The Prospero Conundrum: Should Sisters and Custodes be allowed?

hhburningofprosperocustodessisterseng_slot2

Should TOs go out of their way to allow Sisters of Silence and Custodes into 40k events? 

Disclaimer: This article operates under the assumption that GW will not release rules in 40k for these models, ever.

Hello everyone! PeteyPab here with an editorial article about the models that are taking the 40k world by storm. The Legio Custodes, and Sisters of Silence have been factions in the fluff that players have wanted rules and models for since the dawn of time (like 30ish years). This move is another blockbuster hit release from GW and I would say that at the rate GW is going we are on the cusp of a golden era of 40k. Age of Sigmar is already experiencing a renaissance of sorts, and 40k is sure to follow. Gw is listening to players and releasing key fun factions that shake up both the hobbying world, and competitive world. There is a dark side however, and that is, GW still seems to be stuck on certain archaic parts of their rules which may be very frustrating to players.

Exhibit A 14716178_1828552580710682_6305524409796387148_nThe picture above basically shows that these models are only allowed to be played in unbound armies in 40k, and that GW’s intent was not to allow these models onto the tabletops in large numbers (please oh please don’t be a limited run).

Before you go into the “but they can ally as imperium and I can take them!” blah blah blah argument, sadly that is not the case. Just check out the rules here. I’ll wait for you….

custodians_001

Is your jaw back in place? If you missed the part where they can’t be taken in regular games of 40k because the models are so gorgeous, let me help you out. Those symbols at the top of the dataslate in the middle. Those are faction symbols. Which means each of these units are their own faction and therefore cannot be taken in any detachments except for a Combined Arms Detachment. But they are Elites choices so… you ge the idea. I don’t want to beat this argument to death, since that is not the point of this article. The point of this article is… what are event organizers going to do about it?

dems da rules

This release is a very popular release. Imperium players are coming out of the woodwork and getting into 40k. The hobby is growing, and imagine the looks on their faces when they buy, build, and paint their models only to show up at an event and find out that they cannot take them because unbound lists are not allowed.

facepalmmarine

I know what some of you are thinking. “Just don’t play at 40k tournaments! Those are unfun anyways!”. Whoa, hold on there tiger. Remember, everyone should have the option to play these models in whatever setting they want. Besides, casual games are not the issue here. You are allowed to house rule and morph the game however you want in your friend’s garage. That is ok, everyone enjoys this game differently and I envy the players who have small play groups and are not worried about not getting a chance to use their amazing new models. Which brings me to potential solutions.

idea-md

So how do we deal with this conundrum? First off, we have to identify the one most important thing. Do NOT allow unbound 40k in tournaments just for these two units. Imperium players have a lot of influence in the 40k community (there are just sooo many of them). Don’t give in to the pressure, and remember, unbound carries a negative stigma and creates an entirely new uncharted meta which coud have a negative effect on event attendance. So sorry, unbound is not allowed. Here are some solutions I think make the most sense.

itc.logo.01.1

  • Make a separate detachment for both factions that allows 0-3 elite choices, with no further benefits.
  • Allow them as Elites choices for all/certain imperium factions.
  • Allow them as unbound choices, but only in games where 30k is also allowed, and only in 30k armies.
  • Wait for GW
  • Not allow them at all

I am interested to read what you guys think. Obviously, I am a writer for Frontlinegaming but this is not an official ITC release. As a matter of fact I think it is important for all Tournament Organizers to think about the potenital ramifications of allowing, or disallowing these models.

 

 

Tags:

About Petey Pab

Aspiring 40k analyst, tournament reporter and Ultramarines enthusiast, Petey Pab only seeks to gather more knowledge about the game of 40k and share it with as many people as he can in order to unite both hobbyists and gamers. We are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

142 Responses to “The Prospero Conundrum: Should Sisters and Custodes be allowed?”

  1. Avatar
    40kChris October 23, 2016 5:51 am #

    Because Armies of the Imperium are so prevalent, by your own admission, and responsible for a lot of the current rules abuses in the Allies matrix… do they (Imperial Armies) really need another unit beyond the Culexus to shut down psychic armies that aren’t Imperial? One model with a 12″ psychic null bubble is awesome, 10 spread out across the board is WTF, and a full squad of SoS is only 145 points. That alone would make a full SoS squad an almost auto-include for most tourney lists. I’m sure some enterprising player would also figure out a way to efficiently bubble wrap that unit so they don’t get blown off the board too quickly. The only saving graces are that Psychic Abomination works on Friend or Foe, and they T3 models. Maybe you would see a resurgence of non-psychic armies, just so they powers wouldn’t get shut down, but then it would a rise of even more super-friends units.

    Custodes at least don’t feel too cheap for the points/unit before upgrades. They are tough and their rules reflect that. Sure they are beasts, a beefed up 2W model with 2+/3++ will take some punishment. However, this would be the new go-to unit for putting your USR super-frienfds in. Imagine Custodes with Hit and Run. Jesus, the carnage that alone could do.

    If the ITC does consider it, for whatever reason, than probably utilizing the old practice of unit restrictions would be the way to go. For example, having 0-2 of Custodes and/or Sisters in any combination would probably be ok. Having them be Elites doesn’t really matter, they just need the wording/chart from the Inquisition codex for being added as a detachment of their own.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:00 am #

      Reasonable points, 40kChris. I for one, think that Sisters especially are going to be good for the meta, assuming of course they are able to be taken outside of unbound (I bet we get a detachment of them at some point). Yes, they are cheap but as soon as the GW FAQ gets ratified (hopefully soon) they won’t be able to ride in Rhinos or hop in a Drop Pod making them pretty dang easy to take out. It’s annoying that Imperials get yet another tool, I agree, but if this means less Bark Stars, etc. at tournaments then I think it is 100% a positive impact on the game.

      Plus, the models are so damn cool!

      • Avatar
        Jesper October 23, 2016 12:23 pm #

        I agree with your hate against superstars reece but I personally like ministars and combos that are powerful but still mageble for my opponent if he has the right tactics and tools. Even these smaller stars would be pointless and almost impossible to play and that would be bad for the community as a whole imo. There realy should be a “middle” way to go :/

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber October 23, 2016 5:34 pm #

        I’m sympathetic to your hatred of deathstars. I hate them too. But adding more gimmicks to the game, violating fluff, and writing homebrew detachments isn’t the answer. As you’ve always said if you have a Wild Dog in your house, inviting in a Tiger creates a Tiger problem rather than solving your dog problem.

        The answer to death stars isn’t a more permissive army comp. It is a more restrictive one. Or Just fix battle brothers. Remember when that was on the table? Or you could fix psychic powers. Treat them like IG Orders. A unit can only benefit from one blessing at a time, or cap warp dice, or ban a couple formations. There are so many fixes to deathstars, and most of them are have fewer negatives than making up detachments to bring 30K models into 40K.

        If you are serious about fixing deathstars we could vote on lots and lots of these ideas. Unilateral top down decisions, and tiny surveys that avoid taking on tough or challenging issues isn’t going to get us there.

  2. Avatar
    CWDub October 23, 2016 6:17 am #

    The Sisters and Custodes are criminally undercosted for what they do. 15 pts for a Culexus Jr. (they should be 20+ a pop IMO..) just seems wrong to me.. and while I’m all for hamstringing deathstars, I just get all kinds of weird feelings in my tummy at the idea of someone finding out a way to get 3 squads of 10 sisters (on 32mm bases) setup in a way to completely shut off the psychic phase in a game — especially when they can benefit from the best allies matrix in the game. At least they won’t be able to come down in pods..

    The Custodes are pretty slow (but can DS) but are cheaper than TH/SS terminator which just seems undercosted, but not to the degree of the Sisters. I don’t know how scary they’ll be on the table, but I definitely wouldn’t want to try and dislodge some of those guys after they DS in my DZ.

