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.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.
Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
D2 is horrible into -1 damage which is not uncommon. The trick to winning tournaments is not to be able to beat Marines. If you can beat the top armies you can beat Marines.
Not familiar with the new custodes overly, but with how their damage has shifted to mostly D2 and their saves marginally lowered, is it possible that in playtesting dreamland the concept was that they'd be blunted by ramshackle ork lists and death guard in that case? DG in particular (pre nerf) feel like they should be the obvious foil, dropping custodes toughness in close range and shrugging off the d2.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
There definately will be a big change in the win rates once people get used to them and if you play against people that dont roll above average you will find that custodes fold pretty quick to alot of armies.
This is a very, very, and I do mean very, humorous take.
We've had over a month for people to "get used to them" and if weighted dice was the decisive factor then what faction you play wouldn't matter because of "weighted dice". Unless, of course, the book is just way stronger than everything else. The tourney circuit moves at a great speed and if Custodes were easily countered then that would have happened already(and somewhat have with Tau as they are a strong book as well).
The only thing that has challenged them is Tau and who knows, maybe Aeldari will take the top spot next week, but to imply that the Golden Boys are somehow secretly balanced is a very bad take. A humorous take, but a bad take.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
There was a quote and explanation I think earlier in this thread where they explained an aim to playtest in an environment where you could face any book with even representation, so some factions are intended to be better or worse against some others to round the process out.
In a world where you weren't expecting to have to play off against mostly tau/custodes in the top slots and instead you were forced to round robin every codex, lists and the win rates might be different.
you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Marines of basically any type have little chance to beat custodes.
Necrons are actually good into custodes.
Tau are good into custodes because for some reason even when you cut off rerolls and transhuman they still table you by turn 3.
Crusher swarm still trades favorably into custodes, it just cant play the nachmund missions well.
Aeldari of all types are fixing to get their 9th codex so no point mentioning them.
Chaos used to have the advantage into custodes but lost alot of that when the 9th book dropped.
Knights used to be a build based match (infantry spam custodes lost into them, dreadnoughts won), but now custodes beat them pretty easily.
GSC arent hot into custodes, but they are a strong book into alot of other armies.
SoB got nerfed too hard and so loose most of the time.
Admech isnt good into custodes now that they cant auto-delete with mortals.
Ork is bad with the exception of their Army of Renown (which is basically the same as tau but with less ignore LOS shooting).
Custodes have alot of counterplay. More importantly they actually let you play instead of just removing your whole army from the table in 2 turns. If people are winning with custodes its because their opponents are making mistakes (either overcommiting and making a bad trade or undercommitting and doing nothing).
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Custodes have alot of counterplay. More importantly they actually let you play instead of just removing your whole army from the table in 2 turns. If people are winning with custodes its because their opponents are making mistakes (either overcommiting and making a bad trade or undercommitting and doing nothing).
Custodes are undercosted by about 10%-15%. This is objectively true.
Also (and you didn't mention it in this comment, but you did in your previous, and I cba to quote it), you say that your CP costs are the same as other armies. I haven't gone through every codex, but the armies I play have to pay 2CP or 3CP for several of their strongest game-winning strats. Custodes pay 1CP most of the time. Is this due to unit sizes? Maybe, but then due to the nature of custodes, this still means they get a significantly bigger force multiplier for that 1CP than other armies do.
I've seen custodes games where they're spamming command rerolls and their strats each turn, and barely manage to use up their CP over the whole game. While other armies are out of CP by turn 3, and are still losing by a landslide.
HOWEVER - Even though I personally think custodes points and strats are undercosted, I wouldn't necessarily advocate for changing both of them at the same time. TToo many variables. I would (in a perfect world) change EITHER the points, or the strats, and then see how things balance out.
Unfortunately in this world we live in, it takes GW 6-12 months to make any actual updates, so that's not really an option unless we want to risk custodes stomping the meta for the next year. (Which is probably what will happen anyway, cos... GW.)
I'm not sure you can push a 65% win rate (rising to 70% if you take out Tau) on "opponents are making mistakes".
The whole "Custodes are a club in a meta full of seals" was meant to be a parody.
