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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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?

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.

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.

 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.