Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Neither do I. Maybe because there's no reason for it to be? Seriously, there's quite a large amount of Space Marine hate and how mary-sue they are sometimes.

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know why this section of dakka isn't called 'Rub one out to Space Marine fluff'.

I don't know why it's not called 'manipulate the background to suit your own perspective' personally...

Medium of Death wrote:Custodes wipe the floor with Space Marines in single combat.

Argel Tal, only gets the upper hand in a sparring match when he is possessed.

As for the Possessed Word Bearers;

The Gal Vorbak are almost wiped out by Corax, only a few remain, they do not come back to life. The remaining Gal Vorbak then kill off the last custodes accompanying the legion.

Argel Tal's possession hadn't really manifested at that point; there was a significant difference between the level Argel Tal was at when he equalled Aquillion and the level of possession a normal Possessed SM or the Gal Vorbak displayed at the end.

I was disappointed with the apparent ease the Gal Vorbak displayed at taking down the Custodes, suggesting the quite distinct superiority of possession over Custodian-status...

Medium of Death wrote:I don't think a marine could throw a glaive with such accuracy.

Fast moving possessed hit square in the chest.

Well, if a Space Wolf, albeit an unusually strong Space Wolf, can accurately throw a Thunder Hammer, so I don't see why they could not accurately throw a glaive. Unless their glaives are much heavier than I assume they are.

Just Dave wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Custodians are so far above and beyond marines, that a comparison is just dumb.

IIRC didn't you argue that Custodes are almost equal to Primarchs, or superior to Space Marines like Space Marines are to Imperial Guard. Then everybody promptly proved you wrong...


Ultimately, Custodes are typically slightly above Astartes in ability it seems, but not to a particularly significant level, they are different but so similar at the same time. As it said in one of the HH novels "Generally, custodes were larger and more powerful than Astartes, but the differences were only noticeably significant in a few specific cases. No one would be foolish enough to predict the outcome of a contest between an Astartes and a custodes.", this was shown when they were slightly outclassed by Possessed for example IMHO.
Vendatha was clearly a skilled Custodian, ADB said so himself. I think he'd like Lucius is to his fellow Astartes in exceptionally skilled in martial combat.

No, they didn't...Their response was something along the lines of "Hurr durr plot armour. Hurr Durr Your example is canon but mine is my opinion so it's right".

Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to their own opinion, and I am not saying that mine is worth more, I am simply defending mine with canonical fluff, whereas many *cough* MelissiaIproxtaco *cough* were simply saying "No that's dumb I'm right".

As to your quote, the sources on this are too enormously variable to get a definitive answer (Get used to it, that's how GW rolls), so quoting one individual source means fairly little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Dave wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know why this section of dakka isn't called 'Rub one out to Space Marine fluff'.

I don't know why it's not called 'manipulate the background to suit your own perspective' personally...

Medium of Death wrote:Custodes wipe the floor with Space Marines in single combat.

Argel Tal, only gets the upper hand in a sparring match when he is possessed.

As for the Possessed Word Bearers;

The Gal Vorbak are almost wiped out by Corax, only a few remain, they do not come back to life. The remaining Gal Vorbak then kill off the last custodes accompanying the legion.

Argel Tal's possession hadn't really manifested at that point; there was a significant difference between the level Argel Tal was at when he equalled Aquillion and the level of possession a normal Possessed SM or the Gal Vorbak displayed at the end.


I was disappointed with the apparent ease the Gal Vorbak displayed at taking down the Custodes, suggesting the quite distinct superiority of possession over Custodian-status...

Did you forget the part were the Gal Vorbak outnumber the custodes 4 to one and took heavier losses?

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know why this section of dakka isn't called 'Rub one out to Space Marine fluff'.

Same reason it's not called "Rub one out to Custodes fantasies"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:Did you forget the part were the Gal Vorbak outnumber the custodes 4 to one and took heavier losses?

Don't make up garbage that has already been dismissed earlier in this thread, it makes you look stupid and/or trollish.

There were 8 Possessed vs 3 Custodes, and the Custodes killed three of them before they all died (the last casualty the Custodes inflicted was a surprise suicide attack). It basically goes, Custodes kills a Possessed before being chomped to death by another, the Possessed then stops to feed on the corpse and gets skewered by Aquillon (the leader), right before Argel Tal rips out his skull/spine Predator-style. Then the last guy chucked his spear at an on-rushing Possessed moments before getting torn to shreds.

Omegus wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know why this section of dakka isn't called 'Rub one out to Space Marine fluff'.

Same reason it's not called "Rub one out to Custodes fantasies"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:Did you forget the part were the Gal Vorbak outnumber the custodes 4 to one and took heavier losses?

Don't make up garbage that has already been dismissed earlier in this thread, it makes you look stupid and/or trollish.

There were 8 Possessed vs 3 Custodes, and the Custodes killed three of them before they all died (the last casualty the Custodes inflicted was a surprise suicide attack). It basically goes, Custodes kills a Possessed before being chomped to death by another, the Possessed then stops to feed on the corpse and gets skewered by Aquillon (the leader), right before Argel Tal rips out his skull/spine Predator-style. Then the last guy chucked his spear at an on-rushing Possessed moments before getting torn to shreds. [/quote

There were 11 Gal Vorbak, 7 survived. Against 3 custodes.

