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:

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.

What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?

Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.

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.

Tiberias wrote:

What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?

Nothing I said contradicts the lore. Custodes typically aren't fighting pitched battles on a massive scale.

Tiberias wrote:
Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.

I used an extreme example first and then a more restrained one second. Go read the rest of my post again, then get back to me.

Tiberias wrote:


Aaaand we're back on the old "custodes being individually better devalues astartes" argument, which I've debunked for you two pages ago. Come up with a better argument at least.
Nobody is saying custodes are the only ones getting to be "super" (whatever the hell that exactly means) and them being individually better than astartes does not devalue the marines and I've given you a couple examples why that is, which you all ignored.

You haven't debunked gak. There are Custodes players in this thread who are salty about Astartes getting 2w; they said as much.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

What a terrible argument for two reasons: first I already said that 40k is a fictional setting so the rules and lore should be logically coherent within that universe the way it was written by the authors. That logicaly coherency and consitency should reflect both in lore and rules if possible, at least that should be the goal. Otherwhise anything goes and we can have T5 S5 grots, because who cares?

Nothing I said contradicts the lore. Custodes typically aren't fighting pitched battles on a massive scale.

So what the hell does that have to do with their vehicles not being as tough? You are purposefully missing my point here and you are not fooling me or anyone else.

Tiberias wrote:
Second even if I grant your real world comparison, it's still a terrible one. So in your example a custodes TANK is a F1 car and the leman russ is a T-34. So you are equating the custodes vehicle with a non military car without armoring and the imperial guard vehicle with an actual tank. Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.

I used an extreme example first and then a more restrained one second. Go read the rest of my post again, then get back to me.

This is reaching hilarious levels. So you are low key acknowledging that your f1 example was gak. Problem is you second comparison is still crap because you are equating custodes tanks with non tanks in your real life comparison. Now let the backpaddeling commence because even you can't defend that position, even with your staggering amounts of intellectual dishonesty.

Tiberias wrote:


Aaaand we're back on the old "custodes being individually better devalues astartes" argument, which I've debunked for you two pages ago. Come up with a better argument at least.
Nobody is saying custodes are the only ones getting to be "super" (whatever the hell that exactly means) and them being individually better than astartes does not devalue the marines and I've given you a couple examples why that is, which you all ignored.

You haven't debunked gak. There are Custodes players in this thread who are salty about Astartes getting 2w; they said as much.

Tiberias wrote:
Even the custodes venerable land raider has a worse armor save against most things.

Shrug. It's not like land raiders from any other color of marines are getting used either.

Also why does a hover tank have to have a worse save?

Because aircraft have to worry a lot more about weight limits and armor is heavy. The fact that a gold marine grav tank can still fly while carrying enough armor for even close to a LRBT's level of durability is a miracle of superior technology.

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.

They're gold marines. They're power armored soldiers with bolters, terminators, land raiders, etc.

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.

I don't need to paint anything. You do it yourself by complaining that a LRBT, a tank whose primary attribute is "really durable" is in fact more durable than your gold marine tanks. It's very clear that your issue is not balance, it's that you don't get to be the best at everything.

So because dark eldar lost a lot of hq options for example custodes can lose obsec on infantry because GW has done the same thing to other codices?

Yep. Every other faction has to deal with having their rules change, you can cope with it too. Or do Tau need stacking markerlights back? Guard need platoons back? Etc.

Also demonstrate why it was bad design and needed to go?

Because obsec is supposed to be a choice between taking your basic troops and your fancy toys. If you take too many characters, tanks, etc, you lose on primary VP. Giving obsec everywhere negates that choice and removes all reason to take troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.

Fine, let's do a better one. The LRBT is a T-34, the gold marine "tank" is a helicopter gunship. Is a modern production AH-64 armed with radar homing anti-tank missiles that it can fire from behind a hill a vastly more advanced and lethal unit? Sure. But which one would you rather be sitting inside if someone opens fire on you with a 20mm cannon?

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.

