a slow ground vehicle, it can pile on literal tons of that inferior armor and have better overall durability. A LRBT made with gold marines materials would either be T16/W50/2++ or would keep its current stat line but have M24 and fly.

This is why they had to shift the argument to the land raider, digging up an obsolete datasheet that hasn't been relevant to any marine faction in well over a decade and pretending that its poor stats are some kind of fluff argument or symptom of a faction-wide problem instead of just a single unit that GW doesn't care about updating.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 20:28:41


Post by: Hecaton


CadianSgtBob wrote:
No, it's straightforward IP law. Illegal derivative works are not permitted without a license from the IP holder. You can't make a space marine fan film just because you really want one, and if you're dumb enough to try to monetize it and force GW to notice you're going to get shut down.


You can make a fan film all you want. Monetizing it without it being transformative is a problem, of course, but this is not "straightforward" at all. At least not in the way you meant it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
TTS did not get a C&D letter, even the creator admits this.


True, but GW will not admit what he did was transformative/allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
As an uninvolved bystander, I have to say the whole thread feels like people talking past each other or wilfully misinterpreting what was said.

OP and a bunch of others lament that rules don't reflect the fluff enough on the tabletop for Custodes to be fun to play. Players are missing the right feeling.

Some want to argue wether Custodes should be a standalone army in the first place. Which has nothing to do with OP's post.

Others want to argue that they are fine because of winrates.


I've argued they're fine because of fluff. The current difference in on-the-table power levels are fine; Terminators juiced up on that Chaos gak should be a match, or more than a match, for Custodes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote:
It's really funny how in this very thread I listed the in lore flaws custodes have and how that actually makes them interesting (at least to me), but you just ignore it and CadianSgtBob just handwaves it away as boring. Considering this, please demonstrate how custodes players en large don't want a faction with any flaws.


Where did you do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's not self loathing. Do you remember the wish listing for our faction pre-codex? Here's a few I remember:

D4 axes and d3 spears
Bike Spears get d4 on the charge
Spear and Axe Bolters go to S5 ap1.
All Infantry get +2 wounds across the board


And those are all unreasonable. What's your point?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 20:41:20


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Hecaton wrote:
You can make a fan film all you want. Monetizing it without it being transformative is a problem, of course, but this is not "straightforward" at all. At least not in the way you meant it.


No you can't. A fan film is a textbook illegal derivative work. This is well established IP law and monetization has nothing to do with its legality. The money issue is only relevant in that many IP owners will pretend not to notice illegal fan works if they are genuine fan projects done purely out of love of the IP and no money is involved.

True, but GW will not admit what he did was transformative/allowed.


Of course GW won't. No legal department with even a basic level of competence is going to give an official statement that something like TTS is allowed. Even if it's clearly a case of fair use they don't want an on-record statement that could be used against them in the future. For example, what if TTS at some point in the future crossed the line into infringement but the creator could show that letter in court. Now instead of merely arguing the details of IP law and the infringing work the case gets derailed into interpreting what exactly GW's approval letter was meant to cover. GW probably still wins the case but it's extra legal costs and an increased risk of failure, all for absolutely no gain.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 21:00:00


Post by: SemperMortis


CadianSgtBob wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games.


Sorry, but no. GW issued C&D letters to people who let their greed get in the way of common sense and tried to monetize their illegal derivative works. That's basic IP law and something that virtually every IP owner is going to do. Every content creator knows the basic rule of making fan works is that as soon as you try to make money from it you're going to get shut down.


Lets take everything in context shall we? GW was NOT producing any content. Fans took it upon themselves to make labors of love short films about their favorite factions, they then released them on Youtube FOR FREE and generated an absolute flood of interest in the hobby. I mean, hell I myself used the Krieg videos and the Astartes film to sucker in like 3-5 guys who are now part of the community.

yes you are right its "ip infringement" and without getting into the hilarity of a company as prone to stealing as GW being upset about IP infringement lets look at it again in context. GW had an asset in these content creators, they were a zero cost advertisement of their biggest product. They literally had to do nothing to support them, pay for them etc, just let them be. Instead GW did GW things...ie sue the hell out of everyone even remotely close to "infringing" on their stolen IP...i mean, totally original, definitely not lifted from dozens of other IPs. So what did they do to fill the gap they themselves created? They created Warhammer+ which so far has received at best Mixed reviews, they also put it behind a paywall so its in essence not an advertising tool but instead just another way to milk their current fanbase for more profit.

GW is successful DESPITE itself, rather then because of itself. It has made some good moves of late but that doesn't even come close to the sheer # of boneheaded mistakes they have made over the years.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 21:03:41


Post by: CadianSgtBob


SemperMortis wrote:
Lets take everything in context shall we? GW was NOT producing any content. Fans took it upon themselves to make labors of love short films about their favorite factions, they then released them on Youtube FOR FREE and generated an absolute flood of interest in the hobby. I mean, hell I myself used the Krieg videos and the Astartes film to sucker in like 3-5 guys who are now part of the community.


That's not what happened. People were making fan films and GW pretended not to notice, it was only when they started trying to collect money for those films that GW had to take official notice of them and shut them down. If you want to blame someone blame the greedy creators who knew that getting paid would get them shut down and did it anyway because money in their pockets is worth more than recruiting people into the hobby.

I don't know why any of this is controversial. If you make a Star Wars fan film and try to get paid for it Disney is going to shut you down. And, unlike GW, they probably won't offer to hire you to keep working on the project. Same for every other IP owner with enough money to afford a legal department. The lines are well known and you cross them at your own risk.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 21:12:02


Post by: ccs


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles.


Have you considered that that would make it really difficult for anyone not using FW stuff in the anti-tank department?




Have you considered we also have good anti-tank without FW? Also, please stop with the ultra condescending tone. Your snark does your point no credit.

The Dreads, Terminators, Trajann, and Captains all do good AT work. As does the new BC in Behemor. The MM on the Plastic dread does good work, and the Wardens with Axes can degrade anything with a normal tank profile very quickly for their cost. Also, not going to lie, but HB do better now than the Melta Missiles, properly setup.


It was an honest question. Though perhaps I should have specified shooting AT....


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 21:58:55


Post by: Vatsetis


CadianSgtBob wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Lets take everything in context shall we? GW was NOT producing any content. Fans took it upon themselves to make labors of love short films about their favorite factions, they then released them on Youtube FOR FREE and generated an absolute flood of interest in the hobby. I mean, hell I myself used the Krieg videos and the Astartes film to sucker in like 3-5 guys who are now part of the community.


That's not what happened. People were making fan films and GW pretended not to notice, it was only when they started trying to collect money for those films that GW had to take official notice of them and shut them down. If you want to blame someone blame the greedy creators who knew that getting paid would get them shut down and did it anyway because money in their pockets is worth more than recruiting people into the hobby.

I don't know why any of this is controversial. If you make a Star Wars fan film and try to get paid for it Disney is going to shut you down. And, unlike GW, they probably won't offer to hire you to keep working on the project. Same for every other IP owner with enough money to afford a legal department. The lines are well known and you cross them at your own risk.


Well you ignore the fact that 40K fan fiction is above and beyond any animation created by GW proper... But yes they are greedy criminals that bleed poor GW IP.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 21:59:17


Post by: SemperMortis


CadianSgtBob wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Lets take everything in context shall we? GW was NOT producing any content. Fans took it upon themselves to make labors of love short films about their favorite factions, they then released them on Youtube FOR FREE and generated an absolute flood of interest in the hobby. I mean, hell I myself used the Krieg videos and the Astartes film to sucker in like 3-5 guys who are now part of the community.


That's not what happened. People were making fan films and GW pretended not to notice, it was only when they started trying to collect money for those films that GW had to take official notice of them and shut them down. If you want to blame someone blame the greedy creators who knew that getting paid would get them shut down and did it anyway because money in their pockets is worth more than recruiting people into the hobby.

I don't know why any of this is controversial. If you make a Star Wars fan film and try to get paid for it Disney is going to shut you down. And, unlike GW, they probably won't offer to hire you to keep working on the project. Same for every other IP owner with enough money to afford a legal department. The lines are well known and you cross them at your own risk.


Because disney is already a MOVIE company making star wars MOVIES. GW is a model/game company that WASN'T making short films. So yes those content creators got paid by youtube from advertising revenue. None of that hurt the company and was in fact making them money from FREE advertising. So yes that is in fact what happened. GW cut off its own nose to spite its face. Not only that they alienated a big portion of the community to the point where there was a boycott of their app which was at least partially successful. Not to mention that their replacement content is mediocre at best.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 22:10:13


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Vatsetis wrote:
Well you ignore the fact that 40K fan fiction is above and beyond any animation created by GW proper... But yes they are greedy criminals that bleed poor GW IP.


What about it? IP law doesn't care about quality. And their greed didn't hurt GW, it hurt the fans. They could have continued making cool animations for the community to enjoy but they decided they'd rather cash in on their fame and pocket as much money as possible before getting shut down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
So yes those content creators got paid by youtube from advertising revenue.


