Custodes Rumours

[Evil Eye]

13 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Who complained about Baneblades being in regular games?

People who didn't want to have to account for a super-heavy in regular games (and also people who wanted their super-heavy to actually feel like a super-heavy, rather than just another unit thanks to the entire game being excessively abstracted and dumbed down to balance around the game featuring Baneblades in standard games such that said super-heavy can be destroyed by small arms fire).

[HeadlessCross]

30 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

People who didn't want to have to account for a super-heavy in regular games (and also people who wanted their super-heavy to actually feel like a super-heavy, rather than just another unit thanks to the entire game being excessively abstracted and dumbed down to balance around the game featuring Baneblades in standard games such that said super-heavy can be destroyed by small arms fire).

Yeah I don't buy that nonsense because anyone complaining about a single super heavy in a regular game probably wasn't able to kill three Russes and would've complained about that too. 

[Evil Eye]

15 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Yeah I don't buy that nonsense because anyone complaining about a single super heavy in a regular game probably wasn't able to kill three Russes and would've complained about that too. 

Three Russes is a lot for a regular game. Or at least it was before scope/scale creep ran completely out of control.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Who complained about Baneblades being in regular games?

I know I did at one point, however that was in the context of regular game terrain coming out of the tournament scene while the Baneblade was released more for narrative games.

[DemonGSides]

It's more of a sacrifice so that Knight's also go away.  Happy to lose a Baneblade if I never see another Knight on the tabletop again.  But it's a relatively unpopular opinion.

[Mogger351]

12 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

This still seems a bit of a "I made up a thing and this is why it's bad" when the actual breakdown would probably put guardsmen in the 1/3rd section, not 1/2 section.

Like a guardsman is only getting a 50/50 on the hit right now if you put effort into them.  Why are they suddenly so much better in your made-up world?  If the point is to make shooting more granular, why would you default right back to basically the same granularity we have now, and then ALSO increase lethality?

 

12 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Could very easily be:

1+; never
2+; Primarch/Super Elite tier

3+: Boss Characters 

4+: Super elite units

5+: Baseline Marine (This does make them worse, which solves your lethality concern)

6+: Premium non-marine infantry (Kasrkin etc)

7+: Sisters level stuff

8+: Baseline Humanity

9+: Something that's super strong but doesn't hit consistently  (Artillery?)

10+: Trash like Gretchin

11+: Civilians

12+: a beam falling from the ceiling, idk.
 

 

People tear their hair out when you say "titanic units shouldn't be in the game."

 

No way people are willing to have a conversation about a force that isn't that hard to get rid of.

But why is a 17% gap in efficiency present between a guardsman and a veteran guardsman but only a 8% between a marine and veteran marine?

 

It's not hard to make a BS4+ guardsman hit 50% of the time, which is why I translated it to a 6+ on a D12 for the same 50% of the time.

 

More importantly everythong you've said there isn't a million miles off on a d6:

 

1- fail

2- super hero level stuff (phoenix lords/primarchs/epic hero)

3- hyper elite (custodes and marine vets)

4- elite (veteran guard/veteran sisters/aspects/base marines)

5- average Joe (guard, tau, guardians, other sisters)

6- everything else (cultists, militia, orks who aren't great at shooting)

 

The rest of it is just isn't really needed but sticking a reroll in as a bridge isn't heinous if limited.

[Laurence]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

 

But why is a 17% gap in efficiency present between a guardsman and a veteran guardsman but only a 8% between a marine and veteran marine?

 

It's not hard to make a BS4+ guardsman hit 50% of the time, which is why I translated it to a 6+ on a D12 for the same 50% of the time.

A .5 hit probability on 1d12 would be a 7+.

[Mogger351]

4 hours ago, Laurence said:

A .5 hit probability on 1d12 would be a 7+.

Yeah sorry, that's a slip of the finger

[HeadlessCross]

18 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Three Russes is a lot for a regular game.

What?

12 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

It's more of a sacrifice so that Knight's also go away.  Happy to lose a Baneblade if I never see another Knight on the tabletop again.  But it's a relatively unpopular opinion.

Sooooo the complaint is Knights sometimes have good rules?

[Lord Marshal]

Pre-orders next week, including standalones from the FOMO box.

