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.

I think the Land Raider is being used for one simple reason - both armies have access to it.
Its not relevant if its a used unit, shelved or totally broken.
The threat went from LRBT over Valkyres to LRs and Telemons to Calladius...
Factually the Custodes LR is worse than the marine LR, which is the core issue - Custodes feel weaker than marines.
That's why he's bringing it up. And now you're deflecting again as to why one should care about the LR at all.
That is not relevant to the discussion or topic at hand, which is what Tiberius has critizised you multiple times for already. That's where the bad faith also stems from.

"slip in" is a bit of a weird accusation though, no?
What Tiberius (and almost all Custodes players that didnt pick the army because it was FOTM) wants is more wounds and more attacks with a corresponding price increase. He made that pretty clear.
Why? Because Custodes got designcrept by marines.
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.

@ Tiberius and @Thairne not sure why you 2 are arguing with trolls over whether or not custodes should exist. The army sells well so custodes aren’t going anywhere. Therefore there’s no point of arguing with people who are going to say dumb nonsense in order to prove a dead ideal.

As far as your argument over why the army should be more elite, welll… Custodes already sold well when they were OP. Therefore. GW’s only interests lies in making sure the army isn’t too broken and that it’s best options are expensive/hard to get forgeworld units. They couldn’t care less whether are not the army feels like it should based on the fluff. It’ a product already sold , so they’ll only buff things once they want the sales to continue. It also goes without saying that more expensive/better units is directly against GW’s interest, since fewer units in a list mean fewer product sold for GW.

In conclusion you’re arguing for something that’s never going to happen. In other news I think it would be great if everyone had enough to eat and people didn’t screw others over for their own profit,

 Thairne wrote:
Its not relevant if its a used unit, shelved or totally broken.

It's absolutely relevant how used or abandoned it is. You can't make a fluff argument about how gold armor needs to be stronger than any other color and then use an abandoned unit as your example. Gold land raiders aren't less durable because GW is making a fluff point about each army's durability, they're less durable because GW doesn't care about keeping that datasheet updated.

"slip in" is a bit of a weird accusation though, no?

Not really. Read the sentence that quote is from, it's a dishonest attempt to argue about durability and then slip in an extra attack buff without any justification.

They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.

Sorry, but no. They were always gold marines and a boring as hell faction. You're just salty that they're marines +1 instead of marines +10 like in your fanfiction.

Salt donkey wrote:

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.

First things first, way to take the point being made and turn it into something completely different Kudos on that level of effort in misdirection.

Secondly, yes, GW has recorded good profits year after year inspite of itself rather than because of itself. They are "First in best dressed". A host of other games exist with better models or better rules and in some cases both. The difference is that they are the oldest and as such have the biggest fan base. Go to an average game store and try to find a game, easy enough, now do that with almost any other table top game. If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games. And if you still think they are business geniuses i'll politely disagree.

SemperMortis wrote:
If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games.

Sorry, but no. GW issued C&D letters to people who let their greed get in the way of common sense and tried to monetize their illegal derivative works. That's basic IP law and something that virtually every IP owner is going to do. Every content creator knows the basic rule of making fan works is that as soon as you try to make money from it you're going to get shut down.

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.

He already has. It was part of a balance patch. It's entirely right to direct it at GW because *GW MADE THE DECISION.*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thairne wrote:
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.

No, they kinda always were golden marines. You'll notice they tried the whole "they have the Emperor's gene-seed" that used to be a thing for the Grey Knights in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games.

Sorry, but no. GW issued C&D letters to people who let their greed get in the way of common sense and tried to monetize their illegal derivative works. That's basic IP law and something that virtually every IP owner is going to do. Every content creator knows the basic rule of making fan works is that as soon as you try to make money from it you're going to get shut down.

That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.

SemperMortis wrote:


First things first, way to take the point being made and turn it into something completely different Kudos on that level of effort in misdirection.

Secondly, yes, GW has recorded good profits year after year inspite of itself rather than because of itself. They are "First in best dressed". A host of other games exist with better models or better rules and in some cases both. The difference is that they are the oldest and as such have the biggest fan base. Go to an average game store and try to find a game, easy enough, now do that with almost any other table top game. If you honestly think they have good business sense i'll just politely point out them issuing cease and desist orders to online content creators who were giving them FREE CONTENT that advertised their games. And if you still think they are business geniuses i'll politely disagree.