That's not all that was happening. They were setting up patreon accounts, asking for "donations", etc. They weren't technically selling the films directly but they were absolutely trying to use their illegal derivative works for financial gain. And, like I said, every single content creator knows there are lines you don't cross if you want to keep doing your thing. But they decided that pocketing a bunch of "donation" money was more important than continuing to produce a cool thing for the community.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/04 23:09:55


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles.


Have you considered that that would make it really difficult for anyone not using FW stuff in the anti-tank department?




Have you considered we also have good anti-tank without FW? Also, please stop with the ultra condescending tone. Your snark does your point no credit.

The Dreads, Terminators, Trajann, and Captains all do good AT work. As does the new BC in Behemor. The MM on the Plastic dread does good work, and the Wardens with Axes can degrade anything with a normal tank profile very quickly for their cost. Also, not going to lie, but HB do better now than the Melta Missiles, properly setup.


It was an honest question. Though perhaps I should have specified shooting AT....


Then you are 100% correct. Melta Missiles are easily our best codex standard AT shooting option. I still think the bikes need to get something to justify the cost. 255 points for 3 shots of Melta doesn't show me anything that can't be done better by a LR. Actually, I want to test that via math hammer. A Landraider, vs 3 Vertus Praetors with missiles is really close in points. For 10 more points you get a Robust T8(9 hopefully?) platform with 4 shots of S9 AP3 D6. Which does 5.185 wounds to a standard T8 platform with no Invuln and a 2+ save. The bikes with three missiles do 5.208. If you add in the HB shots on the LR, its doing 6.296 unsaved damage. The LR by the math is better AT than 3 bikes now, and with the points drop (Hopefully) The LR will get an exact match for the bike squad.

Can someone better at Mathhammer check my math on this?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 03:15:14


Post by: Hecaton


CadianSgtBob wrote:


No you can't. A fan film is a textbook illegal derivative work. This is well established IP law and monetization has nothing to do with its legality. The money issue is only relevant in that many IP owners will pretend not to notice illegal fan works if they are genuine fan projects done purely out of love of the IP and no money is involved.


No, it has a lot to do with its legality. If you're right, I'm sure you'd be able to cite what law, statute, or treaty you're talking about.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Of course GW won't. No legal department with even a basic level of competence is going to give an official statement that something like TTS is allowed. Even if it's clearly a case of fair use they don't want an on-record statement that could be used against them in the future. For example, what if TTS at some point in the future crossed the line into infringement but the creator could show that letter in court. Now instead of merely arguing the details of IP law and the infringing work the case gets derailed into interpreting what exactly GW's approval letter was meant to cover. GW probably still wins the case but it's extra legal costs and an increased risk of failure, all for absolutely no gain.


Yes, so GW is a bad faith actor on the subject, good to know. Makes any other claims they make pretty suspect, including "we have to protect our IP by stopping fan works."


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 03:47:09


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I think it's clearly the case that the Astartes Fan Films, and the ones about DKoK were monetized, and had links to patreon pages. It was clearly the intent of the maker to earn money for their work. Which I don't see a problem with. But US patent law is Horrifically bad, and currently, you are not allowed to imitate a copy writed work, and make money off it, without the permission of the CW owner (looking back at case law now...for source) But for example, when a person burns a CD of say, Metallica, and then sells it, that is IP theft, and it's a crime. When the Astartes person made their fan film, they slapped all sorts of IP stuff on it, brands and labels, and then made money off it. This is silly US law, but it's the exact same crime in the eyes of the US courts. It's why Microsoft buys up IPs, and then sues smaller companies out of business. It's how the sausage gets made.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 05:35:19


Post by: CadianSgtBob


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's clearly the case that the Astartes Fan Films, and the ones about DKoK were monetized, and had links to patreon pages. It was clearly the intent of the maker to earn money for their work. Which I don't see a problem with. But US patent law is Horrifically bad, and currently, you are not allowed to imitate a copy writed work, and make money off it, without the permission of the CW owner (looking back at case law now...for source) But for example, when a person burns a CD of say, Metallica, and then sells it, that is IP theft, and it's a crime. When the Astartes person made their fan film, they slapped all sorts of IP stuff on it, brands and labels, and then made money off it. This is silly US law, but it's the exact same crime in the eyes of the US courts. It's why Microsoft buys up IPs, and then sues smaller companies out of business. It's how the sausage gets made.


Why is it horrific that you can't rip off someone else's work without their permission? You know that protects small creators too, right? If I make a new scifi game GW can't steal all of my work and make their own game, using their advantage in economies of scale to undercut my prices and take all of my customers. If I make a successful movie Disney can't make a direct sequel to it and hijack whatever plans I had for my own series. Etc. And it's not just a US thing. The basic rules of copyright law are set by international treaties and apply worldwide, except for a handful of third-world failed states like Russia and China.

And I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Microsoft claim. If the smaller company is using the IP legally then how can Microsoft sue them? Microsoft could choose not to renew their license for that IP but buying an IP doesn't immediately make all licensed uses of it illegal. And if the company was using the IP without a license, well, the stupidity of that business plan should be pretty obvious.

(I'll grant that patent law is a mess and that's what you may be thinking of with Microsoft? But that's not a case of the fundamental concept of patents being immoral, it's just that a lot of tech patents are a complex mess of interlocking and contradictory claims where you can't be 100% sure if something is a patent infringement or not until the case goes to court. And it doesn't have anything to do with straightforward cases of copyright law like the 40k fan films.)


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 07:58:26


Post by: Vatsetis


Thanks to DakkA I learned that China in 2022 is a failed state.

Its totally perverse to say that the content creators of 40k fan films (a product GW neglected) are the ones that hurt the fans by forcing GW to intervene and prevent them from continuing giving the fans what they wanted (and GW is currently unable to deliver).

The formallity of the law and the "criminal" nature of this content creators is beyond the point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 08:12:50


Post by: Salt donkey


Just so everyone is clear, most custodes stuff is garbage now. According to Jack Harpster and Richard Seigler, what keeps the codex going is purely restricted to contempter dreads (they’re surprising good apparently) both flavors of grav tanks, and bike captains. There a few fine stuff like Trajann,shield guard, and the other dreads, but the rest of the book is trash. Pretty much any foot captain is trash at this point, as are terminators, Sagitarum, wardens, both flyers, regular bikes , you get the idea. In other words GW nerfed the main codex to oblivion, but left enough to make sure a good list still existed. That way they can say “there’s no issues with custodes, look at their win rates” because competitive players will most frequently take the best list a book offers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Salt donkey wrote:
Just so everyone is clear, most custodes stuff is garbage now. According to Jack Harpster and Richard Seigler, what keeps the codex going is purely restricted to contempter dreads (they’re surprising good apparently) both flavors of grav tanks, and bike captains. There a few fine stuff like Trajann,shield guard, and the other dreads, but the rest of the book is trash. Pretty much any foot captain is trash at this point, as are terminators, Sagitarum, wardens, both flyers… regular bikes , you get the idea. In other words GW nerfed the main codex to oblivion, but left enough to make sure a good list still existed. That way they can say “there’s no issues with custodes, look at their win rates” because competitive players will most frequently take the best list a book offers.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 08:28:18


Post by: CadianSgtBob


Vatsetis wrote:
Its totally perverse to say that the content creators of 40k fan films (a product GW neglected) are the ones that hurt the fans by forcing GW to intervene and prevent them from continuing giving the fans what they wanted (and GW is currently unable to deliver).


Why is it perverse? If the creators hadn't tried to get the fans to pay them for their work GW probably never would have shut them down. This is a basic rule of fan works that every creator knows: if you try to monetize your work you will get a C&D letter. They knew taking money was going to get their work shut down, they did it anyway because money was more important than doing the cool thing.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 08:42:07


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


You do not need to make money off a Copyrighted project in order for it to be taken down.
Also, money is literally necessary to live in modern society, so of course they'd appreciate people donating them some money in order to keep animating.
And, I never paid a dime for these animations, and they got me into trying the tabletop. GW is just stupid to get rid of free marketing.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 08:47:17


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You do not need to make money off a Copyrighted project in order for it to be taken down.


You don't. But many, if not most, IP owners will pretend they don't notice your work as long as you don't make any money with it. All of the people who got shut down knew that line existed and knew what happens if you cross it. And they did it anyway.

Also, money is literally necessary to live in modern society, so of course they'd appreciate people donating them some money in order to keep animating.


Ok? They can appreciate it all they want but it's still illegal to do it and it's still crossing a line that will get you shut down. I can't say I wouldn't do the same in their place, cashing in on my fame as much as possible before getting shut down. But let's not pretend that they didn't make that very deliberate choice to cash in and end production on their films.

And, I never paid a dime for these animations, and they got me into trying the tabletop. GW is just stupid to get rid of free marketing.


GW is smart to get rid of for-profit illegal derivative works, just like every other IP owner with enough money for a legal department. Good luck convincing Disney not to shut down your for-profit Star Wars fan movie because it's "free advertising".


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 08:56:08


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


They're within their rights to shut it down, but it was extremely stupid. It was literally free advertisement. They lost no money due to it existing, and gained customers. The better comparison for GW is game companies. How many games studios disallow fan animations? Very, very few. Because it's free advertisement for the game.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 09:00:08


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
They're within their rights to shut it down, but it was extremely stupid. It was literally free advertisement. They lost no money due to it existing, and gained customers. The better comparison for GW is game companies. How many games studios disallow fan animations? Very, very few. Because it's free advertisement for the game.