    • Avatar
      Ytook October 23, 2016 8:24 am #

      It’s not 15 points for a Culexus, it’s 75 points for a T3 W1 SV3+ unit with a powerful short range debuff aura. 3 units of 10 will cost 450 points for units that will die to any amount of shooting attention or tough CC opponents. They’re very good, don’t get me wrong, but I wouldn’t say they’re that terrifying at all.

      • Reecius
        Reecius October 23, 2016 10:02 am #

        Yeah, exactly. 75pts (yes, undercosted, I agree) not 15. and unlike the Culexus, thhey are much more difficult to get into position and are actually really easy to kill.

      • Avatar
        Jonathan OBrien October 25, 2016 6:49 am #

        they come with free AP2 power swords….they’re undercosted

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 25, 2016 9:05 am #

          I agree they are under-costed with the sword option, but that is hardly a reason to exclude a unit. Under the same logic no Wraithknight would ever see the table, haha

  3. Avatar
    Chandler October 23, 2016 6:29 am #

    I would normally just say “wait for GW” however knowing the fact that they are very careful with what they say on social media in replying to comments about rules leads me to think we might not see anything representing a faction for them to be battle forged options in 40k.

    With that said, I think the best thing for ITC might be to put it up for a vote in the next poll with the options you listed, Pablo. People have been excited for a long time for both Sisters of Silence and Custodes.

    With that said, I agree with CWDub above. Basically you’re paying 15 points for a Cullexus ability that can really change the meta entirely. I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing. Death Stars are annoying and I think a lot of players would agree with that. And the fact is, there aren’t many counters for them in the game especially when it comes to the psychic phase. Perhaps running them in test games against these armies to see how much of a difference they make to the meta is appropriate before a decision is made.

  4. Avatar
    Drachnyen October 23, 2016 6:42 am #

    These are 30k units. They should not be allowed in ITC

    • Avatar
      Blight October 23, 2016 8:03 am #

      But we are talking about 40k rules. These units don’t even have their 30k rules yet.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:03 am #

      They have a 40k Dataslate, therefore they are 40k units 100%. You may not want them in or feel that they don’t fit in fluff wise, which is totally cool, but they most certainly are 40k units.

      • Avatar
        Anggul October 23, 2016 10:22 am #

        ‘Legion rules for chaos? Nah mate those are for 30k only, here have these rules for a group that stays on Terra and a group that doesn’t exist anymore instead!’

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 23, 2016 8:42 pm #

          They have 40k rules, haha, therefore they are 40k units, too. Fluff wise, sure, but they are 100% in 40k….just without a detachment, lol

        • Avatar
          Blight October 24, 2016 2:34 pm #

          Sisters of silence are still around. The black ships are their usual place.
          The custodes are probably coming out to play as the 13th Black crusade kicks off.

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber October 23, 2016 5:12 pm #

        From GW’s facebook:

        “Neither force is an active military force in the galaxy”.

        You’ve been one of the outspoken opponents to Come the Apoc allies, and yet you feel comfortable violating the fluff when it comes to these units?

  5. Avatar
    bogalubov October 23, 2016 6:43 am #

    I would say that we should wait for GW. Theit response to the unbound question indicated that something in the 40k world is changing that will see the return of these factions into the universe. Something like the arrival of a daemon primarch?

    There’s also precedent for other factions having 30k rules, but no 40k equivalent. The Mechanicum units in 30k are still not allowed in 40k. No one has campaigned to allow those with made up detachments.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:04 am #

      These models have 40k profiles though, that’s difference I think.

  6. Avatar
    ligolski October 23, 2016 6:49 am #

    Not sure how you think they are cheaper than TH/SS termies which for a squad of 5 is 225. Base the custodians are 260 and that’s without SS…add SS for 5…310 and then the fearless bubble is an additional 30pts for a total of 340 if im not mistaken.

    Ultimately, they are 2 wounds with a 2+. Just do mass shooting. Id say deamons offer more resilient platforms that are far more mobile. No D weapons either here. Id say they are fairly costed.

    The SoS are cheaper than I thought they would be though but aren’t overly tough. Not sure if they were costed apprpriately for that ability though.

    With regards to use in 40k, I think another option would be to make each of them a detachment (1 custodian or 1 sos) in their own right in order to prevent spam and to retain conservatism in allowing them initially into the game. Not sure if that’s a good solution though. I would love to see them in bounded games as a whole.

    The

    • Avatar
      CWDub October 23, 2016 8:21 am #

      You’re right, my math was a little off (I don’t play SM, my bust 😉 )but they are fairly close in cost that I feel my point is still valid — they’re about the same cost (per model, an additional Custode is +50 pts) as a TH/SS terminator but infinitely more survivable.

      I wouldn’t necessarily mind a vote for these models after some exhaustive play testing by some of the FLG guys. The Custodes seem less abusable (if they’re used as a death star, it gets to DS then move 6″ a turn) than the Sisters. Lias Issodon + Sisters = Automatic WL trait that lets several of those squads infiltrate up in cover. The survivability of T3 3+ models in 4+ (possibly 3+ with night fight) cover is debateable but I wonder how well this army could box-in a psychic-reliant army.

      • Avatar
        Peteypab October 23, 2016 8:25 am #

        I don’t think the Custodes need to be playtested, personally. We know what we are getting out of them, and they are not the best deathstar component the imperium have access to, by a very wide margin.

        They suffer from all the problems terminators do, but also lack the shooting, and ability to kill an Imperial Knight.

      • Avatar
        AnEnemy October 23, 2016 9:47 am #

        No. Your point doesn’t still stand. Your point was that they were cheaper than the most expensive assault terminators setup. They arent.

        You’re complaining without any idea what you’re talking about. Congrats

        • Avatar
          ligolski October 23, 2016 10:12 am #

          Thank you AnEnemy! 50% more pricey than TH/SS termies is no where close to right haha.

  7. Avatar
    AngryPanda October 23, 2016 6:59 am #

    Considering that the world balance goes up in flames if even used with the current iteration of 40k what does it even matter? With criminaly undercosted Wraithknights, Grav guns that basicaly broke vehicles and formations that do.. well anything realy, I can’t see how this would make more of a mess of the whole thing.

  8. Avatar
    abusepuppy October 23, 2016 7:00 am #

    It’s kinda unfortunate that they essentially aren’t releasing any rules for using them in 40K, at least to go by a single screencap of a Facebook response (which is about as unreliable as information can be.)

    But so what? No one is changing the rules of the game to allow someone to run their dream “nothing but 13 of the same assassin” army. No one is jumping through hoops to make sure that players are allowed to use the GW/FW formations that include multiple superheavies in them. No one is crying any tears over the inability of superfriends to take a fourth, fifth, or sixth detachment. In short: we aren’t changing the rules of the game just because someone wants to run a specific army.

    Why would this be any different? Yeah, you can’t include them in an army- there’s lots of units like that in 40K. It’s part of playing a game with a specific ruleset- that ruleset sometimes prohibits you from doing things you might otherwise want to.

    • Avatar
      Blight October 23, 2016 8:07 am #

      In all likelihood we’ll see more rules for these guys in the near future (that could be half a year). They are making a multipart plastic kit for them and it seems unlikely that they won’t expand on them further. We may even see more in the upcoming white dwarf.

    • Avatar
      Peteypab October 23, 2016 8:22 am #

      Those are fair points.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:16 am #

      Fair points, Sean but my counter would be that unlike not being able to use 13 of the same assassin (and I see what you did there! haha) of which you can put 1+ on the table, this is a situation where legal units can’t actually be taken at all due to a wonky rules oversight. The clear intent is that they can be used in 40k, it is not the core rules that prohibit it, but our self-imposed community rules.

      I think it comes down to whether or not everyone wants to use them.

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber October 23, 2016 5:46 pm #

        If the idea is the fix things that can’t be functionally taken, we should start with Waaagh Ghazgul Relics. At my last GT, an Ork Player got DQ’d because he tried to take a MFF outside of one of the 2 legal formations that allow you to take it.

