As someone who played the crap out of thousand sons, I think the only thing they really need is if you remove the devastating wounds from the detachment rule I think everything gets better. Honestly, I just think devastating wounds in general is almost always a mistake.
As a formerly Thousand Sons player i couldn't agree more with what you said and i'm glad to hear 40k specialists speak the truth. Some may say: they did something wrong. I've switched to CSM and their myriade of good detachements, but i would gladly come back to Tzeentch devotees if casting a spell would actually feel chaotic, really hasardous or requiring cultists sacrifices.
All l can say is that unless the custodes contemptors get 3" extra move and the jetbike gets totaly rewriten GW can drop their cost till a contemptor is 90pts and a jetbike dude cost as much as a warden, and maybe then people will use them.
Pains me to see how useless the Vertus' ability is. Triggers only an Advance. lol on a unit with no access to advance and charge. Change from Advance to Move, then it's usable, at least. getting Vertus back to playability would greatly open up Custodes list options and give Custodes big threat range. Also, make the Salvo Launcher S10, and either 1 shot Twin Linked, or just 2 Shots. Then the bikes can provide a little ranged AT damage threat to Light and Mid sized armor targets.
@@StaticSilence1they have no role. They aren't a melee unit, their shoting is tragic so they can't do anti tank, for sone reason they aren't +1T like all other bikers. Ah and they got both slower in raw M number and how 10th ed terrain rules hurt them. I am really not joking about the point cost drop to some crazy low number for them to be worth taking. The custodes play is suppose to cut what for them ? The wardens+blade champion? The double Calladius? And they are not going to replace the jumpy boys for bikes, because those actualy have good rules. And the contemptors are just a sm index blow back. They had to (in GW mind) have the same stats and because of the whole w40k/HH separation they were give crap rules. It is mind blowing how many different "tricks" and builds the 9th ed codex had. Jetbike builds, dreadnoughts builds, infantry builds playing around with deep strike. 2-3 different and powerful lists .
@@piotrjeske4599 I agree with most of what you're saying, except for the They aren't a melee unit. They have the standard Custodes 5 Attacks 7 -2 2, with Lance. I mean, I get what you're saying though. There are other better picks at the moment. That lance would be so nice to get into play.
I'm really curious as to what GW could do to base DA detachments to make them not garbage. It seems their detachments all have a combination of keyword issues combined with not powerful effects being tied to hard to cause triggers.
Yeah, for starters they make Inner Circle Task Force detachment rule not just Deathwing Infantry only. If it was just the Deathwing keyword, The Dreads and Repulsors would be able to access the +1 wound of the Vowed objective buff. Instantly, ICTF would become competitive.
Also knights can definitely be a stat check, or barring that, a dice check. Sometimes you just don't roll the wounds/they don't fail the invulns. That can really just make or break the game unfortunately.
Re-listen to the point. It's about running 3-4 large knights. That will always be a simple math equation of whether the opposing player brought enough anti-tank weapons. That's not fun for either player. In this case you would make the 1-2 large knights much stronger and synergistic with the 4-6 to Armiger class knights, and then you would have cheap units to do actions.
@ArtofWar40k Appologies if i came off too strong. I got caught up in the moment. Making the big guys better and only taking two isn't too different as to how a lot of players list build right now. I do agree 100%, that they need more synergy between the big chassis and the small. Really lean into the knight and squire idea. I'm still of the opinion that running pure big knights should be viable somehow without making it unfun for both players. Maybe when the codex comes out, we'll see some good detachment that can do these things.
As someone who played the crap out of thousand sons, I think the only thing they really need is if you remove the devastating wounds from the detachment rule I think everything gets better. Honestly, I just think devastating wounds in general is almost always a mistake.
Sounds like we need skari playing against everyone in house and see the results. Dark eldar gauntlet
He was going to be here before US Open Tampa, but the hurricane prevented it!
Make the Sanguinary Priest great again! (Give him a jump pack)
I still cannot understand why they brought death shroud down but didn't with blightlords.