Have you read the book?

Context is everything.

Just Dave wrote:And people say the same thing about Space Marines, and Space Marines can say the same thing about other Space Marines too.
Custodians are better than the ordinary Astartes, but they're not to particularly big level IMO. I'd imagine them to be similar or just above a Veteran Space Marine in terms of ability.

Veterans have a few hundred years of experience, custodes have 13,000 years experience.

I wish you guy's would start stating book, page #, paragraph and line's for these quotes, dramatizations or comments if they are true other wise its just ego throwing. Something like this...

Lexicanum.com wrote:The Custodes are slightly larger and stronger than Space Marines.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Custodes

It's under Appearance and equipment section 2, paragraph 1, line 1.

Now it says this quote is in Blood Games page 29. So if I have that book which I don't then I can go find it... I just think its silly you guys are arguing stuff without even saying a page, paragraph, line number. I know you guy's are serious cause your that worked up about it... =///////////////// It would make the argument more physical and less substantial for everyone. Not to mention less frustration. Sure there are going to be individuals that are of great quality in any group.

I think a lot of people have read material on stuff I just think its hard to remember were exactly that section or occurrence of things happens. Thats when things are made up. Though we should be realistic about it and say well I remember it happening like this. Though I forget were it happens if that's the case. Then again I don't think anyone is willing to put there foot down on: Book, page, paragraph, line number.... on this forum unless its dire maybe. Its just tedious I know, but it helps prevent beckering and hotheaded arguments. =////// [Sarcasm] So why not just argue our points into oblivion cause we are selves are always right. Whatever I think is true is true and that how it is... [/sarcasm]

-Sincerely Viri

Viridian wrote: I wish you guy's would start stating book, page #, paragraph and line's for these quotes, dramatizations or comments if they are true other wise its just ego throwing. Something like this...

Lexicanum.com wrote:The Custodes are slightly larger and stronger than Space Marines.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Custodes

It's under Appearance and equipment section 2, paragraph 1, line 1.

Now it says this quote is in Blood Games page 29. So if I have that book which I don't then I can go find it... I just think its silly you guys are arguing stuff without even saying a page, paragraph, line number. I know you guy's are serious cause your that worked up about it... =///////////////// It would make the argument more physical and less substantial for everyone. Not to mention less frustration. Sure there are going to be individuals that are of great quality in any group.

That and the quote regarding "only a fool would place money on who'd be the victor of such a fight" (not the exact quote, but you know) is the main thing I'm basing my opinion off personally.

Regarding Page Numbers, a lot of people would probably find it too much effort, whilst I at least am unable to as (apart from the 2 Prospero-based novels) my HH series is in a different city to where I am atm. I would also find it too much effort to be fair too!

im2randomghgh wrote:

Just Dave wrote:And people say the same thing about Space Marines, and Space Marines can say the same thing about other Space Marines too.
Custodians are better than the ordinary Astartes, but they're not to particularly big level IMO. I'd imagine them to be similar or just above a Veteran Space Marine in terms of ability.

Veterans have a few hundred years of experience, custodes have 13,000 years experience.

Yes, but modern Custodes haven't been in active combat for several thousand years, whilst heresy-era custodes would be a very similar age - and with likely less battlefield experience - to the Space Marines.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Custodians are so far above and beyond marines, that a comparison is just dumb.

IIRC didn't you argue that Custodes are almost equal to Primarchs, or superior to Space Marines like Space Marines are to Imperial Guard. Then everybody promptly proved you wrong...


Ultimately, Custodes are typically slightly above Astartes in ability it seems, but not to a particularly significant level, they are different but so similar at the same time. As it said in one of the HH novels "Generally, custodes were larger and more powerful than Astartes, but the differences were only noticeably significant in a few specific cases. No one would be foolish enough to predict the outcome of a contest between an Astartes and a custodes.", this was shown when they were slightly outclassed by Possessed for example IMHO.
Vendatha was clearly a skilled Custodian, ADB said so himself. I think he'd like Lucius is to his fellow Astartes in exceptionally skilled in martial combat.

No, they didn't...Their response was something along the lines of "Hurr durr plot armour. Hurr Durr Your example is canon but mine is my opinion so it's right".

I've got your quote here (from here):

"Also, as I already meantioned, it has been stated that Custodes are to Astartes what Astartes are to Guardsmen, and while GK ARE a cut above astartes, Custodes are only very,very slightly weaker than Primarchs. Do you think a Librarian could kill a primarch? No. "

"There is no conceivable way in which Valdor would be dead. He survived the HH, the Custodes haven't been in active combat since then, and they are immortal. What possible way could you suspect he died? Especially considering he was more powerful the Horus, which means that Valdor surpassed the primarchs, which means the only mortal in the galaxy who could beat him in one-on-one would be the EoM."

Personally, I have never seen any evidence that either of the above statements are correct. How many Custodes have died? A lot. How many Primarchs have died? 5 confirmed.
A Thousand Sons describes how a Custodes dies from his jetbike crashing or as a result of their Sorcery. First Heretic describes a Custode being inferior to a possessed (Argel Tal), whilst also describing a Primarch (Corax) being far superior to the same possessed.

