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.

So there has been a lot of talk about the lethality of 8th edition. Volume of fire is king and that hurts elite armies the most in my opinion, because no matter how tough your guys are its rather easy to force wounds nowadays. I have felt this quite a bit with my custodes, so my thought was: how can you improve their toughness to hold up against the extremely lethal shooting in 8th.

My proposal is basically a new stratagem:

Shield Wall (3CP)
During your opponents shooting phase choose one of your custodian guard units that has at least three models with storm shields remaining. Unitl the end of the phase improve the invulnerability save of their storm shields to a 2++.

Now I can already hear you saying "What?! A 2++ on custodes, are you insane?" Well I think since this strat is 3CP and custodes are among the armies which often have very little CP, you probably will only be able to use it once, so you have to make it count. Also I think with the restriction of being required to still have at least three shield guys in your squad alive, it's not that overpowered.

Rather than go specific with a rule why not let some units, like Custodes and Terminators, ignore some of a weapon's AP? It might even be interesting if that was how Invulnerable saves worked rather than just being a fixed saving throw.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Rather than go specific with a rule why not let some units, like Custodes and Terminators, ignore some of a weapon's AP? It might even be interesting if that was how Invulnerable saves worked rather than just being a fixed saving throw.

Since I play the golden boys myself I would love that idea, but I also feel that flat out ignoring some AP would be too strong....not sure

Tiberias wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Rather than go specific with a rule why not let some units, like Custodes and Terminators, ignore some of a weapon's AP? It might even be interesting if that was how Invulnerable saves worked rather than just being a fixed saving throw.

Since I play the golden boys myself I would love that idea, but I also feel that flat out ignoring some AP would be too strong....not sure

That's literally how armor worked in past editions so...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Rather than go specific with a rule why not let some units, like Custodes and Terminators, ignore some of a weapon's AP? It might even be interesting if that was how Invulnerable saves worked rather than just being a fixed saving throw.

Since I play the golden boys myself I would love that idea, but I also feel that flat out ignoring some AP would be too strong....not sure

That's literally how armor worked in past editions so...

I understand that, and I am not saying that that's a bad idea necessarily. I just said I think with how the state of the game is today, it might be too strong.

I feel it is generally very hard to integrate super elite armies into a shooting focused edition as 8th, because I think it's rather easy to tip the scales balance wise. Either they are not as tough as they should be as is the case right now, or they are just frustrating for the opponent because they are unkillable. Finding that middle ground really sucks with a low model count, elite army. Or with units that fit in that category generally, like space marine terminators, who have been lackluster for a long time.

I just think Custodes for example do not have enough tools to react to the lethality of 8th, hence why I came up with the idea for the shield wall strat. I feel that if we had more tools like this that you have to use very carefully because they are expensice, but help us survive better for a turn or two....it would help a great deal.

Hm. For 3cp? Its actually pretty weak, considering that Custodes are absolutely starved for CP.

For 2cp, i'd modify it to 'a unit of infantry ignores the first 2 points of AP from incoming shooting attacks until the end of the turn'

This way, it cannot be used on bikes, which would be absurd, but would help shift the army to more terminator/infantry play.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Hm. For 3cp? Its actually pretty weak, considering that Custodes are absolutely starved for CP.

For 2cp, i'd modify it to 'a unit of infantry ignores the first 2 points of AP from incoming shooting attacks until the end of the turn'

This way, it cannot be used on bikes, which would be absurd, but would help shift the army to more terminator/infantry play.

Would you make that apply to all infantry models or just the shield guys so they can tank wounds better?

So, your stated goal is to make volume of fire less effective.

Your proposed Stratagem fails at this-a 2++ is far more effective against weapons with AP-1 (out of cover, AP-2 in cover) or better, which are generally lower volume than AP0 attacks.

For reference, against a Leman Russ...

Battle Cannon
7 shots
7/2 hits
7/3 wounds
7/18 unsaved against a 2++, 7/9 against a 3++
7/9 damage against a 2++, 14/9 against a 3++
Halves damage taken against an AP-2 weapon.

Punisher Cannon
40 shots
20 hits
10 wounds
5/3 unsaved against a 2+
5/3 damage
Irrelevant to how much damage is taken against an AP0 weapon.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, your stated goal is to make volume of fire less effective.

Your proposed Stratagem fails at this-a 2++ is far more effective against weapons with AP-1 (out of cover, AP-2 in cover) or better, which are generally lower volume than AP0 attacks.

For reference, against a Leman Russ...

Battle Cannon
7 shots
7/2 hits
7/3 wounds
7/18 unsaved against a 2++, 7/9 against a 3++
7/9 damage against a 2++, 14/9 against a 3++
Halves damage taken against an AP-2 weapon.

Punisher Cannon

40 shots
20 hits
10 wounds
5/3 unsaved against a 2+
5/3 damage
Irrelevant to how much damage is taken against an AP0 weapon.

I would only argue that the volume of ap-1 and ap-2 shots has increased greatly in 8th, I get your point though. What would you suggest would be a better option?

Tiberias wrote:
I would only argue that the volume of ap-1 and ap-2 shots has increased greatly in 8th, I get your point though. What would you suggest would be a better option?

That's true, but not for EVERYONE.

I'd make it +1 Toughness or -1 to wound rolls or something.

For reference, if it's -1 to wound rolls...

Wounds On....With Reduction....Percent Reduced
2+..........................3+..........................20%
3+..........................4+..........................25%
4+..........................5+..........................33%
5+..........................6+..........................50%
6+..........................7+..........................100%

So, low-Strength, high volume of fire shots get hit way harder than high-Strength, low volume shots.

To bring back the Russ...