 

[dienekes96]

Pre-orders next week.  Another super-gourmet Codex as well.

 

or - what the personage above me said…

Edited September 27 by dienekes96

[Jukkiz]

oh look, another 420 dollaroo "fomo" edition book ?

[BadgersinHills]

Might have to pick up some of those dice.

[Evil Eye]

52 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

What?

Back in the day, before 40K got scope-creeped to death, 3 Leman Russes was (if memory serves) your entire Heavy Support allowance, so in a 1000 or 1500 point game (which were normal points levels) that would be a lot of Russes. 5th edition allowed you to take them in squadrons of 3, but again, 5th edition was when the rampant power-creep and terrible decisions started to flood in.

54 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Sooooo the complaint is Knights sometimes have good rules?

The complaint is that super-heavies, including Knights, should not be in regular games. There's a time and a place for super-heavies and it's called Apocalypse. Otherwise you end up with either super-heavies being pretty impotent given their stature, or absolutely dominating the game, neither of which is good.

[Doghouse]

I like the dice box, I'd buy that if it was seperate but no way am I paying their prices for a modern codex. 

 

I expect a lot of Custodes players could be tempted to get it given it's a niche army.

[Robbienw]

I still can’t get past how odd the new Aquilons look.

[Andrechenko]

They should make these types of products (Limited Edition) 20€ more expensive than the previous one. It would serve as a social experiment, trying to discover what the absolute threshold of waste/satisfaction is.

[Mogger351]

Nicked off Reddit

[Flaherty]

I'm hoping this Combat Patrol is a range item and not a one-and-done print run!

[Schrödingers Primarch]

4 minutes ago, Flaherty said:

I'm hoping this Combat Patrol is a range item and not a one-and-done print run!

I would expect it to stay for 11th edition considering it's labeled as a Combat Patrol. 

[ThaneOfTas]

On 9/27/2026 at 5:05 AM, Evil Eye said:

The real flaw is that Custodes are playable as an army in 40K to begin with but we're not ready to have that conversation yet.

And yet people haven't stopped having it regardless every time their rules are too good or too bad since they were introduced.

 

I do not understand how arguing that someone's faction should not even exist gets a pass on this site considering how if you said that to someone in person, their expected and resonable response (I.e. to tell you to go  yourself) is not allowed.

[Orange Knight]

£49 for SIX Aquillon Terminators has to be the bargain of the century, by GW standards?

 

That's two units, probably around 500 points?

 

[Flaherty]

3 hours ago, Schrödingers Primarch said:

I would expect it to stay for 11th edition considering it's labeled as a Combat Patrol. 

My hope as well, but in 10th there were a host of CPs that were single-run only, e.g., Harlequins, Imperial Fists, etc. Typically disclosed but not always. This one just seems like too good a value to keep in stock!

[01RTB01]

3 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

And yet people haven't stopped having it regardless every time their rules are too good or too bad since they were introduced.

 

I do not understand how arguing that someone's faction should not even exist gets a pass on this site considering how if you said that to someone in person, their expected and resonable response (I.e. to tell you to go  yourself) is not allowed.

 

We are living in a golden age of geekdom as there's so many games, so much choice etc. 

 

I certainly wouldn't advocate for armies being squatted but I do genuinely question why custodes were introduced to 40k in the first place. 

 

They make sense in heresy as they went and did stuff. In 40k I'd argue it doesn't make sense for them to be in the game. 

 

Despite the constant "balancing", points and so on, they're really not fun to play against. The abundance of 4++, access to 2s to hit and wound is boring to play against. 

 

Narratively and gaming wise, they honestly have a home in 30k but 40k, I'm not convinced. 

[ThaneOfTas]

9 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

They make sense in heresy as they went and did stuff. In 40k I'd argue it doesn't make sense for them to be in the game. 

Considering how upset people get when Custodes get mentioned in times and places other than Prospero or the Webway, and how much more difficult they have been to balance in 30k, That just holds no water from where I'm sitting.

 

9/10 times I dont have much fun against Tau win or lose, and Necrons go through periods of being infuriating to fight, but I'm not going to argue against their place in the game. If you cant figure out how to have fun against an army, then either get better at having fun, or accept that its just a part of the hobby that you aren't going to love.