If you are claiming that I used strawman please point out where/how I twisted your words.

Now as far as addressing your arguments I see 2 points in your post. By all means please respond if you think I’m putting words in your mouth here.

1) GW is successful because it’s the oldest name in tabletop wargames

2) GW going after content creators is a sign of incompetence.

For point 1, I somewhat agree, but have good reason to believe GW would have failed if ran poorly. This reason is they where heading in that direction during 7th edition. During this time their profits stagnated and Tom Kirby the CEO was demoted to being a chief shareholder. You could see this at a ground level as well with tons of players defecting to games like warmachine/hordes and X-wing. Even with newer models in the form of knights, Ad-mech, GSC, and Tsons didn’t completely increase profits. It wasn’t until GW released 8th and started rapid rules updates that they started making hand over fist. Oh and Tom Kirby was against putting much effort into the game aspect of warhammer, so them canning him and then focusing a rule updates should tell you something.

For point 2 I think you need to realize that companies need to weigh “free advertising” against the value of their brands. If it was always profitable for people to use your IP then you wouldn’t see movie and music companies go after content creators in the way they do. GW has probably come to the conclusion that companies will pay much less for their licensing deals if they allow free reign on their IPs. I’m not saying this is right but businesses always will weigh what they believe will make them the most profit, and in this case GW clearly believes bringing the hammer will make them money.

Finally I would like to reiterate that GW would rather you believe that their incompetent and not malicious. Your confidence in them is higher now than if they where to come out and say “Yeah we make balancing decisions purely to make you buy the most models possible.”

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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?

It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.

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.

I think GW barely look at rules when it comes to sales. They believe that models largely sell themselves and they are probably right when you look at comments and reactions outside of more competitive centred echo chambers.

Hecaton wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thairne wrote:
The simple fact that you refer to them as "golden marines" not only shows your disdain for the faction, but also highlights the very issue. They should not be golden marines. They weren't. Now they are.

No, they kinda always were golden marines. You'll notice they tried the whole "they have the Emperor's gene-seed" that used to be a thing for the Grey Knights in 8th.

I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?

Just out of interest:


Assuming that the Grav-Tank fills the same "tank" role as the Leman Russ and is made of sturdier material etc. I completely understand that on this basis it should be sturdier on a model by model basis. I would be interested though how much sturdier it would have to be in the opinion of the Custodes players in the sense of the first post, so that Custodes "feel right"?
Are we talking twice the amount of firepower to bring one down? 3 times?

And in parallel the proposition mentioned for the infantry (more wounds, more points), if the rules would reflect lets say a Grav tank soaking up twice the damage a Leman Russ can take, would you agree on increasing its points cost to being 2x that of a Leman Russ (or whatever is necessary to make it similarly resilient on a points by points basis)?
Of course some adjustment might be necessary to reflect the better weapons and BS+ of the Custodes tank, but the general spirit of the question should be clear.

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

Which is weird because there's so many people out there that are Ork fans to one extent or another. Like, you pick 10 people out of a room of 40k players and at least 8/10 are gonna like Orks. Maybe not love, or even like enough to buy models of, but like Orks enough to want them to be a cool tabletop faction definitely.

Hecaton wrote:
That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.

I think TTS sits in a grey area in terms of being a transformative work. Like most fan works do. But I will also point out that the TTS crew didn't actually receive any sort of C&D as far as I'm aware.

On the topic at hand, there's only so much Spacier you can make Space Marines without making them immensely frustrating to fight and play and almost impossible to balance. There's only so much you can do to make an army more elite. 40k only has so much design space after all. There's only so many things you can do with the game's ruleset before you run into problems. Especially considering that they want all armies to be playable in 500 point games.

Tiberias wrote:
I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?

I'm quite knowledgeable about Custodes, I'm just providing a blunt summary of the idea.

No, sorry, Custodes are golden marines, and unfortunately the setting doesn't go into enough detail often enough to differentiate them. And I think if they *did*, it would bother Custodes players, because flaws are part of what makes factions interesting, and they don't want a faction with flaws.