        If you allow IG players to use the Emperor’s Blade as a core choice in their decurion. Let Orks upgrade the Warboss in a Waaagh-band formation to Ghazgul.

        Just because Space Marines have a bit more sway with the powers that be in the ITC doesn’t mean they should be the 1st or only target of making up detachments to fix oversights by GW.

        I don’t like making up detachments to create a more permissive army comp, but if you are going to do it, do it for real, not just as a favor to whatever space marine players have your ear.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 23, 2016 8:44 pm #

          Space Marine players have my ear? Lol, what? Hahaha, come on, Troy, I play Orks more than Space Marines. Some of the weird things I hear sometimes about how decisions are made in the ITC crack me up. We are so transparent there’s no reason to speculate on these things.

          • Avatar
            Jural October 24, 2016 9:51 am
            #

            By reading these comments, I am now aware that Reecius is equally biased (both for and against):

            1) Imperium
            2) Non-Imperium
            3) Deathstars
            4) MSU
            5) Vehicles
            6) Infantry
            7) The tournament scene
            8) Casual games
            9) Frankie
            10) Fun, beer, sex, rock & roll

          • Avatar
            Troy Graber October 24, 2016 10:46 am
            #

            You play Orks more than Space Marines, but you regularly state that your decisions are guiding by the amount of feedback on any given topic.

            Space Marines provide more feedback. It is a squeaky wheel phenomina. I also expect that your inner circle of confidants includes more Space Marine and Eldar players than IG or Tyranids.

            (I removed A bunch of Salt related to a dick measuring contest of who plays Orks more thoroughly)

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy October 23, 2016 6:58 pm #

        How is that the clear intent? If we’re going by the screencap, the explicit intent is that they can _only be used in Unbound armies_. They straight-up say that in the post. Do our self-imposed community rules prevent that from being done at tournaments? Yup. They also prevent the “thirteen assassins” army and all that other stuff, too. I fail to see the difference.

        I’m not opposed to them being in the game, but I _am_ opposed to making Special Unique Snowflake exceptions every time someone wants to bring their new toy to the table.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 23, 2016 8:45 pm #

          The intent is totally clear because GW considers unbound a legit and normal way to play. You think of it as fringe, they do not. Them saying “just use unbound” means exactly that, they do not consider that your community does not use unbound as it is clearly a way to play in the rulebook.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy October 24, 2016 2:34 am
            #

            Okay, but again, so what? The way GW has specified they are allowed to be used we as a community do not accept- as I have repeatedly pointed out, that is true for plenty of other things as well. You could just as easily argue that it is GW’s clear intent that we be allowed to use 2+ superheavies or fortification networks or CtA allies or anything else, and it would be just as true. What makes THIS particular case any different from all of those? Why should we redraw the lines for people here and not just change the rules, but create rules from whole cloth in order to let them bring a particular unit?

          • Avatar
            PrimoFederalist October 24, 2016 7:41 am
            #

            Must agree with AP: yes, GW did create rules to allow Custodes and Sisters of Silence to be played in 40k. They also created rules for Taudar and Revenant Titans (and much bigger investment for the player), but the ITC has rules and those rules preclude the use of Unbound which is another way GW allows us to play which we have rejected. Making an exception for the exciting new shiny provokes the same arguments we saw over Green Tide when the new Ork book was released: it sucks, but you can’t start arbitrarily ignoring rules.

          • Avatar
            Blight October 24, 2016 2:47 pm
            #

            But ITC voted on and decided on those units. Why would this be different? Why not vote on making a way to incorporate them into ITC play. We already had vote to not include things. If people don’t want to accommodate them then they’ll vote against it and you won’t have to worry.
            It’s just more ITC rules writing/editing.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 24, 2016 3:12 pm
            #

            Where are you getting the idea that we wouldn’t vote? Unless GW shows us a detachment to use, we would have to vote on it, and we’ve never said anything to indicate otherwise.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 24, 2016 9:47 am #

        EVERY time I say to myself “This is clearly what GW intended here, but they done f’d up and wrote the rules wrong”, they either double down and reinforce their stupid wording, or make a random shift 3 feet to the left…

        Yes, it seems like this is a wonky oversight… But we will be sitting here in 3 months and there will be a clear ruling which will leave us all confused 😉

    • Avatar
      WestRider October 24, 2016 2:11 pm #

      I really would love it if I could run my all Assassin Army in ITC events, I’ve gotta say.

  9. Avatar
    Happy_Inquisitor October 23, 2016 7:46 am #

    Most of the models in the game are about as common as hen’s teeth in tournaments anyway – except as an invitation for your opponent to stomp you into the ground. So it is really a non-issue. Some lovely models that if you want to have fun using on the table you will have to step outside the strict confines of “competitive” 40K play to enjoy.

    If tournaments allow 30K armies then I would think they will quickly find a place on the table, with enabling rules. For the rest – just play with your models and have fun playing outside of the tournament environment.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:17 am #

      These aren’t 30k units though, they have 40k dataslates.

      • Avatar
        Happy_Inquisitor October 23, 2016 10:46 am #

        They have 40K rules for unbound play. Tournaments that allow unbound will have no issue with them at all. As for other tournaments, I really see no reason to make an exception here.

        If it goes to a vote and people choose in favour then all is good – this is actually a good issue for people to be voting on. I personally think the option to vote on should be absolutely minimal in rules consequences – e.g. a unit of either Sisters of Silence or Custodes being permitted as one of the allowed detachments without it rendering the list unbound.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 23, 2016 8:47 pm #

          Making a distinction between unbound and “tournament” play as we define it is irrelevant from GW’s perspective. They are the same game as written in the BRB. We just think about them differently because that’s the way we play.

  10. Avatar
    Demofool October 23, 2016 8:34 am #

    I say no to ITC and wait for GW. This is 30k stuff not 40K. IMO.

    • Avatar
      Blight October 23, 2016 8:50 am #

      I will point out that these are specifically 40k rules for the custodes and SoS. They don’t have their 30k rules yet. Both of these units still operate in the 41st millennium.
      We’ll probably see more rules for how to use them later on but it’s valid for people to want to have a way to field them.

      • Avatar
        Happy_Inquisitor October 23, 2016 9:16 am #

        It is valid to field them in games of 40K – just not in pretty much any tournament environment where Unbound is not permitted. If you are playing me down at the club you can bring Sly Marbo if you like – along with Sisters of Silence and Custodes all in one list. Perfectly OK in that environment and all in line with the rules and FAQ that GW put out.

        Although I really do not see the big problem with Unbound I also see no reason for tournaments to change their existing policy just for these models. Tournaments are much more restrictive in lots of ways than the hobby as a whole, that is just how things are so do not expect to see all the same variety of models in tournaments as you do in gaming clubs.

        • Avatar
          Peteypab October 23, 2016 9:46 am #

          Like I mentioned in the article, I understand they are legal in unbound, but casual games are not the issue here.

          You’re right, tournaments are more restrictive. That’s a good argument against.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 9:44 am #

      Except that it has a 40 dataslate and so therefore is 40k =) Waiting for GW can end up taking years or weeks. I think people have a right to want to use legal models without playing unbound. The ITC has always tried to be inclusive apart from the so silly Imperial Space Marine or Lords of War that violate the rules of inclusion.

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber October 23, 2016 6:16 pm #

        Have you been to a tournament recently. How many Militarum Tempestus? How many Riptides? Your vision of inclusive seems to apply more to Riptides than Scions. Part of Inclusiveness is restrictions and balance.

        Shifting the Meta to most armies include Sisters of Silence rather than most armies including Cabal Stars isn’t as big of an improvement as you think it is, and it isn’t more inclusive.

        If inclusiveness is the goal, and you are willing to make up rules to make it happen, you could fix Shadow’s in the Warp. Tyranids showing up as a hard counter for deathstars would be a much better meta shift than piling more tools into the already loaded imperial toolbox.