How many games studios allow for-profit illegal derivative works? My guess is very few, unless they can't afford a legal department to send the C&D letters.

But, again, you can say all you like that GW should have allowed it. The reality is that every one of those animators knew that accepting money was the end of their 40k work and they cashed in anyway. If you want someone to blame then blame their greed. Don't blame GW for doing what pretty much any company would do in this situation.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 09:06:13


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


Lots of game studios allow for for profit derivative work. SFMs are hugely popular, and a vast majority use characters and assets from TF2. In addition, there's plenty of animations of various non game media paid for by patreon, but released freely. Because someone donating you money is not making free content into paid content. I didn't spend $10 to watch If The Emperor Had a Text to Speech Device. It wasn't paid content. It was free. I'd assume you're just as against Battle Reports, considering they often are paid content, and fall under the same laws?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 09:26:36


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Lots of game studios allow for for profit derivative work. SFMs are hugely popular, and a vast majority use characters and assets from TF2.


https://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/faq/



That seems pretty black and white, you may not use Valve IP for any commercial purpose.

In addition, there's plenty of animations of various non game media paid for by patreon, but released freely. Because someone donating you money is not making free content into paid content.


"I'm not getting paid for this, I'm getting paid because these random unrelated people just love giving me money" is an argument that fools nobody. We all know why people were donating money and it wasn't for their amazing non-40k content.

(And remember, GW doesn't need to care if it's technically paid content or not. Illegal derivative works are illegal regardless of whether or not money changes hands, taking money for your illegal derivative work just provokes the IP owner into actually enforcing their rights instead of pretending they don't notice.)

I'd assume you're just as against Battle Reports, considering they often are paid content, and fall under the same laws?


I'm not "against" any content, I'm simply pointing out that GW's actions regarding for-profit illegal derivative works were very predictable and standard practice for IP owners. The only thing I'm against is people blaming GW instead of the content creators who decided that money was more important than continuing to produce cool movies.

And no, battle reports don't fall under the same laws. Battle reports are textbook fair use and legal, even if done for profit. Maybe you should review some basic IP law, specifically the difference between creating a derivative work and creating commentary about a work?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 09:49:30


Post by: Thairne


COuld you guys please not derail the thread into the copyright argument?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 10:30:40


Post by: Eihnlazer


Hell i wrote an entire fandex for how i wanted Custodes to be in 9th, and I will admit looking at it now i underpointed stuff by 5-10pts.

I still think my version is a better representation of actual custodes abilities on the table.

There are ways i would utilize our current dex though if i could change a few things.

For example, take the bodyguard rule off of wardens completely and give them something like:
Martial Temperance- In your command phase, after you have revealed your Martial Ka'tah stance choice, you may have each unit of wardens pick whichever stance from any of your 3 selected Matial Ka'tah's to be in for the battle round.



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 10:40:23


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 Thairne wrote:
COuld you guys please not derail the thread into the copyright argument?


Why not? It's far more interesting than yet another round of gold marine players being salty about their army only being marines +1 instead of marines +10.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 10:58:28


Post by: Tiberias


CadianSgtBob wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
COuld you guys please not derail the thread into the copyright argument?


Why not? It's far more interesting than yet another round of gold marine players being salty about their army only being marines +1 instead of marines +10.


I think this is the best example so far how you are absolutely not interested in having an honest discussion, fething obnoxious. How about you go troll somewhere else since you can't come up with a logically coherent argument for the original discussion.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 11:21:13


Post by: Blackie


CadianSgtBob wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
COuld you guys please not derail the thread into the copyright argument?


Why not? It's far more interesting than yet another round of gold marine players being salty about their army only being marines +1 instead of marines +10.


If that's so interesting for you just open your own thread about that. It's easier than making a 40k army list using points .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Salt donkey wrote:
Just so everyone is clear, most custodes stuff is garbage now. According to Jack Harpster and Richard Seigler, what keeps the codex going is purely restricted to contempter dreads (they’re surprising good apparently) both flavors of grav tanks, and bike captains. There a few fine stuff like Trajann,shield guard, and the other dreads, but the rest of the book is trash. Pretty much any foot captain is trash at this point, as are terminators, Sagitarum, wardens, both flyers, regular bikes , you get the idea. In other words GW nerfed the main codex to oblivion, but left enough to make sure a good list still existed. That way they can say “there’s no issues with custodes, look at their win rates” because competitive players will most frequently take the best list a book offers.



Outside ultra competitive gaming they still look pretty solid to me. And at tournaments several factions are competitive only if they take a few selected items. Including factions (cough... orks.... coughs) with way more units and options that custodes.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 15:20:09


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


So even Auspect Tactics has them sitting in the 3rd tier of Top Tier Armies. Basically the A- category?

I don't think they are in a bad shape, but they are no longer what I enjoyed when I started. I liked the simplicity of not having to worry about entire phases like Psychic phase. Just get in close and punch REALLY HARD. Now the are a much more advanced army, which I don't have the time to play these days. Being 40+ sucks now....


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 15:28:35


Post by: Thairne


More like B.
Usually goes like S, A, B, C, D.
Though his point is that there's basically only A-Tier, but... thats just a different name for the same thing.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 16:16:37


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


All I'm saying is that we are still "top Tier". We are capable of placing well, or at least winning games. I don't play competitive. Point is, we are far from broken crap. I just think it's not the faction I originally purchased to play.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 16:52:34


Post by: Thairne


Which is the point of the thread.
I dont really care about WR%, unless its like WIDELY different from the norm in both directions because that implies balance issues.
I want my fluffy, fun army to play like it did a good while ago when I decided to play that army for that reason.
But accordint to some posters here that is a cardinal sin, it seems like.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 18:10:58


Post by: Vatsetis


Not a cardinal sin... But an imposibility inbthe burn and churn 9th 40K landscape... Which other army has remain its zelgeist in the last 4/5 years.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 18:19:58


Post by: Thairne


Pretty much all codexes are still fluffy... except maybe admech because its so complicated and custodes. Though I admittedly know most about them since I play them.
I think most other factions still retained their faction identity to the most part and fluffy codexes like Nids do exist in the majority.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 19:50:16


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


That's just it, Custodes really had no strong "identity" prior to 9th. They were just Hyper Elite Astartes. Now they are Space Kung Fu masters in Battle Plate that wield weapons forged by god science, which surprisingly are less impactful than a piece of concrete attached to some rebar swung by a 4 armed mutant Cultist.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 19:52:01


Post by: CadianSgtBob


 Thairne wrote:
I want my fluffy, funny army to play like it did a good while ago when I decided to play that army for that reason.


Why do you want gold marines to be a joke faction? I thought you liked their fluff?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 19:55:41


Post by: Hecaton


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's just it, Custodes really had no strong "identity" prior to 9th. They were just Hyper Elite Astartes. Now they are Space Kung Fu masters in Battle Plate that wield weapons forged by god science, which surprisingly are less impactful than a piece of concrete attached to some rebar swung by a 4 armed mutant Cultist.


Abominants got strong genes, man.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 20:50:03


Post by: Blndmage


Hecaton wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That's just it, Custodes really had no strong "identity" prior to 9th. They were just Hyper Elite Astartes. Now they are Space Kung Fu masters in Battle Plate that wield weapons forged by god science, which surprisingly are less impactful than a piece of concrete attached to some rebar swung by a 4 armed mutant Cultist.


Abominants got strong genes, man.


That's because they steal them, right?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/05 20:58:26


Post by: Salt donkey


 Blackie wrote:
CadianSgtBob wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
COuld you guys please not derail the thread into the copyright argument?


Why not? It's far more interesting than yet another round of gold marine players being salty about their army only being marines +1 instead of marines +10.


If that's so interesting for you just open your own thread about that. It's easier than making a 40k army list using points .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Salt donkey wrote:
Just so everyone is clear, most custodes stuff is garbage now. According to Jack Harpster and Richard Seigler, what keeps the codex going is purely restricted to contempter dreads (they’re surprising good apparently) both flavors of grav tanks, and bike captains. There a few fine stuff like Trajann,shield guard, and the other dreads, but the rest of the book is trash. Pretty much any foot captain is trash at this point, as are terminators, Sagitarum, wardens, both flyers, regular bikes , you get the idea. In other words GW nerfed the main codex to oblivion, but left enough to make sure a good list still existed. That way they can say “there’s no issues with custodes, look at their win rates” because competitive players will most frequently take the best list a book offers.



Outside ultra competitive gaming they still look pretty solid to me. And at tournaments several factions are competitive only if they take a few selected items. Including factions (cough... orks.... coughs) with way more units and options that custodes.


Apologies for starting the thread derailment. It just shows how underage the users on here are if they believe people abusing a company’s IP is simply “free advertising.”

As far as ultra competitive stuff goes; yeah you’re right, many armies at the top tables are carried by a select few units. However, in custodes case (and orkz as well) the gap between competitive and non competitive units is more massive than pretty much every other army. If I take 500 points of wardens/and or terminators, my list will suck. Not just at the top tables, against anyone who is trying play the game. In my case I normally can beat the people I play consistently (medium competitive friends) with mostly units I like. I got crushed the 2 games I tried to use things like wardens.