Even at the time where Custodes was one of the broken factions, Custodes players mostly took battalions which still required three troop choices. With the Nephilim rules, they'll still take a battalion because they will want the CP to spend on relics/WL Traits/Eternal Penitent. The idea that Custodes players never used their troop choice is bunk. Those other infantry units having obsec made them useful. Why would anyone take a Warden for 50pts when I can take a Custodian Guard for the same or lower price when the guard has Obsec and the Warden has a minor increase in offense and survivability? They won't. For 5 more points than a Warden squad, you can take a Venerable Contemptor with a Multi-Melta. For the same points you can take a unit of Saggitarum or a unit of Shield Guard, both of which have obsec. If Wardens still had obsec, I'm still not sure whether I would take them over the Dread/Shield Guard/Saggitarum, but I would at least consider it.

When it comes to units pretty much everything comes down to points and those points have to make sense in a lot of ways. If Wardens were cheaper, could they be a good option even without Obsec? Sure, but it would be weird if an elite Custodian unit was the same points or less than basic Custodian Guard.

As far as design-wise what the big difference between Custodes and Marines should be is that Custodes are warriors, while Marines are soldiers. Custodes should be a faction that should be extremely limited in terms of buffs (Which they already are to a great extent) but they have really good stats and good, relatively versatile wargear. Marines on the other hand would have far more specialization in terms of unit choices and the ability to buff their units through Chaplains/Librarians/Stratagems and the like. Also if Custodes have better stats than but are priced appropriately to reflect that, what is the issue?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Even the custodes venerable land raider has a worse armor save against most things.

Shrug. It's not like land raiders from any other color of marines are getting used either.

Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.

Also why does a hover tank have to have a worse save?

Because aircraft have to worry a lot more about weight limits and armor is heavy. The fact that a gold marine grav tank can still fly while carrying enough armor for even close to a LRBT's level of durability is a miracle of superior technology.

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.

You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.

They're gold marines. They're power armored soldiers with bolters, terminators, land raiders, etc.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.

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.

I don't need to paint anything. You do it yourself by complaining that a LRBT, a tank whose primary attribute is "really durable" is in fact more durable than your gold marine tanks. It's very clear that your issue is not balance, it's that you don't get to be the best at everything.

So me advocating for increasing the cost across the board and giving Infantry +1wound and attack is wanting them to be best at everything? When I specifically said I don't want custodes to be op or unkillable, just better differentiated from Marines.

So because dark eldar lost a lot of hq options for example custodes can lose obsec on infantry because GW has done the same thing to other codices?

Yep. Every other faction has to deal with having their rules change, you can cope with it too. Or do Tau need stacking markerlights back? Guard need platoons back? Etc.

That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.

Also demonstrate why it was bad design and needed to go?

Because obsec is supposed to be a choice between taking your basic troops and your fancy toys. If you take too many characters, tanks, etc, you lose on primary VP. Giving obsec everywhere negates that choice and removes all reason to take troops.

Says who? Especially for a codex with that limited amounts of Infantry datasheets as custodes.
You also conveniently left out my question when custodes infantry being obsec was every actually a problem? And I know why: because you and Hecaton are trying to pick and choose your battles in this discussion because you know the thrust of your argument is just that you have a hate boner against custodes and lesser so against custodes players.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Even you have to admit that this is a terrible comparison and misses the mark by a few miles.

Fine, let's do a better one. The LRBT is a T-34, the gold marine "tank" is a helicopter gunship. Is a modern production AH-64 armed with radar homing anti-tank missiles that it can fire from behind a hill a vastly more advanced and lethal unit? Sure. But which one would you rather be sitting inside if someone opens fire on you with a 20mm cannon?

ihockert wrote:
The idea that Custodes players never used their troop choice is bunk.

Only using your troops because of mandatory detachment slots is proving my point, thanks.

Why would anyone take a Warden for 50pts when I can take a Custodian Guard for the same or lower price when the guard has Obsec and the Warden has a minor increase in offense and survivability?

Sounds like a great situation to me: you can either have obsec or you can have better stats. If the unit with better stats also had obsec why would you take the basic troops?

As far as design-wise what the big difference between Custodes and Marines should be is that Custodes are warriors, while Marines are soldiers. Custodes should be a faction that should be extremely limited in terms of buffs (Which they already are to a great extent) but they have really good stats and good, relatively versatile wargear. Marines on the other hand would have far more specialization in terms of unit choices and the ability to buff their units through Chaplains/Librarians/Stratagems and the like.