Hecaton wrote:
That's not de jure law, just de facto due to use of the legal system as extrajudicial punishment itself.

No, it's straightforward IP law. Illegal derivative works are not permitted without a license from the IP holder. You can't make a space marine fan film just because you really want one, and if you're dumb enough to try to monetize it and force GW to notice you're going to get shut down.

TTS was satire. It's a transformative work.

TTS did not get a C&D letter, even the creator admits this.

(He did try to blame fear of GW, but given the lack of recent updates and comments about personal life obligations it was pretty clear that he just wanted to take a break from it and "GW will shut me down" was an easy way to deflect blame from the entitled fans who would have thrown a rage fit over not getting more content.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.

Your argument fails because pointing out that the land raider is less tough means nothing. It isn't tough because GW made a fluff argument that it should be weaker, it's less tough because the land raider is an abandoned unit that GW isn't bothering to update. You can't dig up units with obsolete rules and try to draw conclusions about the modern game from them.

Really?! I mean, really? I literally said that the +1 attack was just half of my proposition and that we could have a conversation about that, but this discussion was about durability which is why the other half of my proposition (namely +1 wound on infantry with an appropriate points increase) is the important one right now. And now you dismiss my argument entirely because you don't like the half of it that is not that relevant for this specific discussion? And you have the gall calling me dishonest for it?

I call you dishonest because you are dishonest. Read your own words:

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.

Justification: "marines got AoC".

Justification: "to hammer home their toughness".

Proposal: "give them +1 attack".

Sorry, but +1 attack has nothing to do with the things you try to claim as justification for your proposal.

I mean even a child can see that you are completely out of your depth here and that you are reaching for any straw so that you can keep your face in this discussion. Well, I can tell you that you have failed to do so, miserably.

Even a child can see that you think insults are a substitute for a valid argument. Please stop doing this.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
It matters because we were talking about hypotheticals. Initially you said a leman russ should be tougher than a custodes hover tank because the custodes hover tank "flies", even though it is made from better armor plating (namely auramite). I pointed out the inconsistency of your argument by saying that even the custodes land raider, a non hovering vehicle is less tough than the leman russ, even though made from better materials. So the inconsistency in your argument still remains and the only solution you resorted to, was to deflect towards GW or saying: nobody plays a land raider anyway, which is a bogus argument in this context.

Your argument fails because pointing out that the land raider is less tough means nothing. It isn't tough because GW made a fluff argument that it should be weaker, it's less tough because the land raider is an abandoned unit that GW isn't bothering to update. You can't dig up units with obsolete rules and try to draw conclusions about the modern game from them.

I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.

Really?! I mean, really? I literally said that the +1 attack was just half of my proposition and that we could have a conversation about that, but this discussion was about durability which is why the other half of my proposition (namely +1 wound on infantry with an appropriate points increase) is the important one right now. And now you dismiss my argument entirely because you don't like the half of it that is not that relevant for this specific discussion? And you have the gall calling me dishonest for it?

I call you dishonest because you are dishonest. Read your own words:

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.

Justification: "marines got AoC".

Justification: "to hammer home their toughness".

Proposal: "give them +1 attack".

Sorry, but +1 attack has nothing to do with the things you try to claim as justification for your proposal.

This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against. I've even made relevant parts bold so maybe you can understand this time and people can see who the one arguing in bad faith is here.
Also accusing me of slipping anything into the argument is another dishonest tactic because my proposition has been the same since the start, I've made this exact proposal in other threads aswell and it has always stayed the same.
Edit: But to spell it out for you because you seem to have trouble with this: the +1 Attack half of the proposition is meant to further distinguish them from marines and has obviously(!) nothing to do with durability
You are not doing yourself any favors here.

I mean even a child can see that you are completely out of your depth here and that you are reaching for any straw so that you can keep your face in this discussion. Well, I can tell you that you have failed to do so, miserably.

Even a child can see that you think insults are a substitute for a valid argument. Please stop doing this.

Tiberias wrote:
I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.

Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back. The datasheet is technically still in the codex but it's very obvious that GW doesn't care about giving them functioning rules. So no, the fact that this abandoned joke of a unit doesn't have the durability the fluff says it should have is not relevant.

