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.

Tyel wrote:
I'd be careful about using tournament data, which often tends to be a reflection of meta power.

Dark Eldar are I think a "niche" faction. Indeed, I'd say only the wisest and bravest players play such a complex and deep army. Unless its 2021, and DE are the best faction in the game. And what would you know? Suddenly every other tournament player seems to have some Dark Eldar down the back of the sofa.

With that said, I think GSC have things that tell against them being popular. They tend to be kind of Horde - which brings its negatives. The resulting army is expensive, hard to transport and time consuming to paint. Its also kind of spammy - which may bother some players in a way other factions don't have to be. I mean I've dabbeld in GSC - but can I be bothered to get say 80 Neophytes or 50 Acolytes or something that I'd need to get up to 2k points? The answer is no.

even checking for earlier in the edition when GSC was the second best army in the game, it never made up more than 3% of the meta

and yeah, GSC has a lot of aspects that push it towards being niche. not just the models, but the playstyle is complicated (even in 10th edition), and not everyone wants that

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'd always wanted a GSC army and was consistently put off by the effort in models and paint. The only reason I have an army now is because I found a nice army already assembled and painted on ebay.

It's not just the number of models, but the fact that they're pretty individualized and detailed, making them more taxing to batch-paint. Tyranids I can batch paint easily, GSCs much less so.

the models are so complicated. they're gorgeous once they have paint on them, but it's a painstaking process and that itself should be considered a reason to reconsider getting into the army

love the army, but it's niche for a reason

I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

I get that game balance is a thing, but so much this.

We’ve got xenos mutants over here using improvised mining equipment I’d kill to equip on a tactical squad.

Like, if they even changed it to a "Homemade axe with bone" or something. But a homemade thunder hammer is stupid and lazy.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

okay, but what if the alien is hitting you with it really hard. like, really hard

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

okay, but what if the alien is hitting you with it really hard. like, really hard

Goku? Is that you?

No. This is not that. And I 100% bet all the money in your pockets, vs all the money in someone else's pockets, that a Custodian does more pushups and benches more than an Aberrant. A Custodian can hit harder with his first, than an aberrant with this hammer. It's not even a debate....

But if it were....I guess space meth is space meth. Don't do drugs kids.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

okay, but what if the alien is hitting you with it really hard. like, really hard

Goku? Is that you?

No. This is not that. And I 100% bet all the money in your pockets, vs all the money in someone else's pockets, that a Custodian does more pushups and benches more than an Aberrant. A Custodian can hit harder with his first, than an aberrant with this hammer. It's not even a debate....

But if it were....I guess space meth is space meth. Don't do drugs kids.

genestealer DNA: not even once

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

No they don't.

Which I guess is half the issue with this thread, Imperial players complaining about a faction that they never even bothered to glance at the rules. Pure vibe checks and nothing else.

For most of their pathetic existence, Custodes Axes were +3 Strength, AP2, D2. Meaning S8, ap 2, d2. (No hit roll modifier)

Abberant rock clubs hit at Sx2, ap3, D3. (-1 to hit rolls) So that is S10, AP3, D3.

Aberrant weapon, if it hits, hits WAY harder. Oh wait, whats that? In 10thit lost an AP. I guess it's true? No wait, still hits for more damage.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For most of their pathetic existence, Custodes Axes were +3 Strength, AP2, D2. Meaning S8, ap 2, d2. (No hit roll modifier)

Abberant rock clubs hit at Sx2, ap3, D3. (-1 to hit rolls) So that is S10, AP3, D3.

Aberrant weapon, if it hits, hits WAY harder. Oh wait, whats that? In 10thit lost an AP. I guess it's true? No wait, still hits for more damage.

And yet this is a universe where a smaller less muscular purestrain genestealer can slice tank armour open with their finger tips.

How about we stop gnashing teeth at arbitrary numeric values of the weapon profile used for game interactions?

To that end an aberrant is

3 attacks 3+ s8 ap-2 d3


Warden with axe (having to use the free combat patrol entry)

4 attacks 2+ s9 ap-1 d3

Please use better examples

 kurhanik wrote:

Personally I love the idea of Brood Brothers, though feel it should be catered more around what you generally would see in a planetary defense force. Honestly can never remember what is and is not currently allowed as it has changed by edition and I don't know if the allowances changed with any of the dataslates. From the original 10th index I'd say the only thing I'd add to the ban list would be Baneblades etc, as already most of the elite stuff like Scions are already off the table. On the flip side, something like Preachers would be fluff wise really fun to allow for Brood Brothers, to denote a corrupted priest leading their flock.