As to your quote, the sources on this are too enormously variable to get a definitive answer (Get used to it, that's how GW rolls), so quoting one individual source means fairly little.

I said that earlier, which means you can only get the rough idea of how powerful a custode is or isn't compared to an astartes. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that A) some people should read and then believe inaccurate statements and B) inaccurate statements should be made. IMHO.
I agree though, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'd just rather they were accurate.

We will never know how they would fare against astartes 100 on 100 or 5,000 on 5,000. They are intended to defend the imperial palace, anything that enters the palace that means damage will simply die, that's all we need to know, they may not have the thousands of specialities the space marine chapters have, they have 1, to defend the emperor's body against any and all enemies.

They're an army themselves, we just don't know much about them, if we did then they would be severely weakened, the custodians are as diverse as any space marine chapter, I think the last defence for the emperor would have thought to plan for any type of attack.

I doubt the custodians are stupid. They practice individuality whilst astartes practice teamwork but that is because they are important, loyal and powerful enough to do this, this is a bonus to teamwork, they are good enough to choose their individual role to benefit the rest, the only reason astartes practice teamwork is because they lack the wisdom to choose their own role in the squad themselves, they are told, a custodian will identify a weakness and train to combat it, they don't need telling.

So, the custodians are produced artificially in a test tube. It is in the nature of space marines to have traits of their primarch and respect and idol their primarch, sometimes more than the emperor, the Horus heresy tells us that so of course the custodes don't have one. It's not a weakness, their only leader is the emperor, the lords of terra or the inquisition wouldn't even dare to control them, if they weren't artificial then their DNA would be impure, they must be fully rounded, something no single space marine is. Even Kaldor Draigo should look up to them, he only has one purpose, combatting daemons.

Most of the above is personal opinion and conjecture. We KNOW they are flawed and don't work together, there's no advantage there, Marines are superior for their ability to work as a team. Amazing individual warriors that easily outstrip the regular line soldier in close quarters, but they're bodyguards and warriors, not soldiers.

Just regarding the 'test tube custode babies' theory. Is it just another intenet-borne thoery or does it have actual merit in the fluff? In keeping with the collection of Custodes info I have I'd be grateful for an actual source to back up future discussions...

Viridian wrote: I wish you guy's would start stating book, page #, paragraph and line's for these quotes, dramatizations or comments if they are true other wise its just ego throwing. Something like this...

Etc, etc...

Unfortunately, that quote on Lexicanum is an example of a fan handpicking part of a quote, while discarding the rest. It brings the whole thing out of context. Here's the full quote:

Blood Games by Dan Abnett wrote:"Generally, the custodes were larger and more powerful than astartes, but the differences were only noticably significant in a few specific cases. No one would be foolish enough to predict the outcome of a contest between an astartes and a custodes"

Moral of the story: Even though it's cleaned up its act, Lexicanum should not be quoted unless you've verified the complete source. It's still prone to errors and writer's bias. Still, at least it's better that W40k wiki, which would have earned harsh derision...

im2randomghgh wrote:Did you forget the part were the Gal Vorbak outnumber the custodes 4 to one and took heavier losses?

Omegus wrote:Don't make up garbage that has already been dismissed earlier in this thread, it makes you look stupid and/or trollish.

There were 8 Possessed vs 3 Custodes, and the Custodes killed three of them before they all died (the last casualty the Custodes inflicted was a surprise suicide attack). It basically goes, Custodes kills a Possessed before being chomped to death by another, the Possessed then stops to feed on the corpse and gets skewered by Aquillon (the leader), right before Argel Tal rips out his skull/spine Predator-style. Then the last guy chucked his spear at an on-rushing Possessed moments before getting torn to shreds.

There were 11 Gal Vorbak, 7 survived. Against 3 custodes.

Have you read the book?

Obviously you haven't.


Let's see, two have died, and six are remaining. 6 + 2 = 8. Hurrdurr basic arithmetic, something you fail at harder than Abaddon's crusades.

Then again, considering how seamlessly you shifted from "they were outnumbered 4:1 and still slaughtered them" to "there were 11 vs 3 and killed four", I'm convinced you're actually in this thread to just troll. Although considering that you keep propagating the myth that Valdor was more powerful than Horus and that the remaining Custodes are basically mini-Primarchs, you could just be seriously deluded.

iproxtaco wrote:Most of the above is personal opinion and conjecture. We KNOW they are flawed and don't work together, there's no advantage there, Marines are superior for their ability to work as a team. Amazing individual warriors that easily outstrip the regular line soldier in close quarters, but they're bodyguards and warriors, not soldiers.

It is not a flaw, it is nothing like a flaw. They each perform their role, whereas astartes are (not literally) more like the line troops of the 17/18 century.

A custode works with his squad mates, but doesn't depend on them.

Also, earlier in this thread someone said that even heresy-era custodes had less combat experience than heresy-era astartes, which is wrong. They fought the unification war, and during the heresy were sent on missions by the emperor, rather than simply guarding him.