This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against.

I left out the honest half of your proposal because the specific quote you keep complaining about was about the dishonest half. The fact that I object to your dishonesty does not mean I'm obligated to comment on every single piece of everything you have ever said.

And I absolutely have an argument about your toughness buff. Your codex has an adequate win rate, the fact that you're only marines +1 instead of marines +10 doesn't mean you need more buffs. Sorry, but 40k is not obligated to follow your personal headcanon about how cool gold marines are.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just out of interest:


Assuming that the Grav-Tank fills the same "tank" role as the Leman Russ and is made of sturdier material etc. I completely understand that on this basis it should be sturdier on a model by model basis. I would be interested though how much sturdier it would have to be in the opinion of the Custodes players in the sense of the first post, so that Custodes "feel right"?
Are we talking twice the amount of firepower to bring one down? 3 times?

And in parallel the proposition mentioned for the infantry (more wounds, more points), if the rules would reflect lets say a Grav tank soaking up twice the damage a Leman Russ can take, would you agree on increasing its points cost to being 2x that of a Leman Russ (or whatever is necessary to make it similarly resilient on a points by points basis)?
Of course some adjustment might be necessary to reflect the better weapons and BS+ of the Custodes tank, but the general spirit of the question should be clear.

Well it would help if the Calladius e.g. would get a base save comparable to the russ.
Currently it is effectively a 3+ vs a 1+ save and thats a HUGE difference as was already established up until AP-5.
So "just" upping the save of the Calladius to be at least equal to the Russ would be a good start. While the Calladius is then not tougher per se since it is only T7, it has way more mobility which would set it apart from the Russ in quality.

Soaking twice the amount of wounds would not warrant a doubling in price, since the firepower provided would be pitiful for the points. If you "double everything", doubling the points would probably be adequate for the "feel" of the model. But then you run into the issue of not being able to play the game anymore since you lack critical board control due to a lack of models.
So this level of improvement is unfeasible in game terms and also a bit much even for a custodes tank in the lore. The correct percentage is hard to determine - probably along the lines of 25-30%? A hypothetical Custodes MBT should then cost around... whats it? 250 base loadout with a 1+ save, T8 and 14-16W and appropriate gun. Sounds ridiculous, but that is basically what russes are right now if you "custodes" it.
But yes, I think most custodes players (I certainly) would accept an increase in points to get an increase in power - which in a perfect world would maintain the WR% but increase the "custodesness" of custodes.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I don't accept your claim that it's an abandoned unit, that's just a pathetic deflection you are trying to use to substitute for a valid argument, which you don't have. The venerable land raider is a unit from the recent 9th Ed custodes Codex.

Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back. The datasheet is technically still in the codex but it's very obvious that GW doesn't care about giving them functioning rules. So no, the fact that this abandoned joke of a unit doesn't have the durability the fluff says it should have is not relevant.

Still a non argument in the context of this discussion like it was two pages ago.

This is starting to become pathetic, even when quoting you leave out half of my proposal, specifically the half that is relevant for this discussion and for which you have no argument against.

I left out the honest half of your proposal because the specific quote you keep complaining about was about the dishonest half. The fact that I object to your dishonesty does not mean I'm obligated to comment on every single piece of everything you have ever said.

And I absolutely have an argument about your toughness buff. Your codex has an adequate win rate, the fact that you're only marines +1 instead of marines +10 doesn't mean you need more buffs. Sorry, but 40k is not obligated to follow your personal headcanon about how cool gold marines are.

About the whole Caladius and Russ comparison there is one thing that I just didn't see noted anywhere. The Caladius might be made out of better materials, but the Russ is a proper brick and the weaker materials could still be used in far greater thickness to create better armour. I mean, aluminum foil isn't strong, but if you make it an inch thick, you're not going to punch through it. Whereas steel is much stronger, but if it's thinner, it can still be weaker. I don't recall anything about armour thicknesses that would make that a huge difference.