The problem as I see it is that rather like Harlequins in early 9th - the meta can't easily evolve. I think I read that Custodes were 12% of the playerbase in last weekend's recorded tournaments. Tau were 9%. This is a fair chunk - but not that much.
It may be possible to build an "anti-Custodes" army with all factions (not convinced tbh, but go with it) - but if that means you get destroyed in the first few rounds against everyone else, its not going to help very much. Which is sort of the pros and cons of balancing around a tournament scene.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a parody post or if you're on some next-level delusion gak.
Our army is overpowered, and if you regularly lose to weaker armies you have a good match-up with it's because they are better players than you or you're building weaker Custodes armies. This cope gak is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Your low skill garagehammer games aren't evidence buddy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/28 19:03:07
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Marines of basically any type have little chance to beat custodes.
Necrons are actually good into custodes.
Tau are good into custodes because for some reason even when you cut off rerolls and transhuman they still table you by turn 3.
Crusher swarm still trades favorably into custodes, it just cant play the nachmund missions well.
Aeldari of all types are fixing to get their 9th codex so no point mentioning them.
Chaos used to have the advantage into custodes but lost alot of that when the 9th book dropped.
Knights used to be a build based match (infantry spam custodes lost into them, dreadnoughts won), but now custodes beat them pretty easily.
GSC arent hot into custodes, but they are a strong book into alot of other armies.
SoB got nerfed too hard and so loose most of the time.
Admech isnt good into custodes now that they cant auto-delete with mortals.
Ork is bad with the exception of their Army of Renown (which is basically the same as tau but with less ignore LOS shooting).
You do realize that you are listing quite a lot of armies and claiming they have a hard time with Custodes? I even highlighted where you are actually supporting the fact that Custodes is an overtuned book. You can't claim that Custodes are balanced and then state that more than half of the factions in the entire game have a hard time dealing with Custodes.
I am actually of the opinion that Custodes are OP right now, but mostly because of two very bad reasons:
1. The actual skill levels of competitive players is low currently. And the best players are picking Custodes.
2. Custodes were designed to be the best at not dying, more than any faction in the game. Right now the general mission set appears to be a mix of "kill characters" and get to the center of the map and hold it at all costs/king of the hill. Custodes can do this better than anyone.
Distant 3rd. Bikes are stupidly priced, as is Trajann.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
There was a quote and explanation I think earlier in this thread where they explained an aim to playtest in an environment where you could face any book with even representation, so some factions are intended to be better or worse against some others to round the process out.
In a world where you weren't expecting to have to play off against mostly tau/custodes in the top slots and instead you were forced to round robin every codex, lists and the win rates might be different.
Necrons just picked up a tournament win this past weekend as well as some other good sets of wins in other tournaments. Necrons are perhaps tougher for Custodes, because they do approach the point where it becomes really difficult to get through all the obsec.
This guy beat Custodes twice, Tau, Goffs, and Sisters.
Now MAYBE if more of these kinds of armies showed up to Cherokee we would see Taustodes with a lower win rate. It doesn't fix the issue, but it does perhaps demonstrate the self selecting nature of the data as top player jump around.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
tneva82 wrote: Don't worry. When GW has sold enough kits to saturate market they will change what's op to something else.
Yeah, they even went and cut mutilators entirely after selling so many kits when they were OP. /s
Mutilators were op?
I remember everyone running obliterators, but never mutilators.
The "/s" signifies sacrasm, I believe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/28 20:40:08
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
It was 175 40k players. 88 tables. So 88 undefeated players after round 1, 44 after round 2, 22 after round 3, which ended the first day.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee NC is effectively in the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
This isn't like the LVO or Adepticon or GenCon, where there's a lot of things going on for you to make a week of it or whatever and they're in a place with easy accessibility via airport and hotels.
But yeah. It's always fun to make assumptions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/01 00:44:36
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee is the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
So you literally don't think that a tournament in Cherokee is valid data? Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith.
Your claim would be good for why a seemingly balanced field doesn't actually represent the true brokenness of the meta; a broken meta in Cherokee just means it's *really* broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/01 00:46:06
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee is the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
So you literally don't think that a tournament in Cherokee is valid data? Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith.