Greyish wrote: Moral of the story: Even though it's cleaned up its act, Lexicanum should not be quoted unless you've verified the complete source. It's still prone to errors and writer's bias. Still, at least it's better that W40k wiki, which would have earned harsh derision...

I gave a complete source vi quotation Lexicanum.com as my source because I do not own the book as stated. Does the quotation not say Lexicanum.com? Does it not Greyish? In fact you didn't even list page, paragraph and line # of that in your post you are no better then Lex by your own opinion other then the authenticity of verbatim(Which I trust you.) but don't pick on me when I gave a complete quote from a source section paragraph and line number in dead honesty. Egotistical throw backs... like this thread are the reason lex has enough problems verifying were people get there quotations when people are so brass to not take the time to authenticate a quote in its entirety as you did. People are so lazy they think there opinion is fact pure and simple. If you want to say its a quote fine list the source I don't care were its from but list it as best you can and as honest as you can. Sure there are a lot of quotations that are 'source: book x' off lex which are frustrating. I agree they should do a better job at refining it and make it a requirement for book and page number at the least if they aren't going to go Verbatim. But to decline Lex as good source is purely Lunicidal(yes I'm making sh!t up now) ... What is the number one thing people say on this forum if people want to learn 40k fluff?

So it is one of if not they most widely used sources, sure I'll say it needs work definitely I agree with you its notation keeping is horrible at times which is why I gave that quotation book and page number. It's still a source and I'm giving it... also linking its sources that are linked too it which was fairly easy Blood Games page 29. You probably took that and looked up the quotation you found to support your argument did you not? If you did... I find it funny you say lex is a bad source after using the actual source value from lex to find the information. Far as writer's bias ANYTHING is writer's bias I can decline to accept the facts listed in any book on the object of argument just as you are able to decline the fact as Lex as a source. If I'm a writer and I write the fact that the guys in gold can smack a halberd on the ground and kill 1000 marines and it gets printed and has gamesworkshop / BL on it then its fact then? and just as Just Dave was arguing with im2randomghgh.

im2randomghgh wrote:As to your quote, the sources on this are too enormously variable to get a definitive answer (Get used to it, that's how GW rolls), so quoting one individual source means fairly little.

Just Dave wrote:I said that earlier, which means you can only get the rough idea of how powerful a custode is or isn't compared to an astartes. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that A) some people should read and then believe inaccurate statements and B) inaccurate statements should be made. IMHO.
I agree though, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'd just rather they were accurate.

Now... I totally support both people for opposite reasons in this argument. I think im2randomghgh has a right to have his opinion on whatever it is and were ever he got it though its definitely wrong and inaccurate to just be stating things without proof or backup of quotations from some where decently reliable. The pure laziness / opinionization(made it up deal with it) of people when it comes to fluff fights is ridiculous. You guy's pretty much only give a direct Verbatim quote when it suits your fancy or its easy assessable. Truth is only told when someone gives the best information they can give and how / were they got it. Which I did. If you want to decline the use of lex as a source that's your business and I have no idea why consider the whole fact of were people go to read 40k fluff collectively and sadly knowing how school is with wiki's is why I gave the information I did.

The only reason I posted that first post was the fact that this whole thread needs to get cleaned up directly seriously. I get tired of reading inaccurate things on here specifically on this thread when people DO NOT list book page #. Verbatim I don't care I'll listen to your opinion and think it over as long as you give me the source of your opinion I have more faith in you. I have better faith in you. I think that's pretty nice of me... Considering how im2randomghgh believes that primarch's are less then a Custode is beyond craziness but I have one question that would make this thread a bit more interesting....

Why would the Emperor allow stronger more able beings wander the universe susceptible too corruption and allow them the ability if corrupted to storm threw his personal guard(hersey redurex)?

It make's no sense its suicidal... and if anything was learned from the heresy it has to be you cannot trust Astarte's completely. There has to be the strength in there to at least delay a level of assault of some magnitude by marines. I would think he would have a chapter or two of marines around to call in quick to earth. But how good are Custode's I don't know but I would think they could hold off tell help arrives at the least... Unless you guys that support the marine side of this really believe that yeah okay a whole company is corrupted without knowledge and is totally set to go back to earth and lay wake into the palace break it and kill the emperor yeah that sounds kinda off. Nothing is 100% I don't even believe 100% in the fact people are crazy about un-corruptable Grey Knights. Those that do then you support Matt Ward? Seriously? If I'm the Emperor my mind tells me believe but do not trust. Be able to repel them at least be able to enforce my position threw other means. Now if someone would like to clarify this quote that I hope I do not get slapped for with some lame witty remark cause I got information off Lexicanum again and again I'll give this a proper damn look threw as some people would call it. When I am decently trying to be accurate and truthful with information while admitting that it is shady at least I give all my source values of the original tome of interest...

Lexicanum.com wrote:Equipment which was characteristic of the Custodes would influence the equipment of the later Grey Knights. After the confinement of the Emperor within the Golden Throne, the Custodes abandoned, among other things, the use of their armour...

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Adeptus_Custodes#Sources

It's under History section 3, paragraph 3, line 2.