One problem that Custodes is only part of is that 40k has a pretty small design space, especially because it is a game about elites (say what you want, but Marines, Eldar, and all those things are pretty elite). We also don't use a large part of the stat range there could be, with infantry stats for things like toughness basically going from 3 to 5 (above that you're at either monsters or vehicles). So that doesn't give much differentiation. Add to that that the basic armour of the most common faction has been put at 3+, which means that there basically is only one 'slot' for better armour, and things end up very, very compressed.

At the same time, you can't really widen the range too much because of the scale of the game. It tries to model both guardsmen and titans in the same ruleset, and that makes things hard. You can't really make the much more expensive monsters (including ultra-elites) much more expensive because otherwise, they stand no chance against hordes because they can't kill nearly enough. At the same time, you don't want to give them huge piles of attacks because that in turn makes combat between elites incredibly silly.

 Dolnikan wrote:
About the whole Caladius and Russ comparison there is one thing that I just didn't see noted anywhere. The Caladius might be made out of better materials, but the Russ is a proper brick and the weaker materials could still be used in far greater thickness to create better armour. I mean, aluminum foil isn't strong, but if you make it an inch thick, you're not going to punch through it. Whereas steel is much stronger, but if it's thinner, it can still be weaker. I don't recall anything about armour thicknesses that would make that a huge difference.

One problem that Custodes is only part of is that 40k has a pretty small design space, especially because it is a game about elites (say what you want, but Marines, Eldar, and all those things are pretty elite). We also don't use a large part of the stat range there could be, with infantry stats for things like toughness basically going from 3 to 5 (above that you're at either monsters or vehicles). So that doesn't give much differentiation. Add to that that the basic armour of the most common faction has been put at 3+, which means that there basically is only one 'slot' for better armour, and things end up very, very compressed.

At the same time, you can't really widen the range too much because of the scale of the game. It tries to model both guardsmen and titans in the same ruleset, and that makes things hard. You can't really make the much more expensive monsters (including ultra-elites) much more expensive because otherwise, they stand no chance against hordes because they can't kill nearly enough. At the same time, you don't want to give them huge piles of attacks because that in turn makes combat between elites incredibly silly.

this is all true and I especially agree with your 2 latter paragraphs. The former was adressed sometime on the previous pages, but it is easy to miss it since the thread has become rather big at this stage.
Thing is though - that design space WAS there, slim as it was. In 7th and most of 8th, it worked out. The entire point of this thread is, though, that things kept creeping up on the design space. Statcreep is a real thing - remember when Marines were T4 1W, Terminators went T4 2W and that was pretty much the epitome of marine infantry stat sans characters?
At that time, a custodes was as today - T5 3W. That is a massive difference as even a Custodian Guard outclassed a marine in TDA by a good margin. Nowadays a Gravis Marine is equal in stats, better armed (and cheaper, although that isnt that relevant for the "feel") than a Custodian and that is the problem. Marines escalated wildly while Custodes stayed the same.
Which begs the question NOW - why have Custodes at all? What is their faction identity? They had it at some point, but not anymore as it was "stolen" by marines. And this is what Custodes players want back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Salt donkey wrote:
@ Tiberius and @Thairne not sure why you 2 are arguing with trolls over whether or not custodes should exist. The army sells well so custodes aren’t going anywhere. Therefore there’s no point of arguing with people who are going to say dumb nonsense in order to prove a dead ideal

TBH I dont anymore. I've moved them to the ignore list and am now trying to engage in civil discussion with the people that make fair arguments, are open minded and willing to shift their POV.

As an uninvolved bystander, I have to say the whole thread feels like people talking past each other or wilfully misinterpreting what was said.

OP and a bunch of others lament that rules don't reflect the fluff enough on the tabletop for Custodes to be fun to play. Players are missing the right feeling.

Some want to argue wether Custodes should be a standalone army in the first place. Which has nothing to do with OP's post.

Others want to argue that they are fine because of winrates.
---
With that out of the way... Take away 2 from each stat that Custodes have and make them cost 1p each. I bet the winrate would skyrocket, but that doesn't mean the army is fun to play or fulfills it's own faction fantasy. Away from tournament results, if the internal balance is crap, you won't have fun with it on a casual level, either.