        Another way to promote inclusiveness would be to ban formations. Formations drastically reduce list diversity. It’s also a poll question that would be super interesting to include on your next update poll.

        • Avatar
          Virgil82 October 23, 2016 7:30 pm #

          Not sure where you were going with this? Riptides and Scions both have formations that let you use them standalone, the Riptide wing is stronger certainly but I don’t think Reece is ‘out to get’ Scions because of it.

          He was saying that these units have rules entries but currently cannot be taken in a Battleforged Army and was suggesting that the community would have to act if there was an overwhelming desire to use them in the ITC environment.

          Oh and he said that he feels that SoS would help give armies answers to psychic deathstars. No need to jump down his throat over it.

          • Avatar
            Troy Graber October 24, 2016 11:02 am
            #

            I don’t think he is “out to get” scions. or “out to promote” riptides.

            But I think if you are going to start making up rules like he is proposing to do to include SoS into the tournament meta, then you should 1st look to armies and builds that are underrepresented rather than armies that are currently healthy and doing just fine. It seems like the discussion on what is good for the meta tends to always focus in on the types of lists that are likely to show up in the top 8 at events, and not nearly enough time dealing with the average players who make up the vast majority of tourney attendees.

            We’ve put so little thought in it that the ITC tourney meta is stale and limited. Do you like Tau? Take a Riptide Wing. Do you like CSM? Sorcerer Cabal. Do you like Space Marines? Gladius. Do you like Ad Mech? War Convo.

            A more diverse meta that supports more ways to play by buffing up lower powered armies instead of taking good armies and making them better would result in a better meta with more happy tournament goers.

            If Deathstars are the problem, you don’t need to take a good army and make them a solution. How about you take a bad one like Tyranids. Or maybe you fix the game mechanics (Battle Brothers, Stacking blessings). Or you could tweak the Army Comp (No Sorcer Cabal or Librarius Conclave). Or directly tackle it (Anti-deathstar artillery).

            I’m with Reece on a desire to make the game better, I just this his route to get there has negative consequences that he frequently doesn’t consider because of an overabundance of focus on the top table players and lists.

  11. Avatar
    Duz_ October 23, 2016 8:45 am #

    Why not just let them replace 0-3 elite slots in Imperial detachments (eg CAD/Allied/NSF etc)?

  12. Avatar
    Hiveminded October 23, 2016 9:36 am #

    I have no problem with using the rules for these units….once the rules for inclusing them are released for 40k.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:06 am #

      The 40k dataslates are already out there if you Google-fu it.

      • Avatar
        Peteypab October 23, 2016 10:21 am #

        I linked to the rules in the article for ease of reference.

    • Avatar
      Eaux October 23, 2016 10:13 am #

      There are rules. It’s a 40k dataslate.

    • Avatar
      Hiveminded October 23, 2016 3:22 pm #

      Yeah, I meant the rules for “including” them, meaning a formation or something that allows you to take them in a bound format.

      Right now, as I understand it, they have 40k rules, but there is no option for including them unless you go unbound.

      Give it some time to settle. I’m assuming a formation will be coming…maybe in a future WD, for example. In the meanwhile, let’s vote on using the GW FAQs!

      =)

  13. Avatar
    Heldericht October 23, 2016 10:03 am #

    We should allow them in a separate detachment until GW releases a way to play them.

    They released 40k rules for these units for a reason.

    They want us to play it in 40k. However GW sees unbound as a legit way of playing. The competitive community does not, so we need to figure out a way to be inclusive of GW releases in our own sub-ruleset.

    They are not broken like a limited edition imperial space marine. But they have the potential to add more dynamic ways of list building. Sounds like a good reason to include them.

    Also people saying Sisters are better than a Culexus need to read the rules for both units again. Culexus also has pseudo invisibility and infiltrate. Sisters are 3+, T3, 1W models with no transports. They will be a better fit for some lists, but the Culexus is still better overall for most lists.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 10:07 am #

      Yeah, agreed. I am of the opinion that Sisters specifically will be a very positive thing for the meta.

      • Avatar
        Heldericht October 23, 2016 3:07 pm #

        Absolutely. GW providing us with a great alternative way to handle psychic shenanigans… which are, frankly, a bit out of control right now.

  14. Requizen
    requizen October 23, 2016 11:03 am #

    How is it a question? GW said that there is no current way to take them outside of Unbound. Anything else is just homebrew. Imperial armies don’t need more tools anyway, just wait until they get actual rules (which they will by 8e, I’m positive).

    • Avatar
      Heldericht October 23, 2016 3:51 pm #

      The ITC FAQ is already technically homebrew.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 8:50 pm #

      If you play the game WITHOUT homebrew rules, it is basically AOS pre General’s handbook. People forget how much we change the rules because it fades into the background.

      • Requizen
        Requizen October 25, 2016 9:20 am #

        I would argue that there is a large difference between limiting things that are harmful to the game (multiple WKs, etc) and straight up adding units to armies that don’t naturally include them.

        The former is merely saying “don’t bring things that make everyone hate the game” and fixing edge cases. The latter is literally giving one army extra things for what seems like no reason. Night and day, in my book.

  15. Avatar
    Panzer1944 October 23, 2016 11:11 am #

    Personally I think the best choice would just to take them as an Elite choice in your army if you have IoM faction. We already have Inquisitors and Assassins that take up certain slots without penalty of having a true Allied Detachment chart I really don’t see the huge difference. Plus the first line on each of their Appendix clearly states they are rules for WH40K.

  16. Avatar
    Ken October 23, 2016 11:45 am #

    I think anyone thinking the Custodes are not going to be a ridiculous deathstar hasn’t thought it through. I can’t think of anything better than them, with T5 and S. Shields. Run em with Shem for a 4+ FNP.

    The only weakness they have is they can’t get through a Knight if one charges them, on their own anyways, and they can’t block a D stomp.

    Either way, I think the best way to bring them in is having 1 unit count as a detachment. That means folks can’t go overboard.

    • Avatar
      pascalnz October 24, 2016 4:29 am #

      they are slow and can be tied up by any av13 walker.

      that’s why they aren’t the best. tadaaa! 🙂

  17. Avatar
    Sigmar October 23, 2016 11:47 am #

    1) They have 40k profiles and no 30k profile: they cannot legally be played in 30, these are (at the moment) only 40k units.
    2)They cannot legally be played in 40k because are elite choice and not a formation.
    Rule as intended: (as per any fw model entry) they are an elite choice for any army of the imperium.
    Rule as written: they cannot be played.
    Mitigation: 0-2 formation no benefits.
    3) Sisters for 75 points are still T3 3+ 1W, in my meta they die in a sneeze. In order for their area to work they need not to be embarked. Their shooting (bolters and flamers) is negligeble. The ap2 sword, now that’s more scary at I5 with 2A, still a dedicated cc unit will kill them. They cost more than a 5 man marine and are less durable, with no mobility (if we use the gw faq they cannot embark in any ally transport (play rule as intended to fix it)) and good offensive capability only in close combat, where it will hardly get to be. I can only see them with swords as a glorified area denial unit.
    Their ability is a needed gamechanger: psyonic deathstars and super unkillable flying monstrous creature stacking buffs are a cancer, any tool to exice it is good.
    4) Custodes: again uproar for what i think is a not really competitive unit.
    Spear custodes: you got +2S, striking at initiative, AP2, awesome block rule, 2W, 2+ save BUT you don’t have an invuln save. I see a clear case of honor guard syndrome: hit like a truck but hard countered by AP2 (plasma,grav). And no, T5 will not help you against these weapons (s7 plasma, wound on 2+ grav).
    No option for transports (see above) hurts them even more, because you are forced to deepstike in order to close the gap and therefore sit there taking wounds, for a turn 3 assault at best making you hard countered by interceptor (tau plasma=nightmare). The spear fires as a boltgun and GW failed to say they got terminator armour (in their wargear section) so they do not have relentless and the boltgun is a rapid fire weapon.That means you either shoot or assault. In conclusion, we can farly see thay will fail hard on the tabletop.
    Now for the sword and board: first of all i like that the weapon is assault 2, now at least i can pepper something. Althou 12″ of range makes me not want to fire because of random lenght charge. Pair it with T5 2W and a 3++ and we’re talking hard durability. And with the help of the banner, we have the ultimate terminator unit.This is what GK paladins should have been. Still we have two elephants in the room. First, the sword is AP3, so you need a mixed squad with halbeards or you will simply be bogged into 2+ riptides or whatever for the rest of the game, but a mixed squad is suceptible to sniping and has reduced durability. Than there’s the elephant in the room: you cannot embark on vehicles and have to deepstike. IMO the unit, with appropriate character support can be a go-to deathstar unit (and this is bad, but GK nowday got only monolist draigo-libby-paladin-2dreadknights, and is much the same army) fairly priced or at best 15 points underpriced (paladins cost more but can shoot and have access to psycannons, and you got no shooting, TH/SS have ap2 S8 thunder hammers). I fail to see the roughing of feathers this unit causes, in order to be competitive, they should be able to embark in a land raider (a not competitive asset) or be able to close the gap with unbound librarius psychic powers for the conclave and you must also build your army around them while still a screamerstar will laugh hard at your chances of winning that fight in terms of both manouvrability, resilience, and offensive potential.