This is said to be in Horus Heresy: Collected Visions, pg. 28-29 (And yeah again thats the most information lex has no paragraph or line numbers)can anyone verify verbatim?

-Sincerely Viri

Viridian wrote:

Greyish wrote: Moral of the story: Even though it's cleaned up its act, Lexicanum should not be quoted unless you've verified the complete source. It's still prone to errors and writer's bias. Still, at least it's better that W40k wiki, which would have earned harsh derision...

I gave a complete source vi quotation Lexicanum.com as my source because I do not own the book as stated. Does the quotation not say Lexicanum.com? Does it not Greyish? In fact you didn't even list page, paragraph and line # of that in your post you are no better then Lex by your own opinion other then the authenticity of verbatim(Which I trust you.) but don't pick on me when I gave a complete quote from a source section paragraph and line number in dead honesty. Egotistical throw backs... like this thread are the reason lex has enough problems verifying were people get there quotations when people are so brass to not take the time to authenticate a quote in its entirety as you did. People are so lazy they think there opinion is fact pure and simple. If you want to say its a quote fine list the source I don't care were its from but list it as best you can and as honest as you can. Sure there are a lot of quotations that are 'source: book x' off lex which are frustrating. I agree they should do a better job at refining it and make it a requirement for book and page number at the least if they aren't going to go Verbatim. But to decline Lex as good source is purely Lunicidal(yes I'm making sh!t up now) ... What is the number one thing people say on this forum if people want to learn 40k fluff?

So it is one of if not they most widely used sources, sure I'll say it needs work definitely I agree with you its notation keeping is horrible at times which is why I gave that quotation book and page number. It's still a source and I'm giving it... also linking its sources that are linked too it which was fairly easy Blood Games page 29. You probably took that and looked up the quotation you found to support your argument did you not? If you did... I find it funny you say lex is a bad source after using the actual source value from lex to find the information. Far as writer's bias ANYTHING is writer's bias I can decline to accept the facts listed in any book on the object of argument just as you are able to decline the fact as Lex as a source. If I'm a writer and I write the fact that the guys in gold can smack a halberd on the ground and kill 1000 marines and it gets printed and has gamesworkshop / BL on it then its fact then? and just as Just Dave was arguing with im2randomghgh.

im2randomghgh wrote:As to your quote, the sources on this are too enormously variable to get a definitive answer (Get used to it, that's how GW rolls), so quoting one individual source means fairly little.

Just Dave wrote:I said that earlier, which means you can only get the rough idea of how powerful a custode is or isn't compared to an astartes. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that A) some people should read and then believe inaccurate statements and B) inaccurate statements should be made. IMHO.
I agree though, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'd just rather they were accurate.

Now... I totally support both people for opposite reasons in this argument. I think im2randomghgh has a right to have his opinion on whatever it is and were ever he got it though its definitely wrong and inaccurate to just be stating things without proof or backup of quotations from some where decently reliable. The pure laziness / opinionization(made it up deal with it) of people when it comes to fluff fights is ridiculous. You guy's pretty much only give a direct Verbatim quote when it suits your fancy or its easy assessable. Truth is only told when someone gives the best information they can give and how / were they got it. Which I did. If you want to decline the use of lex as a source that's your business and I have no idea why consider the whole fact of were people go to read 40k fluff collectively and sadly knowing how school is with wiki's is why I gave the information I did.

The only reason I posted that first post was the fact that this whole thread needs to get cleaned up directly seriously. I get tired of reading inaccurate things on here specifically on this thread when people DO NOT list book page #. Verbatim I don't care I'll listen to your opinion and think it over as long as you give me the source of your opinion I have more faith in you. I have better faith in you. I think that's pretty nice of me... Considering how im2randomghgh believes that primarch's are less then a Custode is beyond craziness but I have one question that would make this thread a bit more interesting....

Why would the Emperor allow stronger more able beings wander the universe susceptible too corruption and allow them the ability if corrupted to storm threw his personal guard(hersey redurex)?

It make's no sense its suicidal... and if anything was learned from the heresy it has to be you cannot trust Astarte's completely. There has to be the strength in there to at least delay a level of assault of some magnitude by marines. I would think he would have a chapter or two of marines around to call in quick to earth. But how good are Custode's I don't know but I would think they could hold off tell help arrives at the least... Unless you guys that support the marine side of this really believe that yeah okay a whole company is corrupted without knowledge and is totally set to go back to earth and lay wake into the palace break it and kill the emperor yeah that sounds kinda off. Nothing is 100% I don't even believe 100% in the fact people are crazy about un-corruptable Grey Knights. Those that do then you support Matt Ward? Seriously? If I'm the Emperor my mind tells me believe but do not trust. Be able to repel them at least be able to enforce my position threw other means. Now if someone would like to clarify this quote that I hope I do not get slapped for with some lame witty remark cause I got information off Lexicanum again and again I'll give this a proper damn look threw as some people would call it. When I am decently trying to be accurate and truthful with information while admitting that it is shady at least I give all my source values of the original tome of interest...