Personally I disliked the mini dexes of GW back in 7th edition. Releasing 2 kits and calling it an army never sat right with me. (Looking at you, Scions! Why split what obviously belonged together?)
Instead of deleting that faction again, though, I would rather see it expanded with more priority. Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Grey Knights (not Scions, they are IG) and Custodes should get enough to call it a full range.

Hecaton wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I've mentioned before that you apparently have no real knowledge of custodes and yet argue like you do. This is a perfect example, because Custodes never had gene-seed, their creation is entirely different from marines.
Oh and the lore hinting at Grey Knights having the Emperor's gene-seed is still canon, so what is your point exactly?

I'm quite knowledgeable about Custodes, I'm just providing a blunt summary of the idea.

No, sorry, Custodes are golden marines, and unfortunately the setting doesn't go into enough detail often enough to differentiate them. And I think if they *did*, it would bother Custodes players, because flaws are part of what makes factions interesting, and they don't want a faction with flaws.

It's really funny how in this very thread I listed the in lore flaws custodes have and how that actually makes them interesting (at least to me), but you just ignore it and CadianSgtBob just handwaves it away as boring. Considering this, please demonstrate how custodes players en large don't want a faction with any flaws.

a_typical_hero wrote:As an uninvolved bystander, I have to say the whole thread feels like people talking past each other or wilfully misinterpreting what was said.

OP and a bunch of others lament that rules don't reflect the fluff enough on the tabletop for Custodes to be fun to play. Players are missing the right feeling.

Some want to argue wether Custodes should be a standalone army in the first place. Which has nothing to do with OP's post.

Others want to argue that they are fine because of winrates.
---
With that out of the way... Take away 2 from each stat that Custodes have and make them cost 1p each. I bet the winrate would skyrocket, but that doesn't mean the army is fun to play or fulfills it's own faction fantasy. Away from tournament results, if the internal balance is crap, you won't have fun with it on a casual level, either.

Personally I disliked the mini dexes of GW back in 7th edition. Releasing 2 kits and calling it an army never sat right with me. (Looking at you, Scions! Why split what obviously belonged together?)
Instead of deleting that faction again, though, I would rather see it expanded with more priority. Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Grey Knights (not Scions, they are IG) and Custodes should get enough to call it a full range.

I understand your sentiment completely and I would agree, but Hecaton and CadianSgtBob went out of their way purposefully misinterpreting, constantly shifting goalposts and arguing in bad faith to win an argument here and I am sure as hell not letting them get away with it.

I'll be honest, I JUST want my bikes to be treated like other bikes, my dreads to get the same treatment as other dreads, and my faction to get a simple and easy under 200pt transport. Right now, there is literally nothing I can use to "transport" my guys around the board without wasting CP, blowing Relic slots, or using a quarter of my list points on a semi-worthless transport. Even our "rhino-like" is over twice the cost of other like models. With the idea of Custodes being hyper mobile and able to be anywhere at any time, we sure have crud in the transport department.

I said back when our 9th codex was still forming, I would be HAPPY to give up a lot to get a little.

I said let's drop the 4++ standard, to a 5++ and give us 3d axes. Let's kick Wardens up to 60ppm and give them something unique.

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles. Hell, I'd love to see them lose their charge rule, and get better spears.

Custodes are a faction that simply does not belong anymore. 9th dropped and made us literal crappier Golden Astartes. We have doctrines now, worthless damage, and "Premium Elite Costs". Then they restricted our Captains to one per list. Which is a silly restriction no one else has.

Right now I'm hoping we get rolled into a sub faction like Agents of the Imperium so we can just forget about us.

@ Thairnes response to my question: that sounds sensible to me at least.

I only collect IG and have to say I personally would prefer our normal tanks (except the superheavies) to go back to being 3+ without AoC, but either getting a bit cheaper or getting something else to make them worth taking. In part because I agree that making IG tanks this resilient made the design space for the more elite factions narrower. But that's my opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I do think though that for all their super-eliteness Custodes should struggle with their numbers on the table being rather limited for board control. At least that was my image of Custodes. What is your opinion on that regarding how Custodes should feel?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'll be honest, I JUST want my bikes to be treated like other bikes, my dreads to get the same treatment as other dreads, and my faction to get a simple and easy under 200pt transport. Right now, there is literally nothing I can use to "transport" my guys around the board without wasting CP, blowing Relic slots, or using a quarter of my list points on a semi-worthless transport. Even our "rhino-like" is over twice the cost of other like models. With the idea of Custodes being hyper mobile and able to be anywhere at any time, we sure have crud in the transport department.

