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.

wict01 wrote:
Sounds cool to me. The extra attack in exchange for 1 damage seems really handy.

It being once per game sucks though. Like that's something you want all game or none of the game.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
If that isn't your default answer to what the current rules designers do, you're being gracious.

No, as was explained to me when I went to work for GW, the actual answer is "We hire for attitude/enthusiasm, not skills/ability/experience."

That's not to say they deliberately hire incompetent fanboys, but they're not trying to recruit the best of the best, either. They'll take a barely-competent, inexperienced designer who absolutely loves, lives and breathes Warhammer, rather than a highly-skilled and experienced designer who only vaguely knows what a Space Marine is.

So we get rules that are just about functional, but 'fluffy', not the sparklingly elegant, finely balanced, cutting-edge-of-modern-game-design system that a lot of Dakka-ites seem to want.

The main reason they do this is to pay them like gak though. Enthusiasm is only worthwhile for how much they can talk your paycheck down

 Third_Age_of_Baggz wrote:
Oh BALLS! Seems the Golden Boys fans are in a tizzy!

As a fan myself, I'm willing to give this whole "Kung-Fu" stuff a try with my Custodes. It's really hard to say that this isn't "fluffy" for them. Between reading, the codex (8th), White Dwarf articles, Master of Mankind, Valdor, etc etc I'd agree with HBMC statement of GW's consistent inconsistency.

After 10,000 years of fluff, GW is still trying to find the Custodes "Voice".

It is what it is.....

I am absolutely tickled by the idea that custodes start every battle practicing their kung fu, it's hilarious.

But I want the rulles to be both good and... good XD

While you were crusading away from Terra, I studied the bla'de.

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
It should also be pointed that getting the "feel" of units / models right, matching the aesthetics and themes developed (pre-rules) by the artists, etc.. is a much higher priority to them then the "balance" a lot of Dakka obsesses about as the alleged primary goal of game design.

But that is part of the problem. The Kata rules do not thematically fit with Custodes, they are not an army that moves and acts as one, all doing the same thing. They are a force of individual soldiers that do not fight as a unit.

Well, it's not like they are playing very individually different at the moment. Right now, Custodes are a simple math-check to the opponent in the tradition of 8th ed. Plaguebearer or Tau Drones spam. Switching it up a little by actually adding decision points can't possibly make it worse.

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grimskul wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
New info.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/30/lead-a-full-sisters-of-silence-army-with-the-powerful-knight-centura/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Article&utm_campaign=Knight-centura,+Nov+30&fbclid=IwAR0eksuJAeXIHfHFwFaojEsXnaiNvaELz9PCbFYbQzGD0AgyGfyEISFa4X4

New character. Totally unsure if new model. I think it’s just made from the basic kit?

GOOD fething lord no are you kidding man, GW would have to make a new sculpt for sisters of silence!!!

AND THEY SHALL KNOW. ONE. SPRUEEEE!

It is really funny that GW has like an endless supply of primaris lieutenants sculpts in their closet or something but they can't be bothered with one official clampack HQ model for SoS.

It's economics. How many people would really buy such a model? Given I have NEVER seen SoS on the tabletop, outside of promotional pictures and stuff like that, I have a hard time believing anyone even uses these models in the Custodes book. I doubt that's going to change. SoS seems like the most useless thing when we have SoB already. IMO.

Aside from being women in power armor, there's no overlap between Sisters of Silence and Sisters of Battle. Sisters of Battle are a complete, functional army with all that entails, that lacks the one thing Sisters of Silence exist to provide: dedicated psychic defense. Sisters of Silence have a completely different function to a squad of Sisters of Battle. Lorewise, they're also as far apart as you can be.

Sisters of Silence came out as plastic models before Sisters of Battle received theirs, and primarily for Horus Heresy with 40k rules as a bonus. They, like Custodes at the time, were a single squad meant to be allied into an Imperial army. When GW finally got around to making Codex Adeptus Custodes, rather than Codex Talons of the Emperor, Custodes were elevated to a full army and instead of integrating Sisters of Silence as a specialist unit in that army as they should have, GW instead left them orphaned as one of those units that technically exist, but that simply don't get to appear in a mainline codex. Much like Inquisition, really. That means less exposure for Sisters of Silence and less reason to take them. Even less so after GW shifted their rules design away from merry souping to powerful mono-faction bonuses. Sisters of Silence have to be integrated into the Custodes codex, which, again, is where they belonged in the first place, if they are to stand any chance of being taken in their own army lest they break the weak kung fu GW is adding to the new codex.