"My army should have all of the buffs built into the basic unit stats so I don't need to spend points on buff units" is terrible design.

Also if Custodes have better stats than but are priced appropriately to reflect that, what is the issue?

The issue is that it makes them feel like something out of a 14 year old's terrible fanfiction. "MY GOLD MARINES ARE EVEN MORE GOLD THAN YOUR BLUE MARINES SO THEY HAVE BETTER STATS AT EVERYTHIGN LOL".

CadianSgtBob wrote:


The issue is that it makes them feel like something out of a 14 year old's terrible fanfiction. "MY GOLD MARINES ARE EVEN MORE GOLD THAN YOUR BLUE MARINES SO THEY HAVE BETTER STATS AT EVERYTHIGN LOL".

I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Edit: this thread is also focusing on vehicles but nobody can really justify as to why a terminator with AoC has a better save than a custodes terminator.
This is why +1wound and attack would have been a good choice because that way it changes efficiency breakpoints in a lot of weapons like dmg2 weapons and dmg3+d3 weapons against custodes terminators. That way marines can keep their AoC, which is a bandaid that they needed, but there is still an appropriate differentiation between custodes terminator and marine terminator

Tiberias wrote:
Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.

I acknowledge it. I don't care about it. Land raiders of all colors suck so I'm not concerned about whether or not the gold one sucks.

You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.

It is consistent within the setting. It has miraculous armor for a vehicle that has to fly. It just isn't consistent with your headcanon where gold marines are the best at everything because gold marines are the best.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.

Read the lore, fell asleep trying to care about it. They're space marines with gold armor and boring fluff. And the fact that GW somehow managed to make the game's least interesting faction have an even less interesting variant is impressive.

That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.

No, but that's not the point. You complained that they need to keep obsec because they had it in the past, I corrected your argument by pointing out some of the other examples of rules that have changed over time. "I used to have this in a previous codex" is not an argument that GW cares about.

Says who?

Says anyone who understands game design. Obsec is supposed to be given only to relatively simple basic troops to make it a tradeoff between scoring and raw killing power. Giving army-wide obsec removes any need to take more than the bare minimum troops to fill your detachment slots.

You and Hecaton are desperately trying to find a real life equivalent of a custodes hover tank to concoct an example of how a leman russ has to be tougher.

It's hardly desperate, it's what the tank is. It's functionally identical to a helicopter gunship. And because it has god-level tech it has the firepower of a tank and armor almost as good as a tank.

You are stuck because you have to acknowledge that auramite in lore is tougher than steel or ceramite.

Sure. Which is why the gold marine tanks can have near-LRBT levels of armor protection within the weight constraints of a flying vehicle. Gold marine armor is way stronger per ton so even the limited amount the tanks can carry is almost as good as a barely-mobile brick of conventional armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Says the guy playing marines +2 (silver marines are marines +1) and complaining that he doesn't get to play marines +3.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Geez what a gak argument. You just can't for the life of you acknowledge that it doesn't make any sense that a landraider made from auramite has a worse save than a leman russ.

I acknowledge it. I don't care about it. Land raiders of all colors suck so I'm not concerned about whether or not the gold one sucks.

You are still equating it with real life military vehicles, which it is just not. There is no real life comparison because it's a space fantasy vehicle. It has to be logically coherent and consistent WITHIN how the setting was written by the authors...how often do I have to clarify this.

It is consistent within the setting. It has miraculous armor for a vehicle that has to fly. It just isn't consistent with your headcanon where gold marines are the best at everything because gold marines are the best.

Their purpose, creation, training and equipment is very much different. I encourage you to read at least any of their lore before making such sweeping statements that just prove you have no idea what you are talking about in this topic.

Read the lore, fell asleep trying to care about it. They're space marines with gold armor and boring fluff. And the fact that GW somehow managed to make the game's least interesting faction have an even less interesting variant is impressive.

That's just straight up a non argument. Out of none of this follows that custodes infantry should have lost obsec.

No, but that's not the point. You complained that they need to keep obsec because they had it in the past, I corrected your argument by pointing out some of the other examples of rules that have changed over time. "I used to have this in a previous codex" is not an argument that GW cares about.

Says who?