    Sorry for the long post, i should start writing articles ahah

  18. Avatar
    Quinn October 23, 2016 12:05 pm #

    This is a different GW right now than the old edition. I can’t see them ignoring a bunch of potential sales by sticking to this Unbound only statement. I would imagine this would follow the Assassin template at some point, it is a similar predicament. Not sure about the rules yet and how it will impact the meta, but on initial read the one thing that hit me was this ‘Block’ ability the Custodes can potentially have. Does this mean I have to roll hits individually until they are done with the potential ability? Or can I roll the first 5 hits for example vs their 5 potential blocks first, then roll the rest? Just seems like another thing to deal with…

    I have seen the sprues and the whole box is amazing btw.

  19. Avatar
    Sigmar October 23, 2016 12:11 pm #

    the ugly moment you wrote 600 words or more of comment defending the 2 units with professional article style, the website does not post it and all your work is lost. I wasted my life in the eyes of the emperor and am now gently going to report to the nearest commisariat. *BLAM*

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 8:51 pm #

      That moment when you realize all new commentors must be approved by the editor….=)

  20. Avatar
    Boo Amp October 23, 2016 12:14 pm #

    Group them into the Inquisition faction; it’s a 3 year old codex; gets all the appropriate allies matrix & caters for elites choices.

    Besides, the Custodes faction symbol is eerily similar to a certain uppercase “I” we all know & love! 😀

  21. Avatar
    Ishagu October 23, 2016 12:52 pm #

    Allow every single Imperial faction to field them as Elites 🙂

  22. Avatar
    Alex R October 23, 2016 1:00 pm #

    Id say lets wait and see if IoM gets like a coplection set as these dudes dont run as an army but legit allies that come in to help here and there. Plus great time to play test

  23. Avatar
    Jason wolfe October 23, 2016 3:35 pm #

    What about allowing the SoS as elites choices in an Inquisition Detachment (or Sisters of Battle)? SoS are sort of part of the inquisition right? The inquisition uses psychic nulls as it is (Culexus) so it makes sense to see them deployed in some manner.

    Custodes just don’t make any fluff sense at all. I can’t think of the faction they could be rammed in to. Inquisition would be very dubious and these guys outrank the inquisition.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 8:53 pm #

      Yeah, a lot of people have made this suggestion.

  24. Avatar
    FTGTEvan October 23, 2016 3:50 pm #

    Give me CTA allies and we can talk about making changes to the rules to allow people to field extinct and retired protectors of the Emperor.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 8:54 pm #

      The majority of players in the community do not want CtA, therefore we do not use them. If the same goes for Sisters and Custodes, then we won’t.

      • Avatar
        FTGTEvan October 24, 2016 2:45 am #

        “They have a 40k Dataslate, therefore they are 40k units 100%. You may not want them in or feel that they don’t fit in fluff wise, which is totally cool, but they most certainly are 40k units”

        It seems pretty backward when fluff is the predominantly cited reason for banning CTA but then tossed aside as irrelevant when proposing a change to allow more options for Imperial armies.

        And saying a majority isn’t inherently true – you had a plurality vote against them the first time it was brought up (~300) but a majority selected the other 4 options that would allow them to some degree: Allow (~220), Neutral (~60), require theme (~80), Restricted allowance (~130). The options to change but allow to a degree were interpreted as against, but if they were fully against the respondents would have made that selection instead.

        I know it was brought up a second time but can’t find those results, but I remember it being close.

        I know this is more personal, but I also have a problem with a simple majority or plurality enacting a major rules change. Unclear rules? Sure, 50.1% is enough. But it should require more than 50% of players to enact a change to an explicitly clear ruling.

        /rant

      • Avatar
        Drachnhen October 24, 2016 3:05 am #

        Majority of players are imperium players… wanna guess the outcome of the vote?

        Xenos get shafted again by ITC.

        Seriously. Do you really think imperium players need more help?

      • Avatar
        Ryan October 24, 2016 2:46 pm #

        The majority of players play an imperium of man army, no wonder the voting goes the way it goes, they don’t need CTA allies.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 24, 2016 3:12 pm #

          I love this cognitive dissonance. Xenos and Chaos get fun stuff in the ITC, too. Imperials lose votes as well. Plus, most people play multiple factions anywyay.

          • Avatar
            Ryan October 24, 2016 4:27 pm
            #

            Majority rules period. It’s naive to think people won’t vote with their own best interest at heart. You run this system, your to close to it to be able to step back and see it.

            And frankly do you even know what cognitive dissonance means? I’m certainly not having two or more conflicting opinions on this issue.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 24, 2016 8:35 pm
            #

            OK friend, take it down a notch, please. No need to get emotional about it. The voting history of the ITC proves it is not rigged for Imperial Players. If you want to check, do. If not, that’s fine. And yes, majority does rule, lol, that is what voting is for. The alternative is what? A dictatorship? A council of elders? That’s silly. Give people a voice, let them say what they want to see. More often than not the votes have gone in the direction of what I would consider altruistic. Sometimes we get surprised by results but that could just as easily mean that the crowd wasn’t wrong, but that we were wrong. It boils down to perspective.

          • Avatar
            Drachnyen October 24, 2016 5:18 pm
            #

            Reece, the point we are trying to make is voting on this issue is too biased to be considered good.

            There are currently 4091 ITC registered players…

            I did a quick sum of “imperial armies” using the ITC ranking page… turns out their “weight” is 2251, representing 55% of all played games.

            Sure, some folks have multiple armies but my point still remains : THE MAJORITY OF THE ITC PLAYER BASE ARE IMPERIUM.

            Surely you know this… how do you think people with vested interest vote… they vote for them.

            Please explain again how voting is a good thing ?

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 24, 2016 8:31 pm
            #

            Because voting gives us all a voice. If your logic was accurate, nothing that buffed a non-imperial army would pass, and things that buffed Imperial players would always pass, which isn’t true. Small factions have been given boosts many times and Imperials have been nerfed many times. And as for more Imperial players in the ITC, sure, there are more Imperial armies. The raito is not inconsistent with the spread of armies in the game, so that should not come as a surprise.

            The community has tended towards what is fair in most cases. You should have faith in your fellow gamer. And besides, what’s the alternative? You just want us to decide for everyone? That’s not fair and would alienate a lot of folks.