And with being a full part of the army, finally, you have to ask the question whether they should have an HQ character to go with them. GW asked that question and found the answer to be yes. So apparently at least they think the idea has merit. As far as your comment about economics goes, it was long held to be true that Sisters of Battle didn't warrant translation to plastic, both by GW and a portion of the community. Now it looks like Sisters are a popular seller and the only thing that got in the way of making money on plastic Sisters was GW's refusal to make them. This applies to a number of other models as well. For a Sisters of Silence character, GW has the sculptors and plastic casting expertise to make such a model look good and desirable. If it still fails to sell, they have rules writers that can help popularity along. But none of that matters if the model doesn't exist in the first place. As much as you can say without data it's prudent not to invest in the mold, it's just as easy to argue that without investment, you'll never see returns. Since GW has been making plastic characters for over a decade now, it's probably a safe assumption to say character clampacks have worked out for them if they keep investing in them. And at that point you have to ask, if they want to make Sisters of Silence successful, why shy away from that investment?

Maybe people would use SoS on tabletop if GW actually gave a gak about them.

The idea of a company being able to generate the demand for a product simply by producing/selling it is ludicrous.

If that were the case, no product or product line and ultimately no company would ever fail. We'd all be drinking New-Coke, drive Delorians and watch Apple TV all day.

GW cannot dictate what people buy or don't buy. They have to make guesses and weigh the risks/rewards for investing X amount of money into Product Y like every company ever, from the one-guy-in-mom's-basement operation to General Motors, Microsoft & co.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The idea of a company being able to generate the demand for a product simply by producing/selling it is ludicrous.

If that were the case, no product or product line and ultimately no company would ever fail. We'd all be drinking New-Coke, drive Delorians and watch Apple TV all day.

GW cannot dictate what people buy or don't buy. They have to make guesses and weigh the risks/rewards for investing X amount of money into Product Y like every company ever, from the one-guy-in-mom's-basement operation to General Motors, Microsoft & co.

Worked for AoS didn't it?

GW's fanbase can't really be viewed the same way a normal company's would be. If GW want to market, push and shift something onto their fanbase, then eventually something just clicks into place and it happens. Sure, they'd never hit Marine sales - Sigmarines are a testament to that - but generally if GW show their intention to support something longterm, they seem to do extremely well out of something no matter what.

 Arbitrator wrote:


GW's fanbase can't really be viewed the same way a normal company's would be. If GW want to market, push and shift something onto their fanbase, then eventually something just clicks into place and it happens. Sure, they'd never hit Marine sales - Sigmarines are a testament to that - but generally if GW show their intention to support something longterm, they seem to do extremely well out of something no matter what.

No.

Collapse of WHB and re-launch using AoS is the best example it doesn't.

For nearly 2 decades, GW had a perfectly matched release schedule. One month WFB, one month 40K. One Army book WFB, one Codex 40K. They basically ran the 50% WFB / 50% 40K business from the late 90s to start of AoS. By that logic, WFB and 40K should've always been equal in sales, popularity, etc.. and WFB would've never failed.

Point is, it didn't work and they had to let WFB die (but not 40K), despite both games having gotten exactly the same releases and attention for literally decades. It's one of the best case studies there is on why companies cannot influence demand and success of products, but are better of designing products to meet the existing demand (as good as they can do, being an imperfect process).

Well obviously not everything can sell same. Whfb failed only in terms of not matching marine sales. Still profitable and top-3 selling miniature game in world. But not marine level and for kirby not marine level sales=bad

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/02/the-upcoming-genestealer-cults-codex-lets-you-pin-flank-and-destroy-with-the-crossfire-rule/

Cool, they brought the old Epic crossfire rule into 40k

 Arbitrator wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The idea of a company being able to generate the demand for a product simply by producing/selling it is ludicrous.

If that were the case, no product or product line and ultimately no company would ever fail. We'd all be drinking New-Coke, drive Delorians and watch Apple TV all day.