Lexicanum.com wrote:Equipment which was characteristic of the Custodes would influence the equipment of the later Grey Knights. After the confinement of the Emperor within the Golden Throne, the Custodes abandoned, among other things, the use of their armour...

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Adeptus_Custodes#Sources

It's under History section 3, paragraph 3, line 2.

This is said to be in Horus Heresy: Collected Visions, pg. 28-29 (And yeah again thats the most information lex has no paragraph or line numbers)can anyone verify verbatim?

-Sincerely Viri

I would just like to clarify that i do NOT think standard custodes are better than primarchs, i am saying that Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once. Comparing him to a standard custode would be like comparing a stormtrooper to a conscript. My point in mentioning it was to point out that primarchs are not infallible, primarchs who are basically just better versions of astartes. The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck. It proved that custodes are physiologically capable of achieving feats that astartes are simply not capable of attaining.

Also, Macharius was said to be a tactician rivaling if not exceeding the primarchs, and he was unaugmented. Unless his sainthood WASN'T posthumous, I am a bit fuzzy on that point.

And if we're using wiki quotes, then this: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Adeptus_Custodes#Role_and_Capabilities

agrees by and large with my outlook, though it is neutral enough that it is simply stating facts. If the authors could only sit down and talk before contradicting each other...

Wait a minute, the quote you gave me about Valdor beating Horus was from a wiki?

Bad form.

And once more, Custodes were shown being killed in droves by a powerful Thousand Sons sorcerer. They are not Primarchs, not even close.

im2randomghgh wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Most of the above is personal opinion and conjecture. We KNOW they are flawed and don't work together, there's no advantage there, Marines are superior for their ability to work as a team. Amazing individual warriors that easily outstrip the regular line soldier in close quarters, but they're bodyguards and warriors, not soldiers.

It is not a flaw, it is nothing like a flaw. They each perform their role, whereas astartes are (not literally) more like the line troops of the 17/18 century.

A custode works with his squad mates, but doesn't depend on them.

Also, earlier in this thread someone said that even heresy-era custodes had less combat experience than heresy-era astartes, which is wrong. They fought the unification war, and during the heresy were sent on missions by the emperor, rather than simply guarding him.

You're really trying to turn this into an advantage? Where on earth do get this crap from? The First Heretic quite plainly makes out that Custodes are flawed for their inability to work together like Astartes. They do not work together, they do not work as a cohesive unit. Each one fights his own private battle, separate from his brothers, there's way you can swing this. They are flawed, deal with it.

I think it's fairly obvious that part of the wiki page, which does not cite sources for most of it, was written by more than one person. It skips from sound reasoning, giving sources like the first paragraph, to random hyperbole the next.

im2randomghgh wrote:I would just like to clarify that i do NOT think standard custodes are better than primarchs, i am saying that Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once. Comparing him to a standard custode would be like comparing a stormtrooper to a conscript. My point in mentioning it was to point out that primarchs are not infallible, primarchs who are basically just better versions of astartes. The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck. It proved that custodes are physiologically capable of achieving feats that astartes are simply not capable of attaining.

You went quite a bit further than saying "Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once"/"The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck".
You said "Especially considering he was more powerful the Horus, which means that Valdor surpassed the primarchs, which means the only mortal in the galaxy who could beat him in one-on-one would be the EoM."

More powerful/surpassed the primarchs/only beaten by the Emperor is a lot more than 'lucky' or beaten once as you now claim...

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, earlier in this thread someone said that even heresy-era custodes had less combat experience than heresy-era astartes, which is wrong. They fought the unification war, and during the heresy were sent on missions by the emperor, rather than simply guarding him.

That was me and I said "with likely less battlefield experience", by which I mean that Astartes have likely spent more time in the battlefield than custodes. I'm aware Custodes do more than Guarding the Big E, but that is still their main role, whilst they were not used as an out-and-out army like the Astartes were - although the Custodes were sometimes used in such a way, it wasn't nearly as often.
Some astartes also fought in the unification wars, as well as being at the forefront of the great crusade.
I never stated it as fact, it's just any differences in experience between most Custodes and Astartes at the time were IMHO likely to be insignificant.

Void__Dragon wrote:Wait a minute, the quote you gave me about Valdor beating Horus was from a wiki?

Bad form.

And once more, Custodes were shown being killed in droves by a powerful Thousand Sons sorcerer. They are not Primarchs, not even close.

No, the original Valdor v Horus thing was, I am fairly sure, from a white dwarf. Obviously I don't remember which issue, so the only other source that seemed to acknowledge the canonicity of WD was quoted by me.

And in which book are main characters NOT given rediculously huge boosts in power compared to what would make sense? It is called PLOT ARMOUR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Dave wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:I would just like to clarify that i do NOT think standard custodes are better than primarchs, i am saying that Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once. Comparing him to a standard custode would be like comparing a stormtrooper to a conscript. My point in mentioning it was to point out that primarchs are not infallible, primarchs who are basically just better versions of astartes. The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck. It proved that custodes are physiologically capable of achieving feats that astartes are simply not capable of attaining.

You went quite a bit further than saying "Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once"/"The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck".
You said "Especially considering he was more powerful the Horus, which means that Valdor surpassed the primarchs, which means the only mortal in the galaxy who could beat him in one-on-one would be the EoM."

