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.

Sorry if it's been mentioned already but are they going to release (or have they) the rules for the Chaos models in the box (like Ahriman) for normal 40K?

 Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote:
Sorry if it's been mentioned already but are they going to release (or have they) the rules for the Chaos models in the box (like Ahriman) for normal 40K?

Wouldn't his rules be in the chaos codex already?

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

 Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote:
Sorry if it's been mentioned already but are they going to release (or have they) the rules for the Chaos models in the box (like Ahriman) for normal 40K?

Wouldn't his rules be in the chaos codex already?

I thought he had a different weapon in the new set and so maybe some different rules

Given they're supposed to share parts/development with MK IV, it actually makes fluff sense.

I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

ITC?

Would it be too far off to see Custodes as IoM's Lychguards?

In regards to the Blanchitsu thing... I love conversions, and I love seeing people's work, but I hate Blanch's model type stuff. Dunno why. Just can't stand it. I like his drawings for daemons, but that is the limit of what I enjoy. His furies? Awesome. His models? Um...no thanks.

I know it's an example of subjective opinions. They just definitely aren't for me. Although it definitely seems I'm in the minority on that one.

Planning on ordering my first unit of custodes later. Then sell my old dark eldar for the money for 2 more squads and then get the last 5 with the game

 Vector Strike wrote:
Would it be too far off to see Custodes as IoM's Lychguards?

More like Triarch Praetorians. They're the honour guard for the Silent King after all.

 BrookM wrote:
ITC?

One of, if not the biggest comp/tournament pack for 40k in the US (and world?), and the one events like the LVO use. In my part of the country its also the dominant rule-set for competitive 40k.

One of its rules is that army lists may not include more than three detachments/formations, which usually means people struggle to fit in things like the always popular Culexus Assassin, etc. Assuming the Sisters/Custodes are meant to be treated as a "our unit is its own formation", it means it will be very, very hard to fit them into most competitive lists, even though their rules suggest units which have value at the competitive level.

The craziest thing about the Custodes is them having EW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The craziest thing about the Custodes is them having EW.

At T5, it’s not like they were going to be doubled out very often anyway. And with 2W each, it’s not like they are going to hang out forever. EW is a lot scarier of a 4W chapter master on a bike. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s irrelevant here, but it’s a minor perk at best.

With a psyker and endurance they would be harder to kill than lychguard and i use lychguard often they are never all dead in a game

Wilson wrote:A hint towards the future of 40k prepare for age of unbound sigmarines !

Don't even joke like that right now. On other forums some people are freaking out because of someone suggesting something. A good way if you want to troll people but it's really freaking some people out right now.

Ratius wrote:No frag grenades for Custodes?
I suppose with 2+, 2W, EW they probably dont need it but a bit strange imo since they seem geared towards a dedicated CC unit.
(oh right Nid Stealers :( ).

Now you know how a Tyranid player feels.

Now, for my Imperial Fists, do I want to put Graviton Guns on my Breachers or something else? And on my Veteran Tactical Squads(that will have the Marksmen ability for obvious reasons), do I want Heavy Bolters with Suspensor Webs or Plasmaguns?

I can't wait for this boxed set! Preorder at Frontline Gaming confirmed.

I would love to do some math-hammer on the ideal uses of "Block" on those Custodes, but man... in essence, don't they become incredibly useful at tying up Super Heavies? A Knight relies a fair bit on their Str D melee to tear things up, but if a min Custodes unit can roll all five of their blocks against it, it seems like a very potent way to take the piss out of them.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

And many of us could care less about artificial house rules like ITC.

Thankfully GW isn't designing stuff with ITC in mind

Just saying...

 CT GAMER wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

And many of us could care less about artificial house rules like ITC.

Thankfully GW isn't designing stuff with ITC in mind

Just saying...

Oh, I don't think GW should design giving something like the ITC any consideration... I appreciate that even widely well received, it is still a tournament comp. I just know most of the players in my area, or at least the tournament crowd will be particularly effected by this trend toward micro-armies. Considering it largely works fine for Age of Sigmar, I don't mind it as a general move, and do think it speaks to a direction for 8th Ed. and also a win-fall for expanding/creating armies that couldn't support a whole Codex unto themselves, but which could still be explored in cool ways.

Right now Sisters of Silence are an example of that, though to be fair, as written they really are unusable in anything but Unbound play.