Harpster and Seigler made the comment they’d drop custodes to C tier if any of the best units got any type of significant nerf (Callidus going up 30 points was an example they used) C tier is where things like IG and GSC live. If you where to bring in army of purely plastic custodes models, we’d be as bad if not worse than demons. That’s why you see pretty much every custodes player on here complaining. We were sold on a hyper elite melee army. Instead outside of the few months we were OP, the army has only every been an efficient gunline with floating tanks and dreadnoughts. Or one that simply hides until the game clock runs out. Maybe there is no way to make a balanced elite melee army, but GW hasn’t really tried to be successful at it outside of just making the army OP.



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/06 08:52:39


Post by: Thairne


^ this.
While my experience with other codexes, as stated is limited, I really think that the Custodes is one of the the worst right now.
It's as deep as a puddle. You have... 7 datasheets that are worth using. Including FW.

Sagittarum
Custodian Guard
Galatus
Achillus
Calladius
Bike Captain
Ven Dread

That is sad. Really sad. And the first two are pretty much tax units at this stage.
Like Salt Donkey said, the gap to everything else is quite significant. Why would I ever use Terminators at this stage? They've got basically nothing going for them. They cant reliably score, they cant play secondaries and, especially with Stand Vigil and Strangehold gone, are an actual liability to take.
Competetive WR% might be fine, but damn, the codex is not FUN to play. It was one of the less fun codexes to begin with, imo, but it took a real nosedive with the nerfs that fethed over the internal balance. It neither feels, nor plays, as Custodes should feel or play. It's a complete failure at this point.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/06 12:51:15


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Custodes are now essentially the GK of 8th. Way to overcosted for their very real lack of ability to perform equal to cost. If the 60$ book you sell to be able to play a faction is 90% useless to the player, then it's a failed book. Honestly, in order to win me back it would take too much to even consider.

Changing the rule about one list having one sub faction
Give bikes and non Telemon dreads obsec back
Give us back multiple SC of the same type in one list
Give us back the double shoot strat
Give us back an adequate ammount of CP or a way around the new CP form. We are easily the hungriest pre-game CP faction in the history of Pre-game CP usage. To cut us off at 6 invalidates half our game.
Give axes the ability to do damage not completely invalidated by -1 damage.


And while I'm asking santa for a pony I'll just throw this in: Give us Sisters on bikes!


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 06:34:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Thairne wrote:
Pretty much all codexes are still fluffy... except maybe admech because its so complicated and custodes. Though I admittedly know most about them since I play them.
I think most other factions still retained their faction identity to the most part and fluffy codexes like Nids do exist in the majority.



... boi... then you didn't pay attention to CSM since 4th edition and the recent trainwreck if you honestly believe that.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 08:18:47


Post by: Thairne


I really didn't.
I have zero interest in CSM and the codex is so very new the info didn't "spill over" by accident yet.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 12:11:15


Post by: Havic1137


Basically Chaos lost a zoggin' ton of weapon options (especally for HQ, Termies, and Chosen) and now ironically have more weapon restrictions than loyalists despite the fact the entire faction is about shirking restrictions and laws for.. you know.. chaos?

Chaos Lords and Sorcerers can't have Jetpacks anymore either because GW is being petty about "no model no representation", so have fun playing Night Lords without that particularly important note in their fluff.

Also a few models got squatted like Mutilators and the old Sorcerer unit is now vastly inferior to the newer Master of Possession model. Also cultists are being pushed and got more units, but you aren't able to bring more cultists than heretic astartes units, which is again another restriction on a faction about not having restrictions and indulging oneself in vice, excess, ambition, etc


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 14:38:44


Post by: SemperMortis


 Thairne wrote:
^ this.
While my experience with other codexes, as stated is limited, I really think that the Custodes is one of the the worst right now.
It's as deep as a puddle. You have... 7 datasheets that are worth using. Including FW.

Sagittarum
Custodian Guard
Galatus
Achillus
Calladius
Bike Captain
Ven Dread

That is sad. Really sad. And the first two are pretty much tax units at this stage.
Like Salt Donkey said, the gap to everything else is quite significant. Why would I ever use Terminators at this stage? They've got basically nothing going for them. They cant reliably score, they cant play secondaries and, especially with Stand Vigil and Strangehold gone, are an actual liability to take.
Competetive WR% might be fine, but damn, the codex is not FUN to play. It was one of the less fun codexes to begin with, imo, but it took a real nosedive with the nerfs that fethed over the internal balance. It neither feels, nor plays, as Custodes should feel or play. It's a complete failure at this point.


Yes Sagittarum guard... totally a tax unit...i mean, 150pts nets you 3 heavy bolters, 1 Super heavy bolter (Disintegration beam) all at BS3 if you shoot all of them at the same time. Base 2+ save T5, 3 wounds 4+ invuln and de-facto 12 attacks in CC. Compared to a real tax unit, Ork boyz. 150pts nets you 19 boyz at T5 6+ save 1 wound each. No ranged capabilities worth mentioning but in CC they get 57 attacks. plunk them in some cover on an objective and you have a decent fire support unit with 1+ armor.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Give us back an adequate ammount of CP or a way around the new CP form. We are easily the hungriest pre-game CP faction in the history of Pre-game CP usage. To cut us off at 6 invalidates half our game.


That is debatable to say the least. Most Ork lists pre 6CP change were running 2 detachments minimum, including -3CP detachments on a regular basis. On top of that we were spending CP on extra warlord traits and relics like crazy because those were the most efficient use of our CP. It was not at all uncommon to start the game with -3CP from detachment and -4-6 from pre-game strats.

I mean, my most recent GT I ran 3 warbosses in 3 detachments with warlord traits/relics on all of them.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 14:56:02


Post by: Thairne


SemperMortis wrote:

Yes Sagittarum guard... totally a tax unit...i mean, 150pts nets you 3 heavy bolters, 1 Super heavy bolter (Disintegration beam) all at BS3 if you shoot all of them at the same time. Base 2+ save T5, 3 wounds 4+ invuln and de-facto 12 attacks in CC. Compared to a real tax unit, Ork boyz. 150pts nets you 19 boyz at T5 6+ save 1 wound each. No ranged capabilities worth mentioning but in CC they get 57 attacks. plunk them in some cover on an objective and you have a decent fire support unit with 1+ armor.


Looking at the lists cropping up, only the absolute minimum of guard and sagittarum is taken.
You may like it or not and they might still be the "best" tax unit, but in the current state of the codex and the meta, Sagittarum aren't appearing in the comp lists.
Look at the goonhammer article. Harpster recommends a list that fields a total of 1x3 Custodian Guard at 2k. I'm not claiming thats the ONLY way to play, but Harpster is leagues better than me, so I tend to follow his advice over some random forumite that tells me how good my sagittarum are.
The general consensus is still "bike captain, Dreads, Calladius".


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 15:54:55


Post by: SemperMortis


 Thairne wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

Yes Sagittarum guard... totally a tax unit...i mean, 150pts nets you 3 heavy bolters, 1 Super heavy bolter (Disintegration beam) all at BS3 if you shoot all of them at the same time. Base 2+ save T5, 3 wounds 4+ invuln and de-facto 12 attacks in CC. Compared to a real tax unit, Ork boyz. 150pts nets you 19 boyz at T5 6+ save 1 wound each. No ranged capabilities worth mentioning but in CC they get 57 attacks. plunk them in some cover on an objective and you have a decent fire support unit with 1+ armor.


Looking at the lists cropping up, only the absolute minimum of guard and sagittarum is taken.
You may like it or not and they might still be the "best" tax unit, but in the current state of the codex and the meta, Sagittarum aren't appearing in the comp lists.
Look at the goonhammer article. Harpster recommends a list that fields a total of 1x3 Custodian Guard at 2k. I'm not claiming thats the ONLY way to play, but Harpster is leagues better than me, so I tend to follow his advice over some random forumite that tells me how good my sagittarum are.
The general consensus is still "bike captain, Dreads, Calladius".


is that because they are "bad" or a "Tax" or is it because the codex is filled with a bunch of more ridiculous combinations. Yeah, internally they might not be as good as other units but they are absolutely good. I'd take those in a heart beat over my meganobz which cost similar points when given shooting weapons.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 16:17:12


Post by: Thairne


The codex is down to its last legs. All build diversity has been patched out of it.
I think it was Siegler that said that, if the codex gets ANY nerfs to its currently used units, they're down to C-tier.

Sags honestly look nice on paper, but...they don't really do that much in practice in the current meta. In a narrative thats different, but even then, they do only deal with 2-3 MEQ per turn, means even if they shoot basically their ideal target, uninterrupted at 36" range, they'll have trouble making their points back by the end of the game
They'll get 3 MEQ if in Disintegrator range.
Its still basically 50 pts for a heavy bolter and a 2+/4++ really isn't cutting it anymore, even if in cover.
In my matched games, they mostly do nothing as they're unable to deal with hordes and unable to deal with monsters or vehicles. The only thing they kinda can deal with is elite infantry and are still pretty inefficient at that.
You get better shooting and melee out of other units.