I said back when our 9th codex was still forming, I would be HAPPY to give up a lot to get a little.

I said let's drop the 4++ standard, to a 5++ and give us 3d axes. Let's kick Wardens up to 60ppm and give them something unique.

I'd love to see our bikes lose the Missiles, and get better HB profiles. Hell, I'd love to see them lose their charge rule, and get better spears.

Custodes are a faction that simply does not belong anymore. 9th dropped and made us literal crappier Golden Astartes. We have doctrines now, worthless damage, and "Premium Elite Costs". Then they restricted our Captains to one per list. Which is a silly restriction no one else has.

Right now I'm hoping we get rolled into a sub faction like Agents of the Imperium so we can just forget about us.

Stop with the self loathing Fezzik. Bikes are fine, dreads are fine, general damage output is fine. Infantry needs help regarding internal balance and imo also regarding faction "feel". If custodes get dropped to a 5++ then infantry getting +1 wound is not even a discussion anymore. The game is so lethal that the 4++ keeps custodes afloat.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Land raiders sucked in 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, 8th edition, and now continue to suck in 9th edition. And I'm pretty sure they sucked in 4th edition and earlier too, I just don't remember that far back.

Can confirm, they sucked. The only one that was even marginally impressive was the black templar one because lance weapons didn't slap it down to AV12 so it was genuinely hard to destroy in more matchups.

Most lists deleted them on a budget (anything eldar, anything with melta, anything with a MC etc)

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Thairnes response to my question: that sounds sensible to me at least.

I only collect IG and have to say I personally would prefer our normal tanks (except the superheavies) to go back to being 3+ without AoC, but either getting a bit cheaper or getting something else to make them worth taking. In part because I agree that making IG tanks this resilient made the design space for the more elite factions narrower. But that's my opinion and everyone is free to disagree.

I do think though that for all their super-eliteness Custodes should struggle with their numbers on the table being rather limited for board control. At least that was my image of Custodes. What is your opinion on that regarding how Custodes should feel?

Definitely would prefer a bit less models, but individually just a bit more powerful. To underpin my proposition with some points: give Custodes infantry +1 Wound and Attack and make them 10-20p more expensive per model (depending on unit). 75-80p per model terminators sound about right for a toughness boost of +1wound in addition to an extra attack. Of course this would have to be playtested, because as has clarified ad nauseam the goal of that exercise is NOT to make custodes more powerful from a faction winrate standpoint.

It's not self loathing. Do you remember the wish listing for our faction pre-codex? Here's a few I remember:

D4 axes and d3 spears
Bike Spears get d4 on the charge
Spear and Axe Bolters go to S5 ap1.
All Infantry get +2 wounds across the board

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's not self loathing. Do you remember the wish listing for our faction pre-codex? Here's a few I remember:

D4 axes and d3 spears
Bike Spears get d4 on the charge
Spear and Axe Bolters go to S5 ap1.
All Infantry get +2 wounds across the board

You don't remember it quite correctly to be honest. The hope was that axes get flat 3dmg, and infantry get +1 wound, +2 wound was never on the table. Regarding interceptor lances the hope was they get flat 3dmg on the charge exclusively.

In hindsight, the flat 3 on axes would have been nice, but wasn't necessary. Because even though -1dmg hurts custodes infantry with their dmg2 weapons, that can be compensated by the dreadnoughts, characters and salvo launchers.

I guess GW should just have redone squats instead of releasing Custodes. Custodes belong to the "unsubstantiated" lore, to the realm of pictures and imagination.
This battle was bound to be lost. GW aint completely stupid, by design Custodes would be the cheapest army, so why incentivise players towards it ?
GW is a company, etc. as was said a thousand times, so making the golden boyz not that elite was obviously a move they were gonna make.
Super elite is for new model ranges, sell sell sell.

It's why flash gitz were so good upon relase. Oh wait...

GW has just no logic, feth what I wrote, and feth me in my mega armoured butt.