More powerful/surpassed the primarchs/only beaten by the Emperor is a lot more than 'lucky' or beaten once as you now claim...

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, earlier in this thread someone said that even heresy-era custodes had less combat experience than heresy-era astartes, which is wrong. They fought the unification war, and during the heresy were sent on missions by the emperor, rather than simply guarding him.

That was me and I said "with likely less battlefield experience", by which I mean that Astartes have likely spent more time in the battlefield than custodes. I'm aware Custodes do more than Guarding the Big E, but that is still their main role, whilst they were not used as an out-and-out army like the Astartes were - although the Custodes were sometimes used in such a way, it wasn't nearly as often.
Some astartes also fought in the unification wars, as well as being at the forefront of the great crusade.
I never stated it as fact, it's just any differences in experience between most Custodes and Astartes at the time were IMHO likely to be insignificant.

Astartes did NOT fight in the unification wars, as the primarchs hadn't even been incubated yet.

And the beginning of the crusade featured the Emperor and his custodes pwning everything. Like Ullanor.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:Wait a minute, the quote you gave me about Valdor beating Horus was from a wiki?

Bad form.

And once more, Custodes were shown being killed in droves by a powerful Thousand Sons sorcerer. They are not Primarchs, not even close.

No, the original Valdor v Horus thing was, I am fairly sure, from a white dwarf. Obviously I don't remember which issue, so the only other source that seemed to acknowledge the canonicity of WD was quoted by me.

And in which book are main characters NOT given rediculously huge boosts in power compared to what would make sense? It is called PLOT ARMOUR.

Make believe until you provide a quote from the source.

Their planet was being torn apart, they were being destroyed, they unleashed their full power and suffered for it. The Custodes are so far from Primarchs it's funny.

Just Dave wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:I would just like to clarify that i do NOT think standard custodes are better than primarchs, i am saying that Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once. Comparing him to a standard custode would be like comparing a stormtrooper to a conscript. My point in mentioning it was to point out that primarchs are not infallible, primarchs who are basically just better versions of astartes. The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck. It proved that custodes are physiologically capable of achieving feats that astartes are simply not capable of attaining.

You went quite a bit further than saying "Valdor, the greatest custode and a former high lord of terra, beat one primarch once"/"The fact that a custode was the one to beat Horus just happened to be good luck".
You said "Especially considering he was more powerful the Horus, which means that Valdor surpassed the primarchs, which means the only mortal in the galaxy who could beat him in one-on-one would be the EoM."

More powerful/surpassed the primarchs/only beaten by the Emperor is a lot more than 'lucky' or beaten once as you now claim...

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, earlier in this thread someone said that even heresy-era custodes had less combat experience than heresy-era astartes, which is wrong. They fought the unification war, and during the heresy were sent on missions by the emperor, rather than simply guarding him.

That was me and I said "with likely less battlefield experience", by which I mean that Astartes have likely spent more time in the battlefield than custodes. I'm aware Custodes do more than Guarding the Big E, but that is still their main role, whilst they were not used as an out-and-out army like the Astartes were - although the Custodes were sometimes used in such a way, it wasn't nearly as often.
Some astartes also fought in the unification wars, as well as being at the forefront of the great crusade.
I never stated it as fact, it's just any differences in experience between most Custodes and Astartes at the time were IMHO likely to be insignificant.

Astartes did NOT fight in the unification wars, as the primarchs hadn't even been incubated yet.

And the beginning of the crusade featured the Emperor and his custodes pwning everything. Like Ullanor.

They fought in the aftermath.

That's not hard to believe. The Custodes are exceptional, especially when led by the Emperor.

im2randomghgh wrote:No, the original Valdor v Horus thing was, I am fairly sure, from a white dwarf. Obviously I don't remember which issue, so the only other source that seemed to acknowledge the canonicity of WD was quoted by me.

And in which book are main characters NOT given rediculously huge boosts in power compared to what would make sense? It is called PLOT ARMOUR.

Astartes did NOT fight in the unification wars, as the primarchs hadn't even been incubated yet.

And the beginning of the crusade featured the Emperor and his custodes pwning everything. Like Ullanor.

1. You have to understand, the only source I have seen that say Horus was bested by Valdor are this wiki and you. Many others I have seen claim that Russ respected Valdor after he lost, but lasted longer than others thought he would, against Horus.

2. Crai moar. The Thousand Sons were reduced to a tenth of their former power in the book, and turned to Chaos out of desperation. Plot armour indeed.

3. There is an Astartes in the Luna Wolves stated in Horus Rising to have fought in the Unification Wars though, he even does the old Imperial salute.

Ullanor? Lol, you mean the campaign where Horus was elevated to Warmaster and the Emperor receded from the Crusade entirely? Yes, not even been incubated indeed.

An army of sheep led by a lion will defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. I think that if it came to combat between custodes and astartes, much would depend on who was leading each force...

The problem comes from utilizing both fluff and balanced rule systems, I think... an astartes may be worth a hundred guardsmen in the fluff, but in the game, I will take a hundred guardsmen over one marine any day of the week.