As a formerly Thousand Sons player i couldn't agree more with what you said and i'm glad to hear 40k specialists speak the truth. Some may say: they did something wrong.
I've switched to CSM and their myriade of good detachements, but i would gladly come back to Tzeentch devotees if casting a spell would actually feel chaotic, really hasardous or requiring cultists sacrifices.
Thanks Jack and Seigs
Skitarii is stronger, but Cohort Cybernetica is cooler because it has big ol round spacebots.
All l can say is that unless the custodes contemptors get 3" extra move and the jetbike gets totaly rewriten GW can drop their cost till a contemptor is 90pts and a jetbike dude cost as much as a warden, and maybe then people will use them.
Pains me to see how useless the Vertus' ability is. Triggers only an Advance. lol on a unit with no access to advance and charge. Change from Advance to Move, then it's usable, at least. getting Vertus back to playability would greatly open up Custodes list options and give Custodes big threat range.
Also, make the Salvo Launcher S10, and either 1 shot Twin Linked, or just 2 Shots. Then the bikes can provide a little ranged AT damage threat to Light and Mid sized armor targets.
@@StaticSilence1they have no role. They aren't a melee unit, their shoting is tragic so they can't do anti tank, for sone reason they aren't +1T like all other bikers. Ah and they got both slower in raw M number and how 10th ed terrain rules hurt them. I am really not joking about the point cost drop to some crazy low number for them to be worth taking. The custodes play is suppose to cut what for them ? The wardens+blade champion? The double Calladius? And they are not going to replace the jumpy boys for bikes, because those actualy have good rules. And the contemptors are just a sm index blow back. They had to (in GW mind) have the same stats and because of the whole w40k/HH separation they were give crap rules. It is mind blowing how many different "tricks" and builds the 9th ed codex had. Jetbike builds, dreadnoughts builds, infantry builds playing around with deep strike. 2-3 different and powerful lists .
@@piotrjeske4599 I agree with most of what you're saying, except for the They aren't a melee unit. They have the standard Custodes 5 Attacks 7 -2 2, with Lance. I mean, I get what you're saying though. There are other better picks at the moment.
That lance would be so nice to get into play.
Can we just stop with this 3in deepstrike garbage !
Agreed, currently the most garbage rule in the game.
Agreed. it's lazy rule copy/paste from codex to codex.
It’s simply so GW can sell a ton of aquilons
I'm really curious as to what GW could do to base DA detachments to make them not garbage. It seems their detachments all have a combination of keyword issues combined with not powerful effects being tied to hard to cause triggers.
Yeah, for starters they make Inner Circle Task Force detachment rule not just Deathwing Infantry only. If it was just the Deathwing keyword, The Dreads and Repulsors would be able to access the +1 wound of the Vowed objective buff. Instantly, ICTF would become competitive.
I'd rather play vanilla gladius without DA units then any of the DA detachments if it came down to it
Also knights can definitely be a stat check, or barring that, a dice check.
Sometimes you just don't roll the wounds/they don't fail the invulns.
That can really just make or break the game unfortunately.
Any chance you can give me a time stamp when they are talking about knights?
Ork conversation lasted 15 seconds thats cool
😅
I dont think I've ever heard such a trash opinion as to say you shouldn't be able to bring Knights in a knights list.
Re-listen to the point. It's about running 3-4 large knights. That will always be a simple math equation of whether the opposing player brought enough anti-tank weapons. That's not fun for either player. In this case you would make the 1-2 large knights much stronger and synergistic with the 4-6 to Armiger class knights, and then you would have cheap units to do actions.
@ArtofWar40k Appologies if i came off too strong. I got caught up in the moment. Making the big guys better and only taking two isn't too different as to how a lot of players list build right now.
I do agree 100%, that they need more synergy between the big chassis and the small. Really lean into the knight and squire idea.
I'm still of the opinion that running pure big knights should be viable somehow without making it unfun for both players. Maybe when the codex comes out, we'll see some good detachment that can do these things.
Too little data, just a smattering of ppl testing new stuff. These are not trends just a bunch of red herrings it feels like.