  25. Avatar
    Pretre October 23, 2016 3:56 pm #

    Only allow them in Adepta Sororitas. Then they are usable as allies and help a critically undersupported army. 😉

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 23, 2016 8:54 pm #

      lol, I actually like this idea, haha

    • Avatar
      CWDub October 24, 2016 5:33 am #

      I’ll second this and have admittedly been swayed by some of the other comments. I don’t watch to see them in Inquisition as its already one of the cheapeat detatchments to field.. if someone wants Sisters of Silence (as elites) they have to field a Sisters HQ and Troops as the tax so it won’t just be a cheap add on. I really don’t want to just see them as a 0-3 elites detatchment. How about a vote on each unit and then a vote on howto include them — barring any new stuff from GW.

  26. Avatar
    Ishagu October 23, 2016 4:20 pm #

    Lol what are people’s objections?

    These are fully legit 40k units as per GW.
    Their placement into armies is spotty, but it’s not the fitst time there have been issues with units (remember Ravenwing HQ choices for example).

    Let’s enjoy the extra variety! Compared to what’s out there, these “agents of the Emperor” are literally nothing to worry about.

  27. Avatar
    elwrath October 23, 2016 4:22 pm #

    Put it up for a vote. This would be super good for the meta. I know non-imperium players are rolling their eyes but this actually helps them. IF they don’t think it does they’re not thinking. Custodes are w/e its the SoS that matter.

    • Avatar
      FTGTEvan October 23, 2016 6:00 pm #

      Tell me again how this helps Nids or Orks?

      • Avatar
        Troy Graber October 23, 2016 6:19 pm #

        As I said above, Fixing Shadows should be much, much, much higher on the ITC Todo list than making up rules for including 30K units in 40K.

        If Tyranids had the tools to be a hard counter to deathstars it would do so much more for the meta than adding more tools to the imperial toolbox.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 23, 2016 8:59 pm #

          There are already a bunch of “30k” units in 40k. And these are legal 40k units. The only issue is that GW thinks we actually use unbound, and we don’t. The only reason they aren’t working is because the community has largely rejected unbound, but GW sees it as a legitimate way to play the game. Therefore, to them, what’s the problem? We se it through the lens of the way we play, but we play a modified version of the game.

          • Avatar
            Troy Graber October 24, 2016 11:07 am
            #

            I always thought that GW saw battleforged as a way to do Organized Play, and unbound as the way to play casually.

            It never occurred to me that they thought unbound was a way to engage in organized play. Do you have more insight on that? Because I could be wrong.

          • Avatar
            Blight October 24, 2016 3:40 pm
            #

            They see unbound as legitimate since you can’t get detachment bonuses. Although considering how formations have changed the game unbound would barely make a dent in the meta.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 24, 2016 8:37 pm
            #

            I think you’re still putting it in the context of a competitive meta. They see unbound as a legitimate way to play because they feel that not all (or even most) of their customers play the game competitively. They aren’t framing their approach to the game in the context of the tournament meta in most cases. They’re thinking about their customers, who play the game in many ways, including ultra casual (which is what unbound is meant for, IMO, if you look at the General’s Handbook in AoS).

  28. Avatar
    asfsd October 23, 2016 5:05 pm #

    You made the very reasonable choice of banning Unbound. These are Unbound units. Therefore, they are banned by default.

    Why is this even a discussion? Trying to vote them in is just shady and unethical as fuck. Might as well randomly start doing bans on specific units and allowing other illegal things in too.

  29. Avatar
    Drachnyen October 23, 2016 5:37 pm #

    My 2 cents : this will strengthen deathstars and increase the general power towards different flavours of space marines.

    But the real question is this : there are no rules to use these units in a tournament format. Is it the ITC role to make up rules ?

    If the answer is yes, then let’s fix the wrathknights cost, replace Armor values for toughness for dreadnoughts, fix grav weapons, fix battle brothers, etc. There are so much things that could be changed.

    IMHO, it’s not for the ITC to make up rules. We should wait for GW to release a proper way to play with these units.

    By the way : GW WANTS you to buy and play by any means you want to. Saying “unbound” is their way of saying “play however you like”. So please do play as you wan with your pals. But in a 40k tournament settings, these units should not exist.

    • Avatar
      Ytook October 24, 2016 1:34 am #

      The ITC does make up rules, that’s the whole point. Modified strength D is a made up rule. Not being able to use unbound is a made up rule. GW wants you to use these models as unbound is a completely normal way to play per the rules (in this months White Dwarf the Genestealer Cult army is unbound while the Deathwatch is battle forged). This isn’t Age of Sigmar, there is no tournament format outside of the rules we make up.

  30. Avatar
    WestRider October 23, 2016 6:01 pm #

    I very much want to see Sisters of Silence as part of the meta. While it might be a long wait for GW to release more comprehensive Rules, they have been getting better about that. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to wait a moderate amount of time (say, 30-60 days) to see if GW brings something out before starting to write our own Rules for them. Heck, I remember when it was standard for new Releases of any sort to have a substantial waiting period before Tournaments would allow them in. Play it at home/club/flgs for a month or two before you bring it to a Tournament.

  31. Avatar
    BBF October 23, 2016 6:18 pm #

    I’m all for it Reecius !

  32. ChrisG
    Ahkris October 23, 2016 11:52 pm #

    Lets wait for the new WD: it may have a formation with these units in them, allowing them to be fielded in the ITC.

    If that doesnt happen however in my opinion its tough luck. Run your SoS as counts as Sororitas or w/e floats your boat, but dont start making up (more) rules.

  33. Avatar
    Horton October 24, 2016 2:44 am #

    Say what you want about their power level, but from a fluff perspective these units are amazing! I am thrilled that GW has given us rules and models for Sisters of Silence and Custodes. I am all for finding a way to use them on the tabletop. Something like “The Hand of The Emperor” detachment that lets you take some number of these units with no command benefit seems good to me. GW has said they are good to go for 40k, so I am all for making a way to use them that fits our “no unbound” mindset.

    • Avatar
      Drachnyen October 24, 2016 3:15 am #

      Actually, from a fluff perspective these army are inactive in 40k…

      From a increasing your personal power level perspective, every imperium guy wants these.

      Please someone explain to me how this is good for the game and for the ITC tournament scene?

      Do space marines need more power and more help?

      Xenos get shafted again…

      • Avatar
        Ishagu October 24, 2016 5:19 am #

        What are you talking about? Necrons, Tau and Eldar are incredibly powerful armies.
        These Custodes and Sisters won’t even affect the Tau and Crons in battle, and might at worse be a nuisance to Eldar.

  34. Avatar
    Gritts October 24, 2016 4:06 am #

    Gw wants Death from the Skies to replace flyer rules too…..tournament organizers groom their format to their audiences. Grooming rules isn’t new

    • Avatar
      Troy Graber October 24, 2016 11:18 am #

      On their facebook page, GW talks about Death from the Skies as an optional ruleset.

      “If you are using Death from the Skies…”

  35. Avatar
    N.I.B. October 24, 2016 4:30 am #

    Battlebrothers is the underlying sickness of 40K, it should be removed from the game.

    • Avatar
      Hiveminded October 24, 2016 3:01 pm #

      I agree. Make BB armies play as AoC.

      It’s a simple change that fixes so many of the issues….

  36. Avatar
    GunslingerSamus October 24, 2016 5:25 am #

    I have to disagree with you completely, imagine two different tournaments. One of these is full of death star players you come up against a death star every game. Win or loose there is very little variety and through the whole tournament you kill 8 models. Now picture a tournament where everyone has 450 points of sisters of silence. Win or loose you see more variety jn armies, and you have a chance to interact and kill units.
    Not to jump on the Reece bandwagon about stars but he is right. As both playing as and against numerous stars they do not add fun to the game. When you cannot kill anything regardless of a Victory it is not a fun experience. The sisters would make stars a liability by even being in the meta regardless of how much they are run.

  37. Requizen
    Requizen October 24, 2016 6:01 am #

    How is this a question? Allowing them in anything other than Unbound is changing the rules by a significant amount. Why do Imperial armies get this special treatment?

    I really like the Wraithknight dataslate, can I take it in my Necron army as a Lord of War? No? Then you can’t change the rules to take a dataslate where it isn’t allowed either. Tough shit, Armies of the Imperium is still the best rule in the game because of how broken Battle Brothers is, so why do you feel the need to get more powerful stuff?