Battle Cannon
7 shots
7/2 hits
7/4 wounds at -1, 7/3 at no penalty
7/12 or 7/9 unsaved against a 3++
7/6 or 14/9 damage
75% damage

Punisher Cannon
40 shots
20 hits
20/3 wounds at -1, 10 at no penalty
10/9 or 5/3 unsaved against a 2+
10/9 or 5/3 damage
67% damage

Edit: And you don't really have to worry about 6+ to-wound, so long as it's not available to Bikers or anything T6 or higher. S2, while it exists, exists on models that really shouldn't bother fighting Custodes. While S3 is a LOT more common.

The fundamental problem is stat inflation. Responding to stat inflation with stat inflation just makes the problem worse.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The fundamental problem is stat inflation. Responding to stat inflation with stat inflation just makes the problem worse.

What would be your suggestion to fix it?

Tiberias wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The fundamental problem is stat inflation. Responding to stat inflation with stat inflation just makes the problem worse.

What would be your suggestion to fix it?

Start nerfing things instead of constantly buffing things. Plasma guns? Normal mode D1 Rapid Fire with 18" range, overcharge mode D2 Heavy 1 with 24" range (It wouldn't be Heavy but GW won't write a "basic, no-rules" weapon type). Battle Cannons? S6/D1 "blast" mode and d3-shot "anti-tank" mode. That kind of thing. (I don't have detailed proposals for doing this within 8e because GW has thrown any idea of a sort of "normal" anchor way out of whack.)

You're probably write that the game needs a wholesale rewrite/mega-nerf to counter power inflation -- but that's way harder to write up, let alone to get your opponent to accept, than just band-aiding the problem with a new Stratagem. (Which is probably why GW does a lot of band-aids....). I really like Tiberias' idea of a "shield wall" stratagem, it's very fluffy and easy to add into the game rule-wise.

I'm just not sure, having read JNA's mathhammer, what the Stratagem should do. I'm tempted to say re-roll failed saves -- yes, I know the game is drowning in re-roll mechanics -- because that's both powerful and a good representation of "my shield didn't block the shot but my battle bother's did."

 SisterSydney wrote:
You're probably write that the game needs a wholesale rewrite/mega-nerf to counter power inflation -- but that's way harder to write up, let alone to get your opponent to accept, than just band-aiding the problem with a new Stratagem. (Which is probably why GW does a lot of band-aids....). I really like Tiberias' idea of a "shield wall" stratagem, it's very fluffy and easy to add into the game rule-wise.

I'm just not sure, having read JNA's mathhammer, what the Stratagem should do. I'm tempted to say re-roll failed saves -- yes, I know the game is drowning in re-roll mechanics -- because that's both powerful and a good representation of "my shield didn't block the shot but my battle bother's did."

So because making the problem worse is easier than fixing it we should keep making it worse?

A -1 to wound would be much, much better. It would be applicable against all weapons and won't interfere with any of the custodes other abilities.

That being said, the preconditions and cost for this stratagem are also questionable. The custodes don't have any 3CP stratagems except for relic and teleporters (as normals) and a massive tempo breaking stratagem. This one is neither of those things, it should only cost 1/2 CP. For 1CP any custodian with a storm shield in a select unit gets a -1 to wound for the rest of the phase (shooting or fight) and all wounds must be allocated to a custodian with a storm shield; for 2CP, this can be used on a character with a storm shield or if there are X or more custodes with storm shield in the unit.

X should be determined with playtesting.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So because making the problem worse is easier than fixing it we should keep making it worse?

Yes? I mean, I live and work in Washington, DC, that's kind of our thing.....

More seriously: There's no practical way for an individual to fix the larger problem for the whole game. But on a house-rule, homebrew basis, we can patch the problem for individual friendly games, so let's do that, it's not going to make things worse for anyone else anyway. Yes, if we were GW, it would be the other way around -- GW should fix structure not apply band-aids -- but we aren't, so it ain't.

Though I still like my inital idea primarily for fluff reasons, a -1 to wound strat is a more useful and elegant solution for sure.

So 1-2CP for the strat and it could only be used on our infantry and in the enemy shooting phase? or also be useable in melee?

-1 to wound on jetbikes or even dreadnoughts would be too strong, right?

It defiantly should only apply to foot custodes with shields, the dreadnought has its own shield ability.

The hardest thing about applying this stratagem in melee is that there aren’t many scenarios where custodes are on the back-foot in melee, you pretty much only deal with edge cases. I still think it should just to make the stratagem more broadly applicable.

 Eipi10 wrote:
It defiantly should only apply to foot custodes with shields, the dreadnought has its own shield ability.

The hardest thing about applying this stratagem in melee is that there aren’t many scenarios where custodes are on the back-foot in melee, you pretty much only deal with edge cases. I still think it should just to make the stratagem more broadly applicable.

Ever been charged by khorne berserkers?

Sure we dominate most melee scenarios, but we still have some problems against hordes.

 SisterSydney wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So because making the problem worse is easier than fixing it we should keep making it worse?

Yes? I mean, I live and work in Washington, DC, that's kind of our thing.....

More seriously: There's no practical way for an individual to fix the larger problem for the whole game. But on a house-rule, homebrew basis, we can patch the problem for individual friendly games, so let's do that, it's not going to make things worse for anyone else anyway. Yes, if we were GW, it would be the other way around -- GW should fix structure not apply band-aids -- but we aren't, so it ain't.

I'm working on it: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785620.page

Tiberias wrote:
Ever been charged by khorne berserkers?

Sure we dominate most melee scenarios, but we still have some problems against hordes.

As it should be, custodes aren't the be-all and end-all of melee (point for point, at least).