Says anyone who understands game design. Obsec is supposed to be given only to relatively simple basic troops to make it a tradeoff between scoring and raw killing power. Giving army-wide obsec removes any need to take more than the bare minimum troops to fill your detachment slots.

You and Hecaton are desperately trying to find a real life equivalent of a custodes hover tank to concoct an example of how a leman russ has to be tougher.

It's hardly desperate, it's what the tank is. It's functionally identical to a helicopter gunship. And because it has god-level tech it has the firepower of a tank and armor almost as good as a tank.

You are stuck because you have to acknowledge that auramite in lore is tougher than steel or ceramite.

Sure. Which is why the gold marine tanks can have near-LRBT levels of armor protection within the weight constraints of a flying vehicle. Gold marine armor is way stronger per ton so even the limited amount the tanks can carry is almost as good as a barely-mobile brick of conventional armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
I mean, now you're really just coming off as a massive douchebag, who is unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Says the guy playing marines +2 (silver marines are marines +1) and complaining that he doesn't get to play marines +3.

Yeah I mean come on, this response just really hammers home my point as to how you are unable to honestly engage with the discussion.

Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?
Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?

You can't answer those questions aside from saying I want to play an op faction. I mean do realize how ridiculous you come across here?

Tiberias wrote:
Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?

For the same reason that a land raider made out of ceramite has the same durability as a LRBT. You get no sympathy for this argument when every other color of marines has the exact same problem with the unit.

Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?

Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save. But how about this: you can have AoC but in exchange your infantry are all bumped down to W2/W3 like other marines.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Why is a land raider made from auramite less tough than a leman russ?

For the same reason that a land raider made out of ceramite has the same durability as a LRBT. You get no sympathy for this argument when every other color of marines has the exact same problem with the unit.

That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.

Why does a custodes terminator have a worse save than a marine terminator when their armor is made from auramite?

Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save. But how about this: you can have AoC but in exchange your infantry are all bumped down to W2/W3 like other marines.

Also, let's keep in mind that Armor of Contempt is not a fluffy rule; it's purely a game-balance patch for tournaments, and it *only* applies in Matched Play. In Narrative Play it does not.

A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do. I guess this means my Wardens should have 5 wounds as they are 50 points to represent their durability,

Because gold marine durability is represented by wounds, not save

right?

Custodes have been totally shortchanged on wounds per model this entire time.

Tiberias wrote:
That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.

It doesn't need to make sense to you, it's simple reality. Land raiders suck. They've sucked for multiple editions. They will almost certainly continue to suck because they have an incoherent design concept that doesn't fill any desirable role. GW has clearly abandoned the unit and has no interest in making it work so there is no point in arguing about the precise ways in which one particular color of land raider sucks. Or do we need to spend time arguing about why a destroyer tank hunter has only a 3+ save despite being built on the same hull as a LRBT?

(Hint: it has a 3+ save because it's a legends unit that GW never bothered to update, it has nothing to do with fluff.)

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.

"I need +1 attack to demonstrate their toughness."

No.

Now explain to me while how my only argument is that I want to play an op faction?

Because your faction is currently sitting at a nice balanced ~50% win rate and does not need buffs.

Also since you don't even bother reading custodes lore, but still like hating on them let me cue you in how they are different from astartes, and not in a good way. They are passive to a fault with a few exceptions, they are arrogant and view the imperium as lesser which makes them hypocrites because they could have helped improve it the last 10000 years. They are individually almost perfect, but are basically slaves to a megalomaniac. They have the cognitive abilities to disagree with the emperor (in 30k for example), but can never actually act against him. That is what makes them interesting.....but all Custodes players just want an op faction....

Yawn. And despite this "interesting" fluff the codex is just over and over again "look how much better they are than everyone else" marines +1 nonsense. And their personality flaws have nothing to do with their tabletop stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihockert wrote:
A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do.

Wounds per point =/= wounds. Gold marines have more wounds to demonstrate their raw durability, how efficient they are is irrelevant from a fluff point of view because points do not exist in the fluff.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
That's still a gak argument and still misses the point. It makes no sense within the confines of 40k that a land raider made from auramite has a worse save than a Leman Russ or other land raiders not made from auramite.