We should contact the Ultimate Warrior crew and make them do a custodes/astartes fight, just for kicks.

Evocatus wrote:We should contact the Ultimate Warrior crew and make them do a custodes/astartes fight, just for kicks.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


They will give the Marine a simple Bolter, Chainsword, and Pistol.

the Custodes will get his Guardian Spear and Artificer armor.


and we all know that that show puts 95% of the result on weaponry.

its also a 1 on 1 fight, which is no question that the Custode would win.



Proper comparison would be 5 Terminators vs 5 Custodians. 3 Tactical terminators, 2 assault.

how did my simple question become such an intense discussion?

Blobpie wrote:how did my simple question become such an intense discussion?

You were looking for A+B=C. You forgot to multiply by Internet.

mattyrm wrote:

Obviously, because its three sentences after the text that I sat and typed in.

Could a mortal fight a Primarch? Tal says they look "wrong" despite how impressive they fight, and soon realises that the flaw is that they don't fight cohesively, they are warriors, not soldiers. It doesn't mean he thinks they aren't amazing fighters. Tal actually calls them "Lions" and the word bearers "Wolves"

Can a Wolf fight a Lion on it's own?

As I said, Im not massively into fanboi fights over fiction, I just find it annoying that people can read the same book and come to ridiculously different opinions when it is right there in black and white. This gak were reading ain't Ulysses.

Quite clearly an individual custodes is tougher than an individual Space Marine, every single aspect of the book points that way, the Space Marines great strength comes from their enhanced bodies, but mainly from their brothers, from the pack, just like a wolf.

So clearly, a group of SM could beat a custode's, but one on one a custode's would easily beat a SM right? We are singing off the same song sheet surely?

If you didn't get that from the book, then you really cant have read the book properly.

Aquillon and Vendetha might, yeah. But all Custodes, maybe not.

If you haven't noticed though those of us who are saying that they aren't that much better, I myself agree that a Custodes are better than a Astartes but not to the proportions that some fanboys have said, are using all of the sources and not just one being the First Heretic. ADB himself has said that the likes of Vendatha and Aquillon are not your average Custodes. To say that it is a cut and dry as Custodes would win all the time is blind as we have another source saying that to place a bet on either one winning in combat would be a tough choice.

Stuff like this is the issue I have

im2randomghgh wrote:
Did you forget the part were the Gal Vorbak outnumber the custodes 4 to one and took heavier losses?

On more than one occasion this has been bought up and we have said no, don't exaggerate and provided the numbers, names and page numbers to show the correct state of play. But still the fanboyism shines through.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Veterans have a few hundred years of experience, custodes have 13,000 years experience.

Please, oh please, tell me where you get this from?

im2randomghgh wrote:
Astartes did NOT fight in the unification wars, as the primarchs hadn't even been incubated yet.

And the beginning of the crusade featured the Emperor and his custodes pwning everything. Like Ullanor.

Nothing to do with the 20 Legions of Astartes that the Emperor had at his command then either? You know, going to find the Primarchs and stuff.

I have managed to find the reference where only 3 Custodes fell in battle, it's in Collected Visions, P143.

As the Emperor decapitated the giant, black skinned ork, the Custodians laid waste to the warlord's prime warriors. It is said that within moments over a hundred thousand greenskins died and the Waaagh! was broken. Legend Has it that only three Custodians fell at the battle, their names enshrined forever, engraved on the Emperors armour.

Even the fluff itself says that it is a legend.

Viridian wrote: I gave a complete source vi quotation Lexicanum.com as my source because I do not own the book as stated. Does the quotation not say Lexicanum.com? Does it not Greyish? In fact you didn't even list page, paragraph and line # of that in your post you are no better then Lex by your own opinion other then the authenticity of verbatim(Which I trust you.) but don't pick on me when I gave a complete quote from a source section paragraph and line number in dead honesty. Egotistical throw backs... like this thread are the reason lex has enough problems verifying were people get there quotations when people are so brass to not take the time to authenticate a quote in its entirety as you did. People are so lazy they think there opinion is fact pure and simple. If you want to say its a quote fine list the source I don't care were its from but list it as best you can and as honest as you can. Sure there are a lot of quotations that are 'source: book x' off lex which are frustrating. I agree they should do a better job at refining it and make it a requirement for book and page number at the least if they aren't going to go Verbatim. But to decline Lex as good source is purely Lunicidal(yes I'm making sh!t up now) ... What is the number one thing people say on this forum if people want to learn 40k fluff?

...

Lexicanum is good for summarising the general concepts of 40k but, as with any wiki, it should always be used as a springboard to locate any source material rather than be quoted directly. Even if it has taken quotes from a source, without careful and consistent editing there is a likelihood that readers will be largely misled, as witnessed.

The way you formatted the reference of your source was not the problem though now you mention it, the page number is indeed incorrect too – Pg. 18 in “Blood Games” (Tales of Heresy) according to the version I have here. You should check it out, good story.

Finally, I didn't post here to necessarily back-up one side of the argument, but because taken on its own that line is strongly out of context with what the author seemingly tried to convey; details of the subtle differences rather than one regarding notable superiority.