So no, they are not outshone by ridiculous combinations, they're simply not up to the current meta for their cost imo.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 17:51:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


"a 2+/4++ isn't cutting it anymore"
What is even happening in 40k anymore


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 17:54:18


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Blndmage wrote:
Do folks play pure Sisters of Silence?

I'm super into the idea. They remind me of Pariahs. Also really intrigued by their stats. Making lists is frustrating with things only being in 3PL chunks. For larger games (here 25PL is a big game, most are 6-12PL), I'm considering rhinos.

Modelwise, they cost a fortune and finding appropriately kick-ass third party models is hard.

This would be my first imperial army in... yikes almost 20yrs of playing.


I have never once seen a pure sisters of silence army ever, simply because they just dont have the supporting units to do it. They seem to only work as a unit that is designed for its one specific task, to counter psykers thats really it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"a 2+/4++ isn't cutting it anymore"
What is even happening in 40k anymore


Because i harp on it always
Spoiler:
The rending AP system going overboard making armor saves mean absolutely nothing and most armies live and die on their invulns


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:07:25


Post by: SemperMortis


 Thairne wrote:
The codex is down to its last legs. All build diversity has been patched out of it.
I think it was Siegler that said that, if the codex gets ANY nerfs to its currently used units, they're down to C-tier.


Yeah...no. Custards this last weekend pulled in 3 more top placements, orkz pulled in 1. Nidz Eldar and Tau are the current flavor of the month armies but Custards are still easily mid tier. If you include the aforementioned top 3, only 5 armies had more placings then Custards did.

I do agree that diversity is dead for Custards...but umm...you never had any to begin with. You have 8 HQ choices with 3 of them just being Shield Captains in different forms. You guys are in the same boat as Harlequins, you are a relatively new splinter army without the massive amounts of time needed to build up a stupidly huge army list.

 Thairne wrote:
Sags honestly look nice on paper, but...they don't really do that much in practice in the current meta. In a narrative thats different, but even then, they do only deal with 2-3 MEQ per turn, means even if they shoot basically their ideal target, uninterrupted at 36" range, they'll have trouble making their points back by the end of the game
They'll get 3 MEQ if in Disintegrator range.
3 sags at max range shooting get 9 shots, 7.5 hits, 5 wounds and 1.6 dead Marines a turn. Their weapons are assault though so there isn't any good reason not to Move/advance with them since they can only get -1 to shoot so at worst they will be hitting on 3s. That effectively gives them 6+D6 movement every turn, not bad for a unit you consider a tax unit with 2+4++ In Beam range they increase from 1.6 dead Marines a turn to 2.5ish so yeah 2-3 dead Marines a turn. So 40-60pts a turn against intercessor Marines, that works out to 120-180 over 3 turns, so yes they can make their points back relatively easily. And if you get the opportunity to plink more expensive models its even better. But you have to remember, these guys aren't a dmg dealer unit, they are a TROOP CHOICE with HEAVY BOLTER weapons and insane durability. Because again, T5, 3 Wounds, 2+ 4++ is pretty damn good for a 50pt model. An Ork Deffkopta is the same price, its noticeably faster with 14' movement, its primary weapon is 2D3 rokkitz which work out to 0.5 Dead Marines a turn. So a 150pts of them (3) will get 1.6 Dead Marines a turn. 12 shots, 4 hits, 3.3 wounds and 1.66 dead Marines. In CC the deffkopta gets 6 attacks at S5 -1AP 1dmg. So in CC The Sag get 12 attacks, 10 hits, 6.6 wounds and against Marines thats 3.3 dmg. The Koptas are 18 attacks, 12 hits, 8 wounds and 2.6 wounds.

So the "tax" unit as you call them are slower then Koptas but better at ranged combat and Close combat then those same koptas. Durability wise.... The koptas have 4 wounds each so 12 wounds to the Sag's 9, but they only have a 4+ save and no invuln compared to the Sags 2+ and 4++. With standard bolters it takes 81 bolter shots to kill 3 Sag guard. 243 shots, 162 hits, 54 wounds and 9 dmg. To kill 3 Koptas with bolters takes 108 shots. 108 shots, 72 hits, 24 wounds and 12dmg. So more then twice as durable vs small arms. What about vs over charged plasma? Sag take 27 shots to kill. 27 shots, 18 hits, 12 wounds, 6 unsaved for 3 dead. Koptas? ready for this... 13.5shots. 13.5 shots, 9 hits, 6 wounds 3 dead Koptas.

And finally, i'll point out that the Koptas are considered one of the BEST units in the entire ork codex.

 Thairne wrote:
Its still basically 50 pts for a heavy bolter and a 2+/4++ really isn't cutting it anymore, even if in cover.
In my matched games, they mostly do nothing as they're unable to deal with hordes and unable to deal with monsters or vehicles. The only thing they kinda can deal with is elite infantry and are still pretty inefficient at that.
You get better shooting and melee out of other units.
So no, they are not outshone by ridiculous combinations, they're simply not up to the current meta for their cost imo.
I'm sorry, when are you running into Hordes? in the meta no horde has placed...christ I think since the edition started. Monsters/vehicles? That just isnt true. Against a T7 3+ vehicle a unt of Sag guard AVERAGE 3.6 damage without any buffs. My ranged combat troop choice at 160pts get 40 shots (60 at half range) 13.3 hits (20), 4.4 wounds (6.6) and 1.46 damage (2.2) And realistically, I'm not getting 20 shoota boys into 9' range of a tank.

But your second to last sentence is the best one and the point you tried to deny from the outset
You get better shooting and melee out of other units.
so again, it isn't that they aren't good, its that custards have better tools for everything else because reasons.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:08:03


Post by: Thairne


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"a 2+/4++ isn't cutting it anymore"
What is even happening in 40k anymore


Fethloads of creep.
I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.
Stat inflation and especially damage creep is the entire cause of this thread in the first place.

Alright. You seem to now better than Siegler, Harpster and all the other top players. Or the developing stats. I get it. You go play your Sags and tell me how it went. But I have a feeling you're just mathhammering stuff, ignoring reality. Go ahead.
But lets see..

The Alpine Grand Tournament
The Geelong Town Open
The Summer is Coming GT
Exterminatus V: Domocalypse
Leodis Games GT
Clan Wars Scottish Open

One 4th place in 6 GTs. And that list ran... ONE unit of Sagittarum. God those powerhouses! So "pretty good" that they'll be totally phased out in Nephilim because they don't pull their weight.
Also I happen to play against tyranids. Have you ever tried to disloge 30 gaunts from an objective with 3 heavy bolters? Or tried to kill 2+ T8 17W monster with 3dmg a turn? That is shortly before a winged hive tyrant DSes or flies in and simply deletes that unit,.
They're never pull their weight. They're a hindrance. Not taking Sagittarum is a benefit.
"But mah kopters!" I dont care. I don't know gak about orks either. That doesnt change that Sagittarum are a tax. You might as well tell me "but servitors deal so and so much dmg for so and so pts, your sagittarum beat that!"
So what? They're not the worst unit in the game. But they do nothing the codex needs in its current state, therefore being a tax unit to be able to run a detachment.

Lets see what Harpster drew up for Nephilim.

Emperor’s Chosen Patrol Detachment

HQ: Shield Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike – Superior Creation, Auric Exemplar, Castellan’s Mark, Tip of the Spear, Salvo Launcher, Misericordia

Troops: 3 Custodian Guard – 1x Shield

FA: Pallas Grav-Attack
FA: Pallas Grav-Attack

HS: Caladius – Twin Iliastus Accelerator
HS: Caladius – Twin Iliastus Accelerator

Emperor’s Chosen Vanguard Detachment
Trajann Valoris – Warlord, Master of Martial Strategy, Champion of the Imperium

EL: Contemptor-Achillus – Lastrum Bolters
EL: Venerable Contemptor – Multi-Melta
EL: Venerable Contemptor – Multi-Melta
EL: Venerable Contemptor – Multi-Melta
EL: 5 Voidsmen-at-Arms

HS: Caladius – Twin Iliastus Accelerator

Do you notice something? I dont see a single Sagittarum unit in there and only ONE unit of troops. Because he tried to minimize the tax units. And went away from bikes and the special dreads since their price hike/survivability nerf.

You believe what you believe. I know what I know.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:11:40


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Well, that and weapons/abilities that completely ignore all invulns made MW spam basically the basic game in town. What good is a 2+4++4+++ if you opponent can just delete your units? It's not even MWs now. There are just guns that shoot pure F U and suddenly your tank isn't there anymore. Like what good is paying a double cost premium if your units can be deleted by another unit worth half as much? This is the main issue with 9ths power creep. Melta Marines came out and Armor saves were suddenly irrelevent. The "Ignores Invuln" rule started appearing everywhere, and suddenly invulns were irrelevant. Custodes are basically forced now into EC only lists, because the 4+++ is the only thing keeping us alive long enough to earn points back.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:16:47


Post by: Pyroalchi


 Thairne wrote:

I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.


??? Did I miss something? since when do LRBTs have a 4++?
Or do you mean that due to AoC they save on a 4+ against AP-3 and imply that there is nothing relevant above AP-3?