GW cannot dictate what people buy or don't buy. They have to make guesses and weigh the risks/rewards for investing X amount of money into Product Y like every company ever, from the one-guy-in-mom's-basement operation to General Motors, Microsoft & co.

Worked for AoS didn't it?

GW's fanbase can't really be viewed the same way a normal company's would be. If GW want to market, push and shift something onto their fanbase, then eventually something just clicks into place and it happens. Sure, they'd never hit Marine sales - Sigmarines are a testament to that - but generally if GW show their intention to support something longterm, they seem to do extremely well out of something no matter what.

No it didn't, AoS at launch was a massive failure and the worst and best example of GW thinking themselves too good to fail and "Our customers will buy whatever we put out"

 xttz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/02/the-upcoming-genestealer-cults-codex-lets-you-pin-flank-and-destroy-with-the-crossfire-rule/

Cool, they brought the old Epic crossfire rule into 40k

A very cool mechanic but a shame is only for Genestealer Cult. That would add tactical depth to the game.

Yeah, interesting, but it's odd to add such a mechanic to just a single faction really. It almost feels more Tau ish.

Yet no downside about shots actually hitting the friendly model(s) that are directly in the line of fire on the opposite side!!! lol

 the_scotsman wrote:
I really, really love the fact that this sentence:

"Sorry, but you can't fall back with that unit because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance 2, having already declared the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn"

has real meaning in the game warhammer 40,000. Absolute dadaist brilliance. Phenomenal. I watched my friend defend his doctoral thesis in theoretical particle physics yesterday and there were not just one but multiple sentences more comprehensible to me than the rules for this game i've played for over 15 years.

But wait, there's more! https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/02/powerful-new-shield-host-rules-cement-the-adeptus-custodes-as-the-true-elites-of-humanity/

"Sorry, but you can't fall back with that unit because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance 2, having already declared the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn, I'm allowed to do this despite declaring the primary kaptaris ka'tah stance 1 the turn before that because kapataris is the martial ka'tah of my Shield Host, having chosen to forgo Magna Imperator."

 Asmodai wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I really, really love the fact that this sentence:

"Sorry, but you can't fall back with that unit because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance 2, having already declared the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn"

has real meaning in the game warhammer 40,000. Absolute dadaist brilliance. Phenomenal. I watched my friend defend his doctoral thesis in theoretical particle physics yesterday and there were not just one but multiple sentences more comprehensible to me than the rules for this game i've played for over 15 years.

But wait, there's more! https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/02/powerful-new-shield-host-rules-cement-the-adeptus-custodes-as-the-true-elites-of-humanity/

"Sorry, but you can't fall back with that unit because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance 2, having already declared the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn, I'm allowed to do this despite declaring the primary kaptaris ka'tah stance 1 the turn before that because kapataris is the martial ka'tah of my Shield Host, having chosen to forgo Magna Imperator."

I am very happy that I chose not to give into the temptation of starting a Custodes side army now. My god what is that word gumbo.

I also like how they already have a typo where the relic spear hits at strength 2, not Strength PLUS two.

xttz wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/02/the-upcoming-genestealer-cults-codex-lets-you-pin-flank-and-destroy-with-the-crossfire-rule/

Cool, they brought the old Epic crossfire rule into 40k

I find it extremely amusing that basic military concepts of crossfire and covering fire are not game-wide rules, nor rules for a professional military force, but instead special rules for a faction composed of rag-tag alien hybrids.

At least it does fit their MO- and makes positioning from Deep Strike more relevant.

I literally read the start of that Custodes article and said 'this is to complicated, I'm going to stop reading this'. feth me that looks bad.

As for the GSC. Its ok? Its not overly complicated. 2 units being in line of a 3e is most of the time not going to cause long discussions with your opponent and it adds more weight to movement.

I do concur that it also feels more Tau then GSC tho. And if we give an army like GSC access to such 'easy' +1 to hit and +1 to wound. WTF are they going to do to Tau?

Also looks like confimation that GSC will get unit upgrades in the same style of GK and TS. Perfect Ambush being one such upgrade. 15 points for a once per game +1 hit and +1 wound seems real good.

I can't be the only one who wishes the stances were easier to understand.

Oh, oh. Shield Host is chapter tactics. That took... longer to establish than it should have. Or is Fighting Style Chapter Tactics?