It doesn't need to make sense to you, it's simple reality. Land raiders suck. They've sucked for multiple editions. They will almost certainly continue to suck because they have an incoherent design concept that doesn't fill any desirable role. GW has clearly abandoned the unit and has no interest in making it work so there is no point in arguing about the precise ways in which one particular color of land raider sucks. Or do we need to spend time arguing about why a destroyer tank hunter has only a 3+ save despite being built on the same hull as a LRBT?

(Hint: it has a 3+ save because it's a legends unit that GW never bothered to update, it has nothing to do with fluff.)

So since marines got AoC like they should have, I proposed that custodes get +1wound and attack on Infantry alongside an appropriate points increase to hammer home their toughnes in the changed environment of 9th.

"I need +1 attack to demonstrate their toughness."

No.

Now explain to me while how my only argument is that I want to play an op faction?

Because your faction is currently sitting at a nice balanced ~50% win rate and does not need buffs.

Also since you don't even bother reading custodes lore, but still like hating on them let me cue you in how they are different from astartes, and not in a good way. They are passive to a fault with a few exceptions, they are arrogant and view the imperium as lesser which makes them hypocrites because they could have helped improve it the last 10000 years. They are individually almost perfect, but are basically slaves to a megalomaniac. They have the cognitive abilities to disagree with the emperor (in 30k for example), but can never actually act against him. That is what makes them interesting.....but all Custodes players just want an op faction....

Yawn. And despite this "interesting" fluff the codex is just over and over again "look how much better they are than everyone else" marines +1 nonsense. And their personality flaws have nothing to do with their tabletop stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihockert wrote:
A Custodian Guard is 45 pts for 3 wounds when an Intercessor is 20pts for 2 Wounds, so Marines technically get more Wounds per Point than Custodes do.

Wounds per point =/= wounds. Gold marines have more wounds to demonstrate their raw durability, how efficient they are is irrelevant from a fluff point of view because points do not exist in the fluff.

Cmon I really tried to engage you in good faith. You pick and chose what you respond to, to further your argument without engaging with the actual points raised. You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.

Tiberias wrote:
You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.

Look in the mirror someday.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that you don't get a point-by-point response to every single word you posted but the reality is you play a faction with a nice balanced ~50% win rate and do not need any buffs.

That's why I stopped chiming in and said there's literally no value to the discussion anymore.
Noone is gonna change its mind about this topic,neither the custodes players nor, especially, the custodes haters. They've made that point clear from the first post when it was said that the army shouldn't exist in the first place.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
You just really come off as a massive douchebag here.

Look in the mirror someday.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that you don't get a point-by-point response to every single word you posted but the reality is you play a faction with a nice balanced ~50% win rate and do not need any buffs.

That's not the point you dingleberry. I also always said that a change in stats has to be accompanied by an appropriate points increase, so don't throw winrates in my face when those are prepped up by a single build that doesn't even use any of the units we are talking about (namely dreads and bikes, with sagittarum being a slight exception).

You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?

You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument? And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag? I mean can you get even more intellectually dishonest?

Picking up a point from somewhat earlier in the discussion: someone (sorry, I don't remember who) mentioned that after the last changes Custodes only have one build that keeps up their winrate above 50%.

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?


Edit: apart from that: nobody is helped by calling other ones douchbag... And it surely doesn't help in getting taken seriously

Hecaton wrote:
Also, let's keep in mind that Armor of Contempt is not a fluffy rule; it's purely a game-balance patch for tournaments, and it *only* applies in Matched Play. In Narrative Play it does not.

That's just my personal opinion, but I think it fits both astartes and sisters quite well from a lore standpoint. With them being fanatical, psycho indoctrinated supersoldiers. Which is also why I don't think custodes should get it...not only from a balance standpoint, but because it doesn't really fit them. They are not armed with contempt, most of them are too passive for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Picking up a point from somewhat earlier in the discussion: someone (sorry, I don't remember who) mentioned that after the last changes Custodes only have one build that keeps up their winrate above 50%.

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?


Edit: apart from that: nobody is helped by calling other ones douchbag... And it surely doesn't help in getting taken seriously

I will concede the point about calling others out, but my patience only can take so much when getting bombarded by demonstrably false claims or logically incoherent arguments and comparisons.