I like this idea, but doing this would require explicitly putting forgeworld units into a main codex. As the vast majority of Imperial second line equipment is in FW, namely the Carnodon/Aurox, Malcador, Macharius, earthshakers/medusa batteries, and an few others. Otherwise, you're left with what? Infantry and heavy weapon teams, Chimeras, Russes, sentinels and maybe Basilisks? On the note of baneblades, they could make a flimsier baneblade chassis variant to represent the "Second Generation" baneblades made by forgeworlds without the full industrial capabilities to make a proper baneblade or one to proper quality standards. Obviously, give it to guard as well, but these the GSC could feasibly get from a PDF.

 Tyran wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I've personally always hated GSC since their abberant model had a piece of rebar with a chunk of rock on it, that hits harder, and for more damage, than one of the GOD EMPERORS CHOSEN BODYGUARDS with an Axe.

No they don't.

Which I guess is half the issue with this thread, Imperial players complaining about a faction that they never even bothered to glance at the rules. Pure vibe checks and nothing else.

As is often the problem with 40k discourse.

No, Fezzik was right.
8th and 9th Edition Aberrants had weapons that were better than Custodian Axes. D3 and, in introduction, higher Strength.
They're weaker NOW, but that wasn't always the case.

To me, this was less an Aberrant issue (they're highly mutated, ridiculously swole alien-human hybrids) and more a Custodes issue-their Axes really should've been stronger.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For most of their pathetic existence, Custodes Axes were +3 Strength, AP2, D2. Meaning S8, ap 2, d2. (No hit roll modifier)

Abberant rock clubs hit at Sx2, ap3, D3. (-1 to hit rolls) So that is S10, AP3, D3.

Aberrant weapon, if it hits, hits WAY harder. Oh wait, whats that? In 10thit lost an AP. I guess it's true? No wait, still hits for more damage.

That's the heavy power hammer, the "rock club" hits with AP-1 (No AP in 10th) and damage 2.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, Fezzik was right.
8th and 9th Edition Aberrants had weapons that were better than Custodian Axes. D3 and, in introduction, higher Strength.
They're weaker NOW, but that wasn't always the case.

To me, this was less an Aberrant issue (they're highly mutated, ridiculously swole alien-human hybrids) and more a Custodes issue-their Axes really should've been stronger.

To add to that the custodes had far more accurate and numerous attacks, they showed skill and finesse. The aberrant is the equivalent to a truck driving into a person, it's not a weapon of finesse, not accurate, but it will hurt.

The reason for the strength? Purely a game balance issue imo. They needed a high strength melee unit that wasn't just a special weapon to fill in that "dreadnought melee attacks" slot.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, Fezzik was right.
8th and 9th Edition Aberrants had weapons that were better than Custodian Axes. D3 and, in introduction, higher Strength.
They're weaker NOW, but that wasn't always the case.

To me, this was less an Aberrant issue (they're highly mutated, ridiculously swole alien-human hybrids) and more a Custodes issue-their Axes really should've been stronger.

To add to that the custodes had far more accurate and numerous attacks, they showed skill and finesse. The aberrant is the equivalent to a truck driving into a person, it's not a weapon of finesse, not accurate, but it will hurt.

The reason for the strength? Purely a game balance issue imo. They needed a high strength melee unit that wasn't just a special weapon to fill in that "dreadnought melee attacks" slot.

Yeah, on the whole any given Custodian unit was stronger than Aberrants. But I completely get why Fezzik was irked by the Strength discrepancy.

The stats on weapons have always been arbitrary- intended to produce the desired outcome rather than model anything 'real'- and more importantly, being upset that a model from a different faction gets to be better in merely one specific way than the Very Special Dudes is silly.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, Fezzik was right.
8th and 9th Edition Aberrants had weapons that were better than Custodian Axes. D3 and, in introduction, higher Strength.
They're weaker NOW, but that wasn't always the case.