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:22:06


Post by: SemperMortis


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, that and weapons/abilities that completely ignore all invulns made MW spam basically the basic game in town. What good is a 2+4++4+++ if you opponent can just delete your units? It's not even MWs now. There are just guns that shoot pure F U and suddenly your tank isn't there anymore. Like what good is paying a double cost premium if your units can be deleted by another unit worth half as much? This is the main issue with 9ths power creep. Melta Marines came out and Armor saves were suddenly irrelevent. The "Ignores Invuln" rule started appearing everywhere, and suddenly invulns were irrelevant. Custodes are basically forced now into EC only lists, because the 4+++ is the only thing keeping us alive long enough to earn points back.


What 75pts unit is currently 1 shotting a unit of 3 Sag Guard? I get that you were using exaggeration here but seriously? what unit that is cheaper than Sag Guard is currently 1 shotting it with ease?

As far as Mortal wound spam? yeah, most ork lists are being FORCED to move into Mortal wound spam because 2+4++ is too hard for us to deal with with most of our weapons. To kill 1 Sag guard with shootas takes 81 Shoota boyz, or 54 in Half Range. That is 432-646pts of Shoota boys to kill 50pts of Sag Guard. Not exactly..umm...Feasible. On the flipside, a couple units of Squig Riders and Kommandos can each put out D3 mortal wounds with Bomb Squigs. On the average 1st turn if I'm lucky I can get 6D3 Mortal wounds on you from Bomb Squigs.

This boils down to the old SM argument of Durability vs Damage. As durability increases, damage does as well. And in the case of durability specifically, as durability outstrips normal dmg output, players will have to find a better way to inflict dmg. So if other options were more appealing they would be used, but nobody wants to spend 10 minutes rolling hundreds of dice just to kill 1 Sag Guard.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:28:19


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Pyroalchi wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.


??? Did I miss something? since when do LRBTs have a 4++?
Or do you mean that due to AoC they save on a 4+ against AP-3 and imply that there is nothing relevant above AP-3?


I think thats what he means but it shows how badly the power creep is that even with that, they still suck.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:29:22


Post by: Thairne


 Pyroalchi wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.


??? Did I miss something? since when do LRBTs have a 4++?
Or do you mean that due to AoC they save on a 4+ against AP-3 and imply that there is nothing relevant above AP-3?


Read the sentence please.
I said "effectively". Also I'm not "implying" that there is nothing relevant above AP-3, but that such weapons are relatively rare. Mostly relics and meltas. And that is before you manage to apply cover, which is also a factor.
And yes, even with that, they still suck. If that doesnt ring an alarm bell, I don't know what else could.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, that and weapons/abilities that completely ignore all invulns made MW spam basically the basic game in town. What good is a 2+4++4+++ if you opponent can just delete your units? It's not even MWs now. There are just guns that shoot pure F U and suddenly your tank isn't there anymore. Like what good is paying a double cost premium if your units can be deleted by another unit worth half as much? This is the main issue with 9ths power creep. Melta Marines came out and Armor saves were suddenly irrelevent. The "Ignores Invuln" rule started appearing everywhere, and suddenly invulns were irrelevant. Custodes are basically forced now into EC only lists, because the 4+++ is the only thing keeping us alive long enough to earn points back.


What unit that is cheaper than Sag Guard is currently 1 shotting it with ease?


Zoanthropes with their rather easy to reach supersmite.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 18:35:08


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Thairne wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.


??? Did I miss something? since when do LRBTs have a 4++?
Or do you mean that due to AoC they save on a 4+ against AP-3 and imply that there is nothing relevant above AP-3?


Read the sentence please.
I said "effectively". Also I'm not "implying" that there is nothing relevant above AP-3, but that such weapons are relatively rare. Mostly relics and meltas. And that is before you manage to apply cover, which is also a factor.
And yes, even with that, they still suck. If that doesnt ring an alarm bell, I don't know what else could.


Ok ok calm down calm down, he was just asking a question, we dont need the whole "EFFECTIVLY" l2read kinda commets i think.

They do still horribly suck because of the AP creep but imo guard struggle in other ways because of random number of shots. IMO if you wanna make guard good they should have a rule that says "Any weapon that fires D6 shots when determining the number of shots, results of 1 and 2 are doubled. When rolling to detemine number of shots for a weapon with 2d6 shots, results of 1 are doubled. when rolling number of shots for a weapon with d3 shots double results of 1."

IMO, so you can completely ignore this if you want, the thing that made guard good were templates. They could spam large blasts very easy, and you did not need to roll to hit with blasts you just rolled to scatter - your BS. and a scatter had a 33% chance to hit, technically much higher if you consider the 2d6 - BS.
So that meant despite being low BS they could throw pie plates out, now in 8th and 9th, they struggle because now you have to roll for number of shots, then roll to hit on those shots, then roll to wound on those shots, so the law of averages just kinda screws them.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:30:42


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


SemperMortis wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, that and weapons/abilities that completely ignore all invulns made MW spam basically the basic game in town. What good is a 2+4++4+++ if you opponent can just delete your units? It's not even MWs now. There are just guns that shoot pure F U and suddenly your tank isn't there anymore. Like what good is paying a double cost premium if your units can be deleted by another unit worth half as much? This is the main issue with 9ths power creep. Melta Marines came out and Armor saves were suddenly irrelevent. The "Ignores Invuln" rule started appearing everywhere, and suddenly invulns were irrelevant. Custodes are basically forced now into EC only lists, because the 4+++ is the only thing keeping us alive long enough to earn points back.


What 75pts unit is currently 1 shotting a unit of 3 Sag Guard? I get that you were using exaggeration here but seriously? what unit that is cheaper than Sag Guard is currently 1 shotting it with ease?

As far as Mortal wound spam? yeah, most ork lists are being FORCED to move into Mortal wound spam because 2+4++ is too hard for us to deal with with most of our weapons. To kill 1 Sag guard with shootas takes 81 Shoota boyz, or 54 in Half Range. That is 432-646pts of Shoota boys to kill 50pts of Sag Guard. Not exactly..umm...Feasible. On the flipside, a couple units of Squig Riders and Kommandos can each put out D3 mortal wounds with Bomb Squigs. On the average 1st turn if I'm lucky I can get 6D3 Mortal wounds on you from Bomb Squigs.

This boils down to the old SM argument of Durability vs Damage. As durability increases, damage does as well. And in the case of durability specifically, as durability outstrips normal dmg output, players will have to find a better way to inflict dmg. So if other options were more appealing they would be used, but nobody wants to spend 10 minutes rolling hundreds of dice just to kill 1 Sag Guard.


So, Deldar have multiple 70pt units that can do it. Space Marine Heavy Intercessors can gun us down with ease, A Farseer can psyker them off the table, and the Tyranid psker unit can do it as well. I mean, it's not exactly hard to flood Sag with MWs or just just be like, here is Lelith, she did her bazillion attacks, here are your wounds.



Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:37:31


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Thairne wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

I mean look at LRBTs. Those things effectively have a 2+/4++ at T8 - but even better since they dont even care about ap-1 and save ap-2 on 3s.
And that still isnt enough to bring guard even close to being viable.


??? Did I miss something? since when do LRBTs have a 4++?
Or do you mean that due to AoC they save on a 4+ against AP-3 and imply that there is nothing relevant above AP-3?


Read the sentence please.
I said "effectively". Also I'm not "implying" that there is nothing relevant above AP-3, but that such weapons are relatively rare. Mostly relics and meltas. And that is before you manage to apply cover, which is also a factor.
And yes, even with that, they still suck. If that doesnt ring an alarm bell, I don't know what else could.


Ok ok calm down calm down, he was just asking a question, we dont need the whole "EFFECTIVLY" l2read kinda commets i think.

They do still horribly suck because of the AP creep but imo guard struggle in other ways because of random number of shots. IMO if you wanna make guard good they should have a rule that says "Any weapon that fires D6 shots when determining the number of shots, results of 1 and 2 are doubled. When rolling to detemine number of shots for a weapon with 2d6 shots, results of 1 are doubled. when rolling number of shots for a weapon with d3 shots double results of 1."
As it stands would probably be better just to give them the maximum result automatically. Rolling random attacks should be rare anyways; not because of narrative but because it slows the game down. And 40k does NOT need more things slowing it down.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:40:28


Post by: JNAProductions


Heavy Intercessors are 28 PPM, last I recall.
Their best bet is a S5 36” range AP-1 (-2 in Tac doctrine) Rapid Fire Weapon.
9 of them, rapid firing at Sag Guard with no cover and while in the Tac doctrine, kill one. Which is, as a reminder, just over 250 points.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:43:56


Post by: SemperMortis


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, that and weapons/abilities that completely ignore all invulns made MW spam basically the basic game in town. What good is a 2+4++4+++ if you opponent can just delete your units? It's not even MWs now. There are just guns that shoot pure F U and suddenly your tank isn't there anymore. Like what good is paying a double cost premium if your units can be deleted by another unit worth half as much? This is the main issue with 9ths power creep. Melta Marines came out and Armor saves were suddenly irrelevent. The "Ignores Invuln" rule started appearing everywhere, and suddenly invulns were irrelevant. Custodes are basically forced now into EC only lists, because the 4+++ is the only thing keeping us alive long enough to earn points back.