Yeah, while I think GW really does need to be house-ruled to have reasonable balance, GW's problem is that initial need, not a failure to adhere to rules they didn't make.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

They're perfect ally for my War Convocation. Better than a Culexus. Probably good with Battle Company too, though they have less need for deathstar counter.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I would love to do some math-hammer on the ideal uses of "Block" on those Custodes, but man... in essence, don't they become incredibly useful at tying up Super Heavies? A Knight relies a fair bit on their Str D melee to tear things up, but if a min Custodes unit can roll all five of their blocks against it, it seems like a very potent way to take the piss out of them.

To which the knight will use his stomp rule to get his piss back.
When life hands you custodians make lemonade

 axisofentropy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

They're perfect ally for my War Convocation. Better than a Culexus. Probably good with Battle Company too, though they have less need for deathstar counter.

I feel like with War Convocation they'll suffer from a lack of transports to borrow, thus going back to the old "Escape Hatch" trick to make them of any use, but you're absolutely right that they will be lovely in a Battle Company. I'll definitely run some with my Iron Hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hadn't see this posted yet, but GW's official response to using these units in 40k...

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/10/gw-responds-on-how-to-field-sisters-of.html.

Apparently they really are only for unbound play. Hmmm...

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

They're perfect ally for my War Convocation. Better than a Culexus. Probably good with Battle Company too, though they have less need for deathstar counter.

I feel like with War Convocation they'll suffer from a lack of transports to borrow, thus going back to the old "Escape Hatch" trick to make them of any use, but you're absolutely right that they will be lovely in a Battle Company. I'll definitely run some with my Iron Hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hadn't see this posted yet, but GW's official response to using these units in 40k...

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/10/gw-responds-on-how-to-field-sisters-of.html.

Apparently they really are only for unbound play. Hmmm...

I feel like the "unbound only" answer from GW is a stopgap because they realized they dropped the ball on his and overlooked how their own rules work. So they said "uh.... yeah..... unbound only, yup that was intentional..."

I don't buy it.


No way they are going to absolutely kill sales of these models by doing this. I anticipate some additional rules/formations/detachments coming via a future Whitedwaef, etc.

They just aren't ready to reveal this fact.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I think the biggest problem with SoS and Custodes in 40k in this current iteration, even if we are meant to think a unit of them is a formation unto itself, is that for many of us who only play under ITC rules or have local ITC events, the whole "three detachment/formation max" rules is already stretched to its limits.

If a single unit of Sister of Silence eats up one of my three "things" I feel like they just can't work, while I would really, really love them to.

They're perfect ally for my War Convocation. Better than a Culexus. Probably good with Battle Company too, though they have less need for deathstar counter.

I feel like with War Convocation they'll suffer from a lack of transports to borrow, thus going back to the old "Escape Hatch" trick to make them of any use, but you're absolutely right that they will be lovely in a Battle Company. I'll definitely run some with my Iron Hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hadn't see this posted yet, but GW's official response to using these units in 40k...

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2016/10/gw-responds-on-how-to-field-sisters-of.html.

Apparently they really are only for unbound play. Hmmm...

I very much hope this is not true. no one plays unbound in my area. also your link is dead.

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/gw-responds-on-how-to-field-sisters-of.html

(it had an extra . at the end)

Via Natfka

Response on Facebook [Games Workshop]

"The kits in this set are designed primarily for Horus Heresy games, but rules are provided to let you add them to your Warhammer 40,000 games if you want to. You are quite right – currently this is limited to Unbound games, or you and your opponent agreeing they can be included for some other narrative reason.

Neither force is currently an active military force in the galaxy (The Adeptus Custodes don't leave Terra, and the Sister of Silence have not bean widely active for 9,000 years) , so they don't feature in any current Imperial formations, which tend to reflect active forces at the close of the 41st millennium.

Both do still exist though, so who knows, we might just see more of them in future."

For now anyway. The "who knows, we might just see more of them in future." line, and the fact that they made plastic models on box able sprues suggests that there's going to be something more codex like in the future for 40k.
There was a rumour on Faeit a while ago about a "War in the webway" theme for a bunch of future releases. While OFC salt is a requirement, the 1K sons part of it seems to be panning out. With the webway gate below the Imperial palace the Custodes and SoS could be well placed to act as the Imperial faction in that story line.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/gw-responds-on-how-to-field-sisters-of.html

(it had an extra . at the end)

Sounds like a cop out to me. Why not make it clear on the datasheets that they are intended for unbound games?

Only Unbound? Meh, noisy should care because any Bound detachment is going to be stronger anyway. It is a non-problem.