To me, this was less an Aberrant issue (they're highly mutated, ridiculously swole alien-human hybrids) and more a Custodes issue-their Axes really should've been stronger.

To add to that the custodes had far more accurate and numerous attacks, they showed skill and finesse. The aberrant is the equivalent to a truck driving into a person, it's not a weapon of finesse, not accurate, but it will hurt.

The reason for the strength? Purely a game balance issue imo. They needed a high strength melee unit that wasn't just a special weapon to fill in that "dreadnought melee attacks" slot.

Yeah, on the whole any given Custodian unit was stronger than Aberrants. But I completely get why Fezzik was irked by the Strength discrepancy.

I sort of can but it's yesterday's news now I guess? It does reinforce that again - the gsc range needs another unit.

I think there are too many factions as is, and having a faction that is half in-half out of two other factions, is lazy and boring. Are they tryanids, or Guard? Who knows? Who Cares. I don't think they need to exist as a independent faction. Just make them a sub of Tyranids.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think there are too many factions as is, and having a faction that is half in-half out of two other factions, is lazy and boring. Are they tryanids, or Guard? Who knows? Who Cares. I don't think they need to exist as an independent faction. Just make them a sub of Tyranids.

And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:

Personally I love the idea of Brood Brothers, though feel it should be catered more around what you generally would see in a planetary defense force. Honestly can never remember what is and is not currently allowed as it has changed by edition and I don't know if the allowances changed with any of the dataslates. From the original 10th index I'd say the only thing I'd add to the ban list would be Baneblades etc, as already most of the elite stuff like Scions are already off the table. On the flip side, something like Preachers would be fluff wise really fun to allow for Brood Brothers, to denote a corrupted priest leading their flock.

I like this idea, but doing this would require explicitly putting forgeworld units into a main codex. As the vast majority of Imperial second line equipment is in FW, namely the Carnodon/Aurox, Malcador, Macharius, earthshakers/medusa batteries, and an few others. Otherwise, you're left with what? Infantry and heavy weapon teams, Chimeras, Russes, sentinels and maybe Basilisks? On the note of baneblades, they could make a flimsier baneblade chassis variant to represent the "Second Generation" baneblades made by forgeworlds without the full industrial capabilities to make a proper baneblade or one to proper quality standards. Obviously, give it to guard as well, but these the GSC could feasibly get from a PDF.

We've already got "Wish.com Baneblades" in the form of Malcador, Macharius, and Rogal Dorn tanks (at least role-wise for the Rogal Dorn, I don't know off the top of my head if the RD is explicitly a budget superheavy the way the Malcador/Macharius are). To be fair, I don't think the IG 'dex does a particularly good job of representing PDF forces. I think we'd need a lot more variety, both in unit type and unit quality, before we could do that (yes, a good number of PDFs are roughly comparable to the tithes that are sent to the Guard, so the 'dex does work, but there would be a lot more stuff in the PDF that's adapted or tuned to local conditions, resource availability, and industrial/technological base - eg, Feral World PDF units might have a handful of Leman Russes, but they might rely more on cavalry or chariots as a baseline and keep the tanks for when the gak truly hits the fan since they'd be so dependent on outside resupply/expertise to perform maintenance and repairs).

Mind, I'd be fine with all the FW stuff (INCLUDING WHAT YOU STOLE FROM US, JAMES WORKSHOP ) in the mainline IG 'dex, though I'm not sure GW would be able or willing to do that correctly (I got the feeling back in 8e/9e that GW as an organization really resented FW's capabilities, and I doubt that's gone away).

 JNAProductions wrote:
And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

Or just make Guard sub of everyone else.

Traitor Guard? sub of Chaos Space Marines.
Imperial Guard? sub of Imperial Space Marines.
Guevesa? sub of Tau Empire.

 catbarf wrote:
The stats on weapons have always been arbitrary- intended to produce the desired outcome rather than model anything 'real'- and more importantly, being upset that a model from a different faction gets to be better in merely one specific way than the Very Special Dudes is silly.

"No, you see a boltgun is functionally a rocket launcher, and that's why..."
Two.
Hours.
Later...

Really all this thread is doing is making me want to buy more GSC. Although I really want to do some converted Fabius Bile themed CSM this year. Might wait and see which codex has more interesting list potential.