    Take em in a fun game? Sure, no worries! Tournament changing the rules to favor Imperial armies? Hahaha well I guess I’m not buying a ticket to that.

  38. Avatar
    Drachnyen October 24, 2016 7:04 am #

    While we are at it, ITC should also allow this :

    https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerWorld/photos/a.218213154864839.65352.212614545424700/1342913519061458/?type=3

    HUGE SARCASM

  39. Avatar
    Adam Vollrath October 24, 2016 7:12 am #

    Unbound doesn’t deserve its stigma. Tournaments shouldn’t be afraid of Unbound for a simple reason: it’s actually not that good. Keep the three faction limit. Remember Unbound armies don’t receive detachment command benefits. Hear me out:

    When 7th released and introduced Unbound, I had the same reaction everyone else did: wow that allows an army of 100% riptides and nothing can stop that. But look where we are years later: you can field multiple formations of Riptides that makes them even better! But it’s still not unstoppable nor the best.

    Now the challenge: Can you create three-faction ITC Unbound army that’s _really_ better than Battle Forged armies that are winning Grand Tournaments? I’ve asked this question every time this conversation happens and haven’t seen any good candidates. But I bet this blog has some clever list builders!

    If you do think up a hyperpowered army, then maybe adding more restrictions is appropriate. Maybe restrict to only two or one factions, maybe restrict the number of formations usable in Unbound or say formation command benefits don’t work either. Or say no one unit can make up more than half the army.

    While allowing competitive Unbound does have risks, it should no longer be dismissed out of hand.

  40. Avatar
    Frank Howerton October 24, 2016 9:09 am #

    I say give Sisters of Silence to be linked with Sisters of Battle. They need the help since GW will not help them.

  41. Avatar
    Threllen October 24, 2016 9:26 am #

    I like these units but I take issue with this part of the article:

    “I know what some of you are thinking. “Just don’t play at 40k tournaments! Those are unfun anyways!”. Whoa, hold on there tiger. Remember, everyone should have the option to play these models in whatever setting they want.”

    Why should everyone have the option to play these models in whatever setting they want? That’s the whole point of force org charts and detachments and factions (and just rules in general). You can’t just take anything you want willy-nilly and call it an army. If these units don’t have a detachment – they should be restricted to unbound. If they’re restricted to unbound – no-go for tournaments. Imperium already have way too many hyper-powerful toys. We really need to give them a 15ppm Culexus junior they can throw around in an allied Rhino (would have to start the game outside it with new FAQ)? That’s what would happen if you created a special 1-3 unit detachment for them.

    These are specialized units that basically don’t exist in the 40k universe. They have rules but they would never be fielded en masse nor would the Custodes leave Terra. If you buy Prospero and want to field them in a casual game – you and your friends can figure something out. I don’t know why we need to bend over backwards to create special detachments from nothing just to allow them in the tournament meta.

  42. Avatar
    Jural October 24, 2016 9:57 am #

    Reading through all of this- I am totally on board with just giving them SOB faction and therefore letting them be taken in a SOB elite slot as the only way to get them on the table in the ITC.

    A really elegant solution, IMHO.

    • Avatar
      Troy Graber October 24, 2016 11:12 am #

      If we are going to add SoS to battleforged 40K, then I think that is the best way to do it by a mile.

      In fact, because Sisters are a relatively rare and low powered army I’d probably even vote in favor of that.

      • Avatar
        CWDub October 24, 2016 8:54 pm #

        100% agreed.

        At least if they’re a SoB elite slot, someone has to go to the effort of having an HQ/Troops of Sisters painted and built into their army. If they become part of an Inquisition detachment, my tax is.. Coteaz.

  43. Avatar
    Narfwak October 24, 2016 11:09 am #

    One solution might be to wait until Forgeworld releases HH7 to see how their ally/detachment rules are going to work in 30k and then use that as a template. Unfortunately, HH7 isn’t due out for a while yet, so that would still leave us in limbo.

    • Avatar
      Narfwak October 24, 2016 11:25 am #

      Also, everyone seems to be glossing over the end of the quote from GW:

      “Both do still exist though, so who knows, we might just see more of them in future.”

      I have a feeling we’re going to get 40k detachment rules for these guys eventually, especially if they sell well (and, let’s not kid ourselves, they’re going to sell well). I don’t see why there needs to be a rush to homebrew something to get them into 40k play ASAP when we can just wait to see what’s coming.

  44. Avatar
    Mike October 24, 2016 1:13 pm #

    ITC had to bend over backwards to let eldar players use their wraithknight and strength D options when they were released, changed to accommodate the necron decurion, changed to accommodate multiple stormsurges, and gave the orks a stompa that is effectively misprinted.

    Allowing these new units would be par for the course, and I can’t see why anyone realistically expects them to turn around and say “nah, can’t use those.” Well, I guess there’s always the 5000 imperium haters that cry whenever any imperial feature is added whatsoever.

    • Avatar
      Ryan October 24, 2016 4:32 pm #

      ITC=imperial tournament circuit

      Play Imperiale or gtfo

      • Reecius
        Reecius October 24, 2016 8:32 pm #

        Lol, except looking back at the voting records, you see that that is clearly not the case. But you know, who needs facts, right?

        • Avatar
          ryan October 25, 2016 8:14 am #

          you shouldnt take every comment so personally, nor should you respond to everybody who pops off about things they may or may not know about. With that being said i think your stance that the vote is not disproportionately weighted by imperial players who vastly outweigh xenos players is basically a joke. Nerf to D weapons, that hurt imperials? nerf to GMC and toe in cover hurt imperials?

          name some votes that hurt imperial players and dont effect xenos players equally.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 25, 2016 8:59 am
            #

            Oh trust me, I have very thick skin at this point, I have been engaging in these conversations for many years now, in the sometimes friction filled quest to create a tournament format that is appealing to as many people as possible. I do not take this personally nor do I respond to everyone which you can see if you scan the comments. I don’t have time to, anymore as much as I would like to.

            It cracks me up though when players like you have such a tribal view of the game. It is not a case of us vs. them. It simply isn’t. Some players, such as yourself as it appears, do vote for their faction or what have you. That does happen. However, it is a minority of players. Almost every gamer I have encountered (which is a lot as this stage of my career) has more than 1 army. They aren’t slavishly attached to one particular faction and are always making new armies, too. So the basic notion that each player represents a single faction and only those interests is false. I can count on 1 hand the number of committed gamers I know that only play one army. In the MANY conversations I have had across the gaming spectrum with many different groups, the average gamer wants the game to be fair, not slanted in their favor. You may disagree, but I would say that you may simply be projecting your point of view outward.

            Plus, not all Imperial players are on the same “side” so to speak. Why would an Imperial Guard player vote to buff Skitarii in your version of reality? They’re both Imperial sure, but they compete with one another. According to this assumption, Imperial players would actually have to be very altruistic to vote to boost a faction not their own, lol, even if it were “Imperial”. As you can’t use all Imperial factions at the same time, they would not always be voting in their own self-interest but against their self interests to boost any Imperial faction they do not intend to use. So, according to you, they’d also always vote to screw over their neighbor unless the Imperial faction in question in the vote was one they specifically used. Therefore, the vote would never be unanimously Imperial one way or another. Anyway, I could go on, but clearly your assumption is false.

            Secondly, the votes have shown time and again that people do not vote in their own favor. Basic logic shows this to be true. According to your model of reality, every vote would go with Imperials and against everyone else as they–according to you–are the majority (but as stated above, are not going to be voting as a group every time). If they all vote in their own self interest (again, ignoring the fact that the Imperial faction’s sub-factions compete with one another) they would win every vote. That is quite simply false. Tau got the vote to get Double Storm Surges, which broke ITC rules. Orks got the Vote for the half priced Stompa, Eldar got their ranged D weapons in (we weren’t using them at all prior, lol, it was not a nerf as you see it but a huge buff). Eldar did NOT lose their Scat Packs. The list goes on. The fact that non-Imperial factions ever get a buff and Imperial factions ever get a nerf explodes your theory.