What 75pts unit is currently 1 shotting a unit of 3 Sag Guard? I get that you were using exaggeration here but seriously? what unit that is cheaper than Sag Guard is currently 1 shotting it with ease?

As far as Mortal wound spam? yeah, most ork lists are being FORCED to move into Mortal wound spam because 2+4++ is too hard for us to deal with with most of our weapons. To kill 1 Sag guard with shootas takes 81 Shoota boyz, or 54 in Half Range. That is 432-646pts of Shoota boys to kill 50pts of Sag Guard. Not exactly..umm...Feasible. On the flipside, a couple units of Squig Riders and Kommandos can each put out D3 mortal wounds with Bomb Squigs. On the average 1st turn if I'm lucky I can get 6D3 Mortal wounds on you from Bomb Squigs.

This boils down to the old SM argument of Durability vs Damage. As durability increases, damage does as well. And in the case of durability specifically, as durability outstrips normal dmg output, players will have to find a better way to inflict dmg. So if other options were more appealing they would be used, but nobody wants to spend 10 minutes rolling hundreds of dice just to kill 1 Sag Guard.


So, Deldar have multiple 70pt units that can do it. Space Marine Heavy Intercessors can gun us down with ease, A Farseer can psyker them off the table, and the Tyranid psker unit can do it as well. I mean, it's not exactly hard to flood Sag with MWs or just just be like, here is Lelith, she did her bazillion attacks, here are your wounds.



Heavy intercessors....A squad of 5 is 140pts. All 5, with Executor bolt rifles (The -2 2dmg variant, better at killing custards) get 5 shots, 3.3 hits, 1.65 wounds for 1.65dmg. To kill 1 Sag Guard would take 10 of them, which is 280pts killing 50. So I really don't know what you are talking about, please clarify.

As far as Deldar, give me unit names and i'll run the numbers, but off the top of my head I can't think of any.

A Farseer is a Psyker character who deals Mortal wounds, Its also a 95pt unit that can somewhat reliably kill a Sag Guard in the psychic phase, but only if he rolls well and only if they gear his powers towards dealing mortal wounds as opposed to the better option of buffing other units which is what most people do with them. So yes, a psyker who deals mortal wounds is reliable at killing Sag guard, seems like a waste though

Next in line...Nid psykers...I'm noticing a trend, so when you said lots of units can 1 shot sag guard. you meant to say character/psykers can do so and even then can't 1 shot the unit, just a model. Bud, My damn weirdboyz and wurrboyz can do that as well, does that mean they are great units or is it you using the 1 weakness your army has....and even then you can take that ridiculous katah or whatever that gives you a 4+ against that


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:47:46


Post by: Pyroalchi


Wait... Sagittarum Custodians are S5, W3, 2+, 4++
5 Heavy Intercessors with 4 Executor Bolt rifles (Heavy 1, 5/-2/2) and one Heavy Executor Heavy Bolter (Heavy 2, 5/-2/3) therefore kill (on average rolls) 4 x 2/3 (hit roll) x 1/2 (wound roll) x 1/2 (sv roll) x 1/2 (Custodes have 3 wounds) = 1/3 Custodes with the rifles and 1/3 with the Heavy Bolter. In other words: 15 of these Heavy Intercessors kill 2 SagCustodes in a shooting phase while costing 450 points. That does not exactly sound like "Gun them down with ease", does it?

And with units using Mortal wounds: 3 Sag Custodes are 9 wounds and due to Aegis of the emperor one needs 10.8 MWs to kill them. Just because I really don't know if such things exist (I only know the IG, and more or less the AdMech Codex): are there really units out there that do >10 MWs for under 100 points?


Edit: sorry, all of the above was in response to Fezziks comment


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:51:08


Post by: Quasistellar


Wyldhunt wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:Marines have gobbled up many faction identities over time. It's tiresome.

You're not wrong, but I feel like the issue here is that marine players and custodes players were both sold on the same sales pitch. Both want to be the super duper elite heavily-armored transhumans with ultra mega awesome training where each dude is worth a whole squad of guardsmen. But if marines successfully fill that niche, then you have to make custodes individually powerful to the point of feeling mechanically awkward. And if you put the custodes in that niche instead and tone down marines, then marines feel like pale comparisons.

It's the Dragonball thing. Going super saiyan goes from being awesome to being cute once the protagonist can unlock super saiyan god mode++ with extra cheese.

Togusa wrote:Personally, I don't think they ever should have been added to the game as anything, save for a single unit imperium armies could buy in the elite slot.

This. Absolutely this. If custodes had to be added as playable models, they should have been a single unit (maybe even a single model) that you can splash one of into your imperial army. That way, you can make individual custodes as powerful as you want without having to balance that statline as an entire army, AND it would make the custodes feel more rare/special. There are so few of them spread so thin that you literally can't field a whole army of them but the couple of dudes that did show up are hugely inspiring badasses.

Remember in late 7th/early 8th when you could field a custodes with a banner that impacted all IMPERIAL units? That's the direction I was hoping they'd go in.


Out of all the factions, Custodes are the one that I also feel was a mistake (as a solo army). The lore just in no way supports it, and to make it feel fluffy is pretty dangerous to game balance. I feel like even Knights are a fluffier inclusion. To be frank, I feel like an Agents of the Imperium codex should have been the direction, would include ways to add Custodes, SoS, Inquisition, Assassins, etc to your army (and not as independent forces).

That ship has long sailed though, so I'm not going to say we should go backwards and remove Custodes as an independent faction. That would be unfair and dumb.

Still think we need that Agents of the Imperium codex, though. Could still include everything except Custodes. Not gonna hold my breath, though


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 19:51:40


Post by: Void__Dragon


Speaking as a Custodes player Custodes players are some of the whiniest and most insecure players in this game.

"Nooooooooooooooo what do you mean my line infantry can't 1v1 a Space Marine captain power creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!"




Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


So, Deldar have multiple 70pt units that can do it. Space Marine Heavy Intercessors can gun us down with ease, A Farseer can psyker them off the table, and the Tyranid psker unit can do it as well. I mean, it's not exactly hard to flood Sag with MWs or just just be like, here is Lelith, she did her bazillion attacks, here are your wounds.



Lelith does like one damage to a Sag guard in combat and has like a ten percent chance of killing one of them you have no idea what you're talking about my friend.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 22:44:15


Post by: Eihnlazer


4 sanguinary guard on the charge with +1 to hit will reliably kill 3 shield guard.

this i know from loosing all 3 of my shield guard squads in 2 turns in my latest game.

Game was still close, and i probably should have won, but i had a bit of bad luck with a caladius that took 2 1/2 turns to kill an incursor squad off an objective.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 23:07:12


Post by: Quasistellar


To be fair, sang gard are like the most elite melee unit in all of space Marines, going against custodes basic troops.

I forget how many points sang guard are but they did just get a weird points drop also out of no where when they're already like the #1 sm melee option. There were literally like 50 other things that needed attention and sang guard weren't one of them.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 23:23:02


Post by: artific3r


Why is everyone talking about Sagittarum? They are perfectly fine.

It's wardens, allarus, aquilons, venatari, and shield-captains that are broken. They don't kill any better than an average Custodian. They're not more durable. Their mobility tricks don't matter because they can't contest objectives anyway. They're far too expensive to be throwaway Engage/RND units. Without obsec they simply have no role in a Custodes army.

Our troops aren't the problem. The problem is every other INFANTRY keyword unit in the book. Custodes actually have a decent variety of models. It's just that none of them work.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/07 23:51:35


Post by: Quasistellar


Taking away obsec from the more elite custodes was a mistake imo. I was surprised they did that in addition to the other changes


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 00:04:01


Post by: Boosykes


Wyldhunt wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Thairne wrote:

That was their identity. Marines stole that. Marines stole everything from everyone at this point.
If anything, marines need to shrink so they're not encroaching on everyone elses space instead of killing other armies as you'd prefer it.


No, there is a massive ampunt of overlap between Custodes and Astartes, thematically. The Astartes didn't steal much from the Custodes that they didn't already have.

In my experience it's the Custodes players who are more obsessed with being the best, both in fluff and in terms of game mechanics.

That's the thing. Marines have come to step on a lot of toes. In recent memory, they've been better at ambushes than GSC, basically as fast as eldar, and tougher than plague marines and 'crons. There is definitely a case to be made for shrinking them down and keeping them from overshadowing other factions.

That said, I'm not sure you can say they "stole" the gimmick of being elite, transhuman tough guys wearing really good armor from custodes because that's been marines' core concept since like, 3rd edition. And it has also been custodes' core concept since they were introduced in 7th. Both armies are basically trying to give off Movie Marine vibes, and inevitably one is going to do it better than the other and leave the losing faction feeling cranky. Which is why it probably would have been better to leave custodes out of the game or keep them as a single unit per army Agents of the Imperium style.

As-is, how do you want it to feel when a marine player sets up across from a custodes player? Lore-wise, the custodes should be the more elite and individually badass of the two, but being elite and individually badass was the marine army's whole thing. Should the marine player just feel like he's playing guard in comparison to the custodes for that game? My heart goes out to frustrated custodes players, but the "right" way to add them into the game was probably to never make them a full faction in the first place.