 Tyran wrote:
Or just make Guard sub of everyone else.

Traitor Guard? sub of Chaos Space Marines.
Imperial Guard? sub of Imperial Space Marines.
Guevesa? sub of Tau Empire.

That does not sound like a good idea.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think there are too many factions as is, and having a faction that is half in-half out of two other factions, is lazy and boring. Are they tryanids, or Guard? Who knows? Who Cares. I don't think they need to exist as an independent faction. Just make them a sub of Tyranids.

And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

Hate to advocate for the reduction of a faction, but as long as we're talking about reducing the number I agree with JNAProductions - it makes a lot more sense to see GSC as a force in the field than Custodes unless you're running some kind of "Invasion of Sol" campaign. Individual Custodes, or a small unit? Sure. A dozen-plus? Don't y'all have an Emperor to protect or something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

Or just make Guard sub of everyone else.

Traitor Guard? sub of Chaos Space Marines.
Imperial Guard? sub of Imperial Space Marines.
Guevesa? sub of Tau Empire.

Problem is, it's reasonable to find Guard-only forces (loyal or heretic) out on any given battlefield. I'd be fine with ally rules that allow Gue'vasa as a sub-Tau unit (probs a detachment), but Guard and Traitor Guard should be their own thing. IMO it's not reasonable to see more than a handful of Custodes out in the open, and they're probably there with or as a retinue of non-Custodes units for some other purpose.

Edit: Specifically, I don't think it's reasonable to see Custodes at the scale that 40k seems to want to take place at (ie, company-plus). In Kill-Team, I'd be 100% behind Custodes being a standalone faction.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That does not sound like a good idea.

That's the joke.

Hard to read intent over text.
Glad it wasn’t made seriously.

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The stats on weapons have always been arbitrary- intended to produce the desired outcome rather than model anything 'real'- and more importantly, being upset that a model from a different faction gets to be better in merely one specific way than the Very Special Dudes is silly.

"No, you see a boltgun is functionally a rocket launcher, and that's why..."
Two.
Hours.
Later...

Really all this thread is doing is making me want to buy more GSC. Although I really want to do some converted Fabius Bile themed CSM this year. Might wait and see which codex has more interesting list potential.

split the difference and make a Fabius Bile-themed GSC army

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Tyel wrote:


Really all this thread is doing is making me want to buy more GSC. Although I really want to do some converted Fabius Bile themed CSM this year. Might wait and see which codex has more interesting list potential.

split the difference and make a Fabius Bile-themed GSC army

So let’s take some Tyranid genes, splice them into some cultists, and see what happens. I could see him doing that.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think there are too many factions as is, and having a faction that is half in-half out of two other factions, is lazy and boring. Are they tryanids, or Guard? Who knows? Who Cares. I don't think they need to exist as an independent faction. Just make them a sub of Tyranids.

And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

Hate to advocate for the reduction of a faction, but as long as we're talking about reducing the number I agree with JNAProductions - it makes a lot more sense to see GSC as a force in the field than Custodes unless you're running some kind of "Invasion of Sol" campaign. Individual Custodes, or a small unit? Sure. A dozen-plus? Don't y'all have an Emperor to protect or something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And Custodes should work like Inquisitors.
One, maybe two models added to another Imperium force as free agents.

Or just make Guard sub of everyone else.

Traitor Guard? sub of Chaos Space Marines.
Imperial Guard? sub of Imperial Space Marines.
Guevesa? sub of Tau Empire.

Problem is, it's reasonable to find Guard-only forces (loyal or heretic) out on any given battlefield. I'd be fine with ally rules that allow Gue'vasa as a sub-Tau unit (probs a detachment), but Guard and Traitor Guard should be their own thing. IMO it's not reasonable to see more than a handful of Custodes out in the open, and they're probably there with or as a retinue of non-Custodes units for some other purpose.

Edit: Specifically, I don't think it's reasonable to see Custodes at the scale that 40k seems to want to take place at (ie, company-plus). In Kill-Team, I'd be 100% behind Custodes being a standalone faction.

That same argument applies to loyalist Marines considering their ridiculous number of only 1000/ chapter. There are more Custodes than First Founding chapter Marines (if you ignore Space Wolves cheating ).