            Toe in cover was not some Imperial player plot, which is such a silly notion as they have MC’s too, but something that the general gaming community truly disliked. For a long time. It is an illogical rule anyway. As a player that uses a Wraithknight in his Eldar army, I agree it was a bummer, but it made sense. Plus, GW backed that one up in their FAQ, anyway.

            I have had this silly argument too many times, already. You are free to see what we do through whatever colored lenses you choose but the facts are against you.

    • Requizen
      Requizen October 25, 2016 5:58 am #

      Because those changes you talked about were just changes to their own existing restrictions. Allowing Custodes or Sisters of Silence to be taken in any army as part of a CAD would be actively changing the base ruleset of the game. Surely you can see the difference.

  45. jy2
    jy2 October 24, 2016 1:17 pm #

    Granting exceptions to particular units (even armies) isn’t anything new really. We gave exception for Imperial Knight armies in the ITC. We let Tau players run multiple Stormsurges. I have no problems with SoS/Cust as an exception in the ITC if the community so wishes.

    • Avatar
      Jural October 24, 2016 2:42 pm #

      I guess if this comments thread proves anything, it’s that this is an issue which should be voted on. No clear consensus on either side.

    • Requizen
      Requizen October 25, 2016 5:56 am #

      That’s not nearly the same thing. The “exceptions” to Imp Knights and Stormsurges are changes to ITC’s limitations to the game rules. You can already use multiples of them in regular games of 40k.

      Using SoS/Custodes would be changing the actual game rules. Unless you allow all armies to play Unbound, then it’s a clear house-ruled change in favor of Imperial armies.

      • Reecius
        Reecius October 25, 2016 9:08 am #

        That is the same thing, haha. Allowing Tau to use multiple Stormsurges was a clear house-rule in favor of Tau. Same thing, friend =) Allowing Eldar to use their D weapons was a clear house-rule to help Eldar. All of these are changing actual game rules. Saying we have to use points value is changing actual game rules, lol. There’s no difference except in degrees, and that degree of change is only in your perception of it. It’s all changing the rules.

        • Requizen
          Requizen October 25, 2016 9:23 am #

          I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.

          Tau, per 40k BRB, can bring multiple Stormsurges. Eldar could bring D weapons. This is the way the game is played baseline. In ITC, they could not because of the restriction. You simply loosened the restriction to go back towards what the rules already told them they could do.

          No army in the game can take Custodes as an Elite choice. By BRB, they only can be on the table as Unbound. By giving an army that option, you are not changing ITC restrictions. You are actually changing the base rules of the game, which is very different.

          ITC rules != baseline 40k rules.

          • Avatar
            Blight October 25, 2016 5:20 pm
            #

            The entire point is that in the brb these units are usable but because of ITC added restrictions they are not. That’s the same as multiple stormsurges and anything ranged D. By the base rules these units can be taken.
            You are operating under the assumption that a yes vote means that any imperial faction can just take them in a CAD. This is not the case unless people want that. It is one of many options. Another would be to have them form their own detachment for one unit. That would work the same as the brb but also work within the ITC framework. Allow this to come to a vote and there will be plenty of options.
            People need to see that this is no different than any other vote ITC has had. These are 40k legal units that are restricted only by a technicality of the ITC not by any specific rule to restrict them personally. Finding a way to incorporate them into the ITC ruleset is a minor thing that seems to be blown way out of proportion.

  46. Avatar
    ryan bridges October 24, 2016 7:07 pm #

    As stated i’m sure previously, Sisters and Custodes are not an active agent within40k. I don’t think they should be in 40k, much less even have rules. They need to update sisters of battle before introduce 30k armies. Custodes have sworn to never leave Terra after the heresy and Sisters of silence where all but wiped out after the scouring, they have since been inactive.
    so… nah Imperials don’t need anymore crap.

    • Avatar
      Blight October 25, 2016 5:30 pm #

      Your last sentence somewhat undermines your point with a clear and very strange bias against the imperial factions. I’m a chaos and xenos player and I have no issue with creating a way for these units to be used within ITC ruleset. They’re just more units. They won’t break 40k and they look cool and have cool rules. I’ll probably never use them but I would love to see them across the table from me.As for the fluff the sisters were not wiped out they just lost a direct combat mandate. They still hang out on black ships all the time. The custodes are probably mobilizing thanks to the 13th black crusade.

  47. Avatar
    FrequentRespawn October 25, 2016 12:36 am #

    As long as there is no official way to field them besides unbound (which is the official one mentioned by GW) they should not be part of the game. I don’t think that “These models are so cool, I want to play them” is a viable argument for tournament play. Everyone can play them outside of tournaments. Enjoy. But this would just be making up rules and would be another step away from 40k as written. Which I am not a fan of.

  48. Avatar
    Matt October 25, 2016 3:54 am #

    Allow unbound. Make everyone preferred enemies to unbound and only troops are scoring (not obsec, just scoring). This would give big enough downside to balance it out.

  49. Avatar
    Glocknall October 25, 2016 5:36 am #

    The problem with the sisters is it will excacerbate the advantage imperials will have with their extremely point efficient shooting armies. Battle Compines, Lions blade, etc…

    The sisters unit will not be as devastating to imperial deathstars as people think. Super friends, iron hands stars, bark stars have tons of ablative wounds, speed and layers of good saves before you even get to their psychic abilities. The sister units will be target on for these stars and will mostly only serve as a brief speed bump.

    However the sister units will be devastating to Xenos/chaos players that rely on blessings and witchfires to win games against free units and wargear formation of the imperium. Battle companies can easily shield a sisters squad with a rhino wall while laying down a withering amount of firepower. The psychic deathstars meta was created as a reaction to the overwhelming amount of firepower out there. The losers in including the SOS would be chaos units whose Death Stars are one note and flawed compared to the diverse options the imperium has.

  50. Avatar
    xthexclincherx October 25, 2016 9:13 am #

    Wow… there are a million replies here.

    Time to vote on Unbound allowed again! I don’t think that there are armies now-a-days that are really “that much more powerful” by going unbound, than the insane deathstars and summoning stars we see today… I mean really, what is the point of blocking unbound anymore when numerous formations of the game make impossibly-tough armies with loads of stacked rules, now?

    Ok, so these “deathstars” get tougher if you allow unbound perhaps?… well, chances are most people already can’t deal with them/don’t wanna play in tournaments because you have to deal with them. Not really a big loss. Either you take some form of deathstars to a tournament and “enjoy” facing the same thing, or else you don’t… allowing unbound won’t change that.

    The same goes for some other rules in the ITC, like the D weapon strength, use of the GW “draft” FAQ, etc.

    I think that some of the rules in the ITC need to be re-visited as the game changes like we’ve seen it change so rapidly… building upon a base that doesn’t adapt and evolve is creating more problems IMO. It would be really great if the ITC rules commission took a fresh look at everything that was out there, starting from “Strictly RAW + FAQ Draft” and then we re-assessed and re-voted on some of the issues. I know locally, we’ve since done this and found ourselves lifting most of the “restrictions” that we originally thought were “necessary”…

    Just my thoughts. Anyone else?

  51. Avatar
    1PlusArmour October 26, 2016 5:09 am #

    Absolutely do not invent rules for these.

    The parallel people keep drawing is “Well, ITC let D in with Eldar! They let Stormsurges in, too!”… Guess what, folks? Both of those are 100% legitimate in battle forged armies, and are part of the normal game rules.

    If ITC is going to allow these it needs to be a vote on “Unbound – Yes or No”, rather than “What wacky rules should we invent to shoe-horn in these models?”. While we’re at it, may as well let CTA allies in, as well.

    Slippery, slippery slope that will only serve to fracture the tournament scene even further.

Leave a Reply