This is the truth and the right perspective as long as we keep to a dice 6 system.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 06:50:22


Post by: Dysartes


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"a 2+/4++ isn't cutting it anymore"
What is even happening in 40k anymore

People taking portions of a sentence out of the full context to try to rubbish someone's point, apparently.

The full sentence, after all, was "Its still basically 50 pts for a heavy bolter and a 2+/4++ really isn't cutting it anymore, even if in cover."

I'm not saying whether I agree with it or not, but taking two of the three considerations in the claim away (offense and cost), leaving only the defensive element, and then trying to rubbish just that point is hardly an argument in good faith.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 07:39:17


Post by: Pyroalchi


@ Dysartes: I personally specifically wrote in response to Fezziks comment
So, Deldar have multiple 70pt units that can do it. Space Marine Heavy Intercessors can gun us down with ease, A Farseer can psyker them off the table, and the Tyranid psker unit can do it as well. I mean, it's not exactly hard to flood Sag with MWs or just just be like, here is Lelith, she did her bazillion attacks, here are your wounds.


And I had the impression some of the other posts in this regard where similar. I did not want to dispute if 50 points for a Heavy Bolter with 2+4++ is or is not cutting it anymore, as I don't have the practical experience to judge about that. But I wanted to dispute that there are multiple units in the <100 points range in multiple codices that have an easy time deleting a T5, W3, 2+, 4++ defensive profile.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 14:42:32


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


So Demons just got a new Invuln, that can't be negated. So we literally have a ++++ system now. So yeah, hordes of bloodletters with a save that can't be altered in any way. So that's a thing now.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 14:57:30


Post by: Tiberias


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Demons just got a new Invuln, that can't be negated. So we literally have a ++++ system now. So yeah, hordes of bloodletters with a save that can't be altered in any way. So that's a thing now.


Not really that relevant to this discussion, but I get the sentiment. Wait until the next Grey Knights codex where they get a "ignore the new demon save" relic or something. The progression is kinda funny though. First we had ignore invulns, now we have ignore ignore invulns and soon enough we'll get ignore ignore ignore invulns.

Edit: provided the rumor about how the new demon saves work is actually true. We don't have any confirmation aside from some reddit posts and an auspex video, nothing of that is 100% reliable.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 15:10:18


Post by: Dai


Woops wrong thread, apols


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 15:15:31


Post by: SemperMortis


 Dysartes wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"a 2+/4++ isn't cutting it anymore"
What is even happening in 40k anymore

People taking portions of a sentence out of the full context to try to rubbish someone's point, apparently.

The full sentence, after all, was "Its still basically 50 pts for a heavy bolter and a 2+/4++ really isn't cutting it anymore, even if in cover."

I'm not saying whether I agree with it or not, but taking two of the three considerations in the claim away (offense and cost), leaving only the defensive element, and then trying to rubbish just that point is hardly an argument in good faith.


The entire claim is incorrect to begin with.

A regular TAC Marine with a Heavy bolter (yeah I get it, not competitive) is 28pts. A Sag guard is 50. What does 22pts get you? +1 WS, BS, S, T, Wound, attack(two if you take the FREE Misercordia) , +4 Leadership and +1 to the save and a standard 4+ invuln. The Sag weapon is also Assault 3 as opposed to Heavy 3 AND has a secondary fire mode which gives it 1 extra shot at AP-3 3Dmg

To give a Marine a 4+ invuln usually requires a stormshield which is a 10pt upgrade. That alone brings the regular Marine up to 38pts, So just the stat increases and better weapons you are talking about 12pts. Its a ridiculous level of power. These guys are good at ranged combat and they are good in CC, they are incredibly durable and ridiculously fast since they don't really care about advance/fire.

The entire argument that Sag guard aren't amazing is just a bad one to start with.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 15:18:59


Post by: Thairne


I mean thats exactly how the game has been going.

first, there was armour save and invul.
Then MWs appeared to ignore the invuln.
Then came AP creep
in reaction to that invuln creep
and in reaction to that ignore invulns.
And now we have invulns that ignore ignore invulns.
I'd not be surprised if we get ignore invulns that ignore invuln ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:

The entire argument that Sag guard aren't amazing is just a bad one to start with.


No its not. Sagittarum still have insufficient damage output. If you hadn't nitpicked that argument, you'd be aware of that. Or if you ever, like, played it instead of ranting on a forum.
But you have your opinion from theorycrafting, I have mine from practical experience and the top players of the world to fall back on. Im not convincing you and you DEFINITELY will not convince me. So agree to disagree.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 15:39:48


Post by: JNAProductions


 Thairne wrote:
I mean thats exactly how the game has been going.

first, there was armour save and invul.
Then MWs appeared to ignore the invuln.
Then came AP creep
in reaction to that invuln creep
and in reaction to that ignore invulns.
And now we have invulns that ignore ignore invulns.
I'd not be surprised if we get ignore invulns that ignore invuln ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:

The entire argument that Sag guard aren't amazing is just a bad one to start with.


No its not. Sagittarum still have insufficient damage output. If you hadn't nitpicked that argument, you'd be aware of that. Or if you ever, like, played it instead of ranting on a forum.
But you have your opinion from theorycrafting, I have mine from practical experience and the top players of the world to fall back on. Im not convincing you and you DEFINITELY will not convince me. So agree to disagree.
There's a difference between "Can't compete at top tables" and "Is bad".


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 15:40:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So, Deldar have multiple 70pt units that can do it.


name them
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Space Marine Heavy Intercessors can gun us down with ease,

how? and its a 140pts squad minimum

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

A Farseer can psyker them off the table,

2d3 = 9 wounds through your FnP?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


and the Tyranid psker unit can do it as well.


fair enough on that one

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


I mean, it's not exactly hard to flood Sag with MWs or just just be like

good thing you get a fnp against the main weakness of your faction

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


here is Lelith, she did her bazillion attacks, here are your wounds.


you mean 8 attacks on average? At S4 -3 1? That lelith is chewing through your custodes?




Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 17:14:09


Post by: SemperMortis


 Thairne wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

The entire argument that Sag guard aren't amazing is just a bad one to start with.


No its not. Sagittarum still have insufficient damage output. If you hadn't nitpicked that argument, you'd be aware of that. Or if you ever, like, played it instead of ranting on a forum.
But you have your opinion from theorycrafting, I have mine from practical experience and the top players of the world to fall back on. Im not convincing you and you DEFINITELY will not convince me. So agree to disagree.


Or if I ever played...like the ITC events and GT's i usually attend? In fact in my last GT I played 2 Different Custodes players Including a guy who finished in the top 20% at LVO. I routinely play in tournaments against another individual who was on the Top 20 players to watch out for list at LVO. But yeah, I clearly don't play or know what I am talking about.

if they sucked like you think they do, they wouldn't make ANY appearance in custodes list, especially since Custodes have 4 troop choices. Instead though they tend to appear in almost every single list. Hayden Ford just used an MSU squad in his 4th place list at ExtVDomo. Just last month James Lee ran 5 Troop choices including 2 Sag Guard in his 3rd place list. Mark Earney did a different list but also included 5 troops and 2 of them being Sag Guard. Mark Wang finished 2nd overall at the Canadian Shield GT and he ran 4 troops choices including 3 Sag Guard. Adam Shepherd Jones finished 3rd overall at the Warhammer World GT and he ran 4 troop choices including 3 Sag Guard totalling 550pts. (2 squads of 4 and 1 of 3)

So when you say "The top players of the world to fall back on" What you meant was...your opinion since the top Custodes players all seem to like them enough to include them in their lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference between "Can't compete at top tables" and "Is bad".


Correct, but even then he is still wrong because they are competing at the top tables and those lists are placing in the top 4 and hell, this last weekend they had 3 lists of them finishing in the top 8.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 17:20:31


Post by: Backspacehacker


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Demons just got a new Invuln, that can't be negated. So we literally have a ++++ system now. So yeah, hordes of bloodletters with a save that can't be altered in any way. So that's a thing now.


HOly crap can i get a source on that becuase i was saying this was exactly what was going to happen, that GW would just put in a super invuln. Because if this is true, once more, i was 100% right.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 17:34:09


Post by: JNAProductions


 Backspacehacker wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Demons just got a new Invuln, that can't be negated. So we literally have a ++++ system now. So yeah, hordes of bloodletters with a save that can't be altered in any way. So that's a thing now.


HOly crap can i get a source on that becuase i was saying this was exactly what was going to happen, that GW would just put in a super invuln. Because if this is true, once more, i was 100% right.
The source is not, to my knowledge, entirely reliable.
But what it's supposed to be is an armor save that ignores AP.


Any other Custodes players feel same? @ 2022/07/08 19:01:56


Post by: Backspacehacker


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Demons just got a new Invuln, that can't be negated. So we literally have a ++++ system now. So yeah, hordes of bloodletters with a save that can't be altered in any way. So that's a thing now.


HOly crap can i get a source on that becuase i was saying this was exactly what was going to happen, that GW would just put in a super invuln. Because if this is true, once more, i was 100% right.
The source is not, to my knowledge, entirely reliable.
But what it's supposed to be is an armor save that ignores AP.


Which is what the invuln was, until it was not. And i abosluly was saying this months ago that the rending AP system would eventually lead to this because its so much easier to power creep the current AP system.