Edit: just to make this aspect clear aswell. If Hecaton and CadianSgtBob just simply said they personally don't like custodes and/or custodes players and think that they should be in no way differnt from marines or should not exist at all because they just can't stand them....fine. I can totally respect that position, but rationalizing that position with fallacious arguments, whataboutisms and really bad comparisons just won't fly with me.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

I lack experience with those win statistics, helfe the question: is it possible to say what winrates those other Custodes build sit at? Are we talking 45-50% for the "bad ones", or more like 20-25%?

It is impossible to say. Competitive stats simply tell us that Custodes went from high build diversity to dreads/bikes/Caladius essentially overnight. These remaining mechstodes builds don’t win events either by the way — you’ll see them occasionally in top 10s but that’s as far as it goes. Power-wise I think mechstodes is in a fine place. It’s just obviously no fun to have Forgeworld vehicle spam be the only functional build.

Tiberias, you are not going to have a productive discussion with people who don’t play Custodes, dislike the entire concept of Custodes, and are here solely to see them fail. Their goal isn’t to change your mind. Their goal is to waste your time. It’s the internet equivalent of blocking your path and going, “nuh-uh!” to whatever you’re trying to do. Make use of the wonderful features of this forum and save your energy for those who are willing to engage in good faith.

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

I mean, that just isn't really a valid point. GW just revamped a huge swathe of the ork model line. They upped the price of boyz ($$$) significantly...but then wrote such god awful rules for them for the better part of a year that nobody buys them. BTW you need 10 boxes of boyz to make 1 full squad of shootas (9 if you use big shootas/rokkitz) or if you go slugga/choppa boyz and use special weapons you can get buy with a mere...6 boxes of boyz to make 1 full mob. That works out to $228 per mob of boyz for choppas and $342 for 1 of shootas.

GW follows only 1 single trend in all its long history, and that is making ZERO sense when it comes to business decisions. GW finally gave orkz new plastic Kommando models, I immediately bought 3 boxes because they are beautiful and I had refused to buy the old crappy ones that didn't look nearly as good. But right before GW released the new models what did they do? nerfed Kommandos You would think they would at least wait like a month or two after releasing a new kit before hitting a unit with a hefty points increase, especially when it wasn't game breaking or dominating the meta.

So to summarize, to say that GW is nerfing custards because they don't sell as well as other armies...that just isn't true and its provably not true since GW never does anything on purpose to drive sales

Tiberias wrote:

That's just my personal opinion, but I think it fits both astartes and sisters quite well from a lore standpoint. With them being fanatical, psycho indoctrinated supersoldiers. Which is also why I don't think custodes should get it...not only from a balance standpoint, but because it doesn't really fit them. They are not armed with contempt, most of them are too passive for that.

I don't. It puts thel far out of wack with units they should be as durable as (like Necron Warriors).

[never mind, read something completely wrong]

SemperMortis wrote:

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

I mean, that just isn't really a valid point. GW just revamped a huge swathe of the ork model line. They upped the price of boyz ($$$) significantly...but then wrote such god awful rules for them for the better part of a year that nobody buys them. BTW you need 10 boxes of boyz to make 1 full squad of shootas (9 if you use big shootas/rokkitz) or if you go slugga/choppa boyz and use special weapons you can get buy with a mere...6 boxes of boyz to make 1 full mob. That works out to $228 per mob of boyz for choppas and $342 for 1 of shootas.

GW follows only 1 single trend in all its long history, and that is making ZERO sense when it comes to business decisions. GW finally gave orkz new plastic Kommando models, I immediately bought 3 boxes because they are beautiful and I had refused to buy the old crappy ones that didn't look nearly as good. But right before GW released the new models what did they do? nerfed Kommandos You would think they would at least wait like a month or two after releasing a new kit before hitting a unit with a hefty points increase, especially when it wasn't game breaking or dominating the meta.

So to summarize, to say that GW is nerfing custards because they don't sell as well as other armies...that just isn't true and its provably not true since GW never does anything on purpose to drive sales

A company doesn’t accidentally make record profit year over year. Yes that is changing now, but everybody is getting hit due to our current economic situation. Why is this happening if GW has no business sense when writing rules?