And shield host lets you use a kata twice because you're using the other one despite using both. OK, sure. By GW logic, that works, I guess.

"And that's not all," the article says. Feth you.

---
That GSC article reads like a preview of new shooting rules.
I can't imagine they'll go a full edition without Space Marines being able to benefit from the crossfire or exposed conditions.

Oof that is ... pretty nasty, that crossfire and exposed.

 Ordana wrote:
Also looks like confimation that GSC will get unit upgrades in the same style of GK and TS. Perfect Ambush being one such upgrade. 15 points for a once per game +1 hit and +1 wound seems real good.

It really depends on what units get Crossfire and how other non-Crossfire units interact with Exposed units.

Is the Custodes stuff not nearly identical to the Necron stuff in how it operates?

Before the game, set 3 kata which have 2 abilities each. Each subfaction lets you use both kata abilities at once for one set of kata.

Seriously GW, stop, this is getting beyond ridiculous.
reading through the Custodes rules is a nightmare and we have just been given snippets. someone across the table could play any damn rule they'd want and I would be none the wiser. Will probably stop me from going to events as I simply just don't need the headache.

Rihgu wrote:
Is the Custodes stuff not nearly identical to the Necron stuff in how it operates?

Before the game, set 3 kata which have 2 abilities each. Each subfaction lets you use both kata abilities at once for one set of kata.

its a little more freedom then Necrons since your only forced to move on to the next kata after having used both options of the previous. So you can stall for time and go 1a-1b-2a-2b-3a or if you need your 2nd kata in turn 2 you can go 1a-2a-2b-3a-3b.

I'll take a patrol of Tempestus Scions to just not have to bother with this Ka'tah nonsense.

You could just not use it, no need to bother with extra detachments of Scions

This Custodes stuff all looks like a mess, not a huge fan of what I am seeing.

Also the article seems like its got some mistakes, like talking about the Dread Host, but showing the Gilded Guardians.

Then theres the guardian spear relic for the Solar Watch, being S2 in melee.

Rihgu wrote:
Is the Custodes stuff not nearly identical to the Necron stuff in how it operates?

Before the game, set 3 kata which have 2 abilities each. Each subfaction lets you use both kata abilities at once for one set of kata.

Its similar, but the increased flexibility makes for a lot more gotcha moments. Necrons are locked into a choice every round, and the opponent can just say 'yeah, no' by sniping characters or locking them down so they aren't close enough to units that matter to pass on the buffs.

On turn 2+, Custodes have 3 choices to metagame your plans with. (starting with 1b, 2a or 2b), and none of the previews have the same look of necrons (like the common first turn protocol: where if you go first, one of the choices is useless, so you don't have a choice).


Mostly, though its just the way the article is organized and written. Things don't match up and aren't introduced well, and the transitions really suck. Obvious example: the Dread Host get the dakkamelee stance, but they then jump to talking about increased AP and 'more chance to guarantee charges,' then immediate show a pic of the Gilded Guardians style, which is about heroic interventions and ignoring AP, which is followed by 'pick this shield host when you absolutely positively want an enemy force incredibly dead.' Is this a slightly misplaced commentary on the Dread Host, or is it about the Gilded Guardians and heroic interventions and the Salvus kata are just that good? No way to tell, because it immediately launches into a strat for a completely different Host.

I do think the custodes rules could be written far more simply than the extracts of the rules from the upcoming codex. Somebody needs to give the rules writer a lesson in plain simple English. As for the comparison with the necron equivalent rules it just shows (yet again) how poor those bonuses are for the necrons. The necrons have to jump through hoops for less substantive benefits

The application of army wide pre-planned benefits seems anathema to the custodes. Whilst more flexible than the doctrine system or power from pain, which are sequenced, it's still more constrained than canticles or dogmas. I'd have preferred fighting stances as character auras as the largest grouping of models in a custodes force, better yet single unit bonuses (albeit requiring more book keeping than I'd like).

I really like the look of the gsc rules and I agree that the game overall would be improved by making such rules more widespread. At least they're easy to understand and do a good job of reflecting the benefits of ambushing the enemy.

I'm not looking forward to the rules induced migraine caused by playing against my friend's custodes when the codex drops.

I'm looking forward to using my gsc when the codex drops.

Wow custodes rules just keep looking more and more annoying.