Don't tell me you're surprised by that.
It's a simple formula:
Does this data/fact support the narrative I'm trying to spin?
If Yes? Huzzah! See, I'm right!
If No? Either freely ignore it or claim it means something else & still claim to be correct.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a parody post or if you're on some next-level delusion gak.
Our army is overpowered, and if you regularly lose to weaker armies you have a good match-up with it's because they are better players than you or you're building weaker Custodes armies. This cope gak is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Your low skill garagehammer games aren't evidence buddy.
What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Eihnlazer wrote: What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
Bikes went to W5 and Salvos went to D3+3. W5 is a significant breakpoint for the game especially with a 4++/6+++ for no change in cost.
Trajann picked up a W and an A, went from 3++ to 4++/5+++ ( slight sidegrade/downgrade ), flat 3 damage up from D3, and he went from one crappy WLT to two -- one of which fuels strats and allows you to adjust the Katah.
Shield Hosts put up two traits instead of just being a WLT, Relic, and Strat. And then you add the Ka'tah.
Transhuman went from 2 CP for any to 1/2. Same with +1 to wound. When you look at most lists very few bring units above 3.
You also effectively doubled in unit size when controlling objectives.
Emperor's Chosen suffocates any army the needs mortal wounds to get through armor on models that have 0+/1+. It also gives a wound reroll to salvos. Popping into the traits of a different host when the opportunity is high doesn't hurt either.
There's quite a bit that changed, really...all for pretty much the same cost or less and Custodes were pretty competitive before DE got in the way. Leadership was occasionally a thorn, but no longer, really.
And there's just no possible way THAT many Custodes players are throwing weighted dice.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/03/01 05:29:13
What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
You can't say "bad faith" if you're seriously pushing the idea that Custodes players are using weighted dice en masse. It's insulting and disrespectful to expect us to take that seriously; it's an idiotic idea.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/01 06:49:19
I never said all custodes players were using weighted dice, nor did i name any players.
I implied that tournament players could be using weighted dice (4+ is all you need and its fairly easy to do) and that would HEAVILY affect win-rates.
Custodes are a 50/50 army. They were before and still are now. The difference now is that we arent JUST a 50/50 army, we now have ways to score points and play the mission, and ways to actually do damage.
The old codex was weak and relied ENTIRELY on not dying through strats and 3++. It was a one dimensional and boring game in alot of matchups.
Now that custodes actually have things they can do, CP we can spend, and can actually do damage we are OP?
Im not even trying to deny the win rates are high. Im saying do an actual comparison on datasheets with custodes models to other factions and tell me we are undercosted.
Custodes are over overpointed if you just look at datasheet stats. Trajann is undercosted, but we have NO other datasheets that are grossly undercosted based on raw stats.
We have powerful strats yes, but we lost alot of really powerful strats and had a few nerfed as well. The 2 strats people complain about are now cheaper on 3 man units (of which i can say bikes might cause an issue value-wise compared to other stuff) but are appropriately costed compared to any other armies strats.
The ka'tahs are probably where we see a rules bloat issue. Its another free rule that we dont pay points for. However, they are only useful conditionally.
I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Eihnlazer wrote: I never said all custodes players were using weighted dice, nor did i name any players.
I implied that tournament players could be using weighted dice (4+ is all you need and its fairly easy to do) and that would HEAVILY affect win-rates.
No. You made a definite statement. Here comes the backpedaling. You said something *realll* stupid, and are trying to step away from it.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im not even trying to deny the win rates are high. Im saying do an actual comparison on datasheets with custodes models to other factions and tell me we are undercosted.
Custodes are over overpointed if you just look at datasheet stats. Trajann is undercosted, but we have NO other datasheets that are grossly undercosted based on raw stats.
How are you defining that? Compared to what?
Eihnlazer wrote: I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
If you say you "roll below average quite often" then you don't have a sober enough appreciation of what's going on to evaluate the game. Dice are random, unless weighted; players do not have luck.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a parody post or if you're on some next-level delusion gak.