The truth is they do, you’re just naive to notice it. If they simply gave every new model/codex OP rules, anyone with half a brain would notice it. That would lead to mass player exudes and dwindling profits. The key is GW wants trick people into thinking they care about balance. It’s much better for GW if people think they are simply failing in keeping the game balanced. After all, it’s possible to improve your game design ability. However, if you are just simply making bad balance for profits, we all know that’s never going to change

Additionally, when you (GW) lead with OP rules for new models, you are limiting their major short term real sales window to their release month. This is bad when you don’t have enough stock of said product to fulfill demand, as You won’t be able to use future rules buff to sell more anytime soon.

So in your orks example it’s likely that A) GW may have had less new ork product in stock due to supply shortages and B) knew people would buy new orks anyway, as you yourself did.

In fact it’s weird to me that you are making this argument that GW has no business sense, while also admitting to spending a hefty amount on their product. Do you think you’re some sort of special snowflake for buying models just for their appearance? Ork players by in large have been doing this for decades.

But don’t worry, I’m sure ork boyz/kommandos will be getting major buffs by the time 10th Ed (or sooner) rolls around. After all at this point GW will have more stock of them and will be able to sell them again while claiming to bring balance.

Nah, the issue with Orks is there's no Ork fanboys on the design team.

Tiberias wrote:
You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?

It is relevant because you keep failing to understand why the land raider is weaker than the LRBT. GW isn't making a fluff argument that it should have worse stats, they simply don't care enough to update the datasheet. So all of your arguments about how a coat of gold spray paint makes it 100000000% more durable in the fluff are completely irrelevant. The only difference between the land raider and the destroyer is that one of these abandoned units is technically still in the codex while the other is explicitly put into the "we don't care" document.

You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument?

I ignored it because I was highlighting your dishonesty in saying "gold marines need to be more durable, therefore also give them +1 attack".

And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag?

That's exactly what I'm telling you to do, and the fact that you keep saying things like this is only proving my point.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
You argument about other tanks made from Leman Russ chassis having worse saves is pure whatabouism. They should also get a better save, what does that have to do with custodes?

It is relevant because you keep failing to understand why the land raider is weaker than the LRBT. GW isn't making a fluff argument that it should have worse stats, they simply don't care enough to update the datasheet. So all of your arguments about how a coat of gold spray paint makes it 100000000% more durable in the fluff are completely irrelevant. The only difference between the land raider and the destroyer is that one of these abandoned units is technically still in the codex while the other is explicitly put into the "we don't care" document.

Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.

You say custodes shouldn't get an extra attack whole conveniently ignoring the other half of my argument?

I ignored it because I was highlighting your dishonesty in saying "gold marines need to be more durable, therefore also give them +1 attack".

We could have had a conversation on whether +1 attack was appropriate alongside a cost increase , but that was only half of my proposition and the less important half for this particular discussion, which is why you chose to ignore it. Not really arguing in good faith here, are we?

And telling me I should look into the mirror for calling you a douchebag?

That's exactly what I'm telling you to do, and the fact that you keep saying things like this is only proving my point.

Tiberias wrote:
Don't deflect towards GW now, the point is how through this whole discussion you haven't been able to come up with a logically coherent argument as to why a custodes land raider should have a worse save. The only thing you managed to do was shifting goalposts and bringing up whataboutisms. Oh and also really bad comparisons.

I haven't come up with that argument because I've never attempted to argue that it should have a worse save. I've just pointed out that the land raider, regardless of color, is an abandoned unit and it doesn't matter what stats it has. GW is not making or listening to fluff arguments on the subject.

But answer this: why does the land raider matter so much to you? Would giving gold land raiders AoC make them a viable choice? No. Would giving them AoC and a second copy of AoC and a third copy of AoC so they have a -1+ save make them a viable choice? No. You'd still have a unit with no coherent purpose that nobody takes. So why do you keep bringing it up?

We could have had a conversation on whether +1 attack was appropriate alongside a cost increase , but that was only half of my proposition and the less important half for this particular discussion, which is why you chose to ignore it. Not really arguing in good faith here, are we?

Not really arguing in good faith, says the person who tried to dishonestly slip a +1 attack buff into an argument about durability.