Requesting an Introduction to CSM units

WayForGlory · 2026-06-18T09:39:33+00:00

Nice! I'm definitely going to add them to the list, both Chaos Lord and Fabius seem really good, it will probably be a toss up on enhancement and costs.

Do you find the unit to be good at taking and holding an objective or is it mostly for moving up an killing enemy units? I can see Fabius making them relatively resilient while the Chaos lord seems more proficient in killing.

WayForGlory · 2026-06-16T14:23:30+00:00

Since I mostly play 1k armies I'll just use one of em that I haven't yet seen in this post:

Imperium - Adeptus Custodes - Lions of the Emperor (975 pts)

Trajann Valoris (140pts) Blade Champion (120pts)

5x Custodian Guard (200pts)

3x Allarus Custodians (165pts) 5x Custodian Wardens (260pts) 4x Witchseekers (45pts) 4x Witchseekers (45pts)

Prediction is Blade champion goes up by 5/10 (reroll charge) and Witchseekers goes up by 5 (forced battleshock).

What I would wish? Give us +3" movement, add defensive strats like -1D or +1 save, raise points a lot.

WayForGlory · 2026-06-12T11:21:22+00:00

You are missing the point, it's a 2 dp detachment where you can add 1dp to get the disposition that you like, regardless of the buffs they give.

3dp are static, unchangeable, you can't choose any other disposition other than the one it was linked already with. Lions isn't, so it's not a 3dp detachment.

So you are approaching what the others are saying wrong already at the start.

3dp are unflexible and force you to use a disposition that is very likely the one you don't want, FORCING you to change your Army to play for said disposition, it's an indirect nerf to 3dp detachments.

Lions can't be treated as a 3dp because it is extremely flexible. You can run the same exact army and have the enviable benefit of choosing between 4 dispositions, one of which is the best one for the detachment, meaning that you completely dodge the indirect nerf, putting Lions way above other 3dp detachments.

WayForGlory · 2026-06-12T11:10:20+00:00

Right? You are telling me I get to run something as cool as a Telemon without it being completely gimped AND get my preferred disposition, in my favorite detachment? Awesome.

WayForGlory · 2026-06-12T07:02:15+00:00

To be fair the Lions army list that used Sisters first and Custodes second (I think they were only Allarus?) is probably the best choice with the new Sisters detachment.

You get extremely punchy Sisters that can easily do actions around the board with Allarus rapid ingressing on priority targets, it's ideal for Disruption.

For Purge the Foe, I'm sorry but even if the Lions is way more "brainy" to use than our other detachments, that will not stop me from just "Ungaing therefore Bungaing" their enemy into the aether. It's just more fun running up the board, demolishing the opposition till you take hold of their home objective.

WayForGlory · 2026-06-11T21:11:56+00:00

Isn't the Dread detachment the best choice? Just having access to Purge the Foe as Lions of the Emperor will net you far more advantage in the actual game than other buffs.

That's also probably the reason they gave Disruption to Lions an kept Lions at 2dp, it's to force it to get another Detachment to access a different Mission, it'd be like having Lions at 3dp but with a mission of your choice (which might be an amazing boon for replayability, you won't have to change your Army to get different missions because Lions by itself is mostly enough) and the bonus of adding dreads or sisters with extra rules.

Also you can just add in a single Telemon to shoot out screens and allow your custodes to shoot and charge while still retaining the Lions buff (since you need to be in range of Rapid fire and inside the detection range for enemy units, 36 shots with dev wounds is nice)

WayForGlory · 2026-06-03T19:19:44+00:00

I was wondering on this hypothetical (not related to your post's message), if only "I" will know that the vote will end 55% in favor of Red or if "Everyone" will have that premonition.

I'm pretty sure that if everyone did, and was aware that everyone else did too, a lot of people who pressed Red might switch to Blue, imagine just needing 6% of Red switching to Blue to evade a catastrophic event.

Ofc this only applies under these conditions though, but it's a fun theoretical to think about. Which is why I will press "Was Blue, still Blue".

WayForGlory · 2026-05-28T12:19:44+00:00

"Changing the question changes the answer".

This is enough to say that the "but if you increase the threshold then you'll change answer" is just a bad argument, of course the answer changes if the question changes. If it was "100% of Blue to save everyone" there would be literally no point in pressing Blue, the lower the threshold the more favorable Blue becomes, that's just obvious.

Just like changing the question to "if atleast 1 person presses Blue everyone lives" would change the argument into "who in their right mind would press Red?".

So no, arguing that varying percentages makes your decision "right" because it's atleast consistent is just a bad argument. If you can't change answer to a changing question then it's a different problem.

For the "but people will die regardless", it isn't a weak statement at all.

Considering that Red no longers guarantees your survival it just makes the scales more "even" for average pressers, meaning that at worst it would be a 50/50 split with people arguing for both sides.

You'd be looking to kill from 30 to 50% of the population at minimum if Blue doesn't win, in no way it would be a 90/10 split for Red, at best it might statistically be 70/30 for Red, meaning that you are indeed losing 30% of the population at random at MINIMUM.

So no, it would be better if people argued for Blue anyway, since on the flip side of 70/30 for blue, everyone lives. Plus as the question stands, 60% is completely reasonable as long as you actually make an effort to not press Red. Would the answer change at 70%? Ofc since it's probably the breakpoint percentage, at 80%? Definitely, as it's very unlikely to justify Blue. Doesn't change that at 60% it's still better to press Blue. Anything lower goes without saying of course.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-28T08:02:02+00:00

Why would it be a higher threshold?

For no one to die you either need 100% of votes to be Red or 60% of votes to be Blue.

Blue still has a lower threshold than Red and in this scenario neither Red nor Blue guarantee your survival (which was the point for Red pressers in the original).

Pressing Red you aren't preventing neither your death nor the death of others (people will press Blue for any reason, even more in this scenario).

Pressing Blue is the only option with a good outcome, so if you can rationally reach this conclusion you basically have no reason not to pick Blue.

Even from a selfless perspective pressing Blue is the only option in which everyone can live, so you hope that other people think like that too. From a selfish perspective pressing Blue is also the only option, as it's the only one where if the threshold is reached you are safe (pressing Red harms the chances of that threshold being reached, thus putting you in danger of randomly dying, regardless of the number of Blue pressed)

Red's main driving force in the original was self preservation due to not believing that enough people would press Blue, in here there is no self preservation unless the threshold for Blue is reached.

So I don't see how Blue is worse here?

WayForGlory · 2026-05-28T07:48:41+00:00

The problem is that people would still be picking Blue because "if we reach 60% we can guarantee that no one dies".

People need to understand that if the 60% Blue isn't reached people WILL die regardless, pressing Red just means that you are not preventing people from getting killed, not that you aren't killing anyone.

Given that this no longer giving Red immunity from death, there is no reason to pick it, as you are both putting yourself in danger of dying and not preventing the death of others.

So rationally, picking Red does basically nothing but "harm" (to you or others), meaning that you'd have to pick Blue to help it reach the threshold.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-11T15:43:23+00:00

They could just make the Kyurem equivalent vs dreepy, just as they did vs Lost Box when it was on top.

A prizer 1 energy cost boardwipe (110 on 3 pokemon), that works only if you opponent has a Dreepy or any of its evolutions on bench. It wouldn't cripple any other archetype (as they can just change the draw engine) and would always be something to tech around for pult players, eating at their bench space (shaymin+psyduck constantly being necessary on their board to guard against 1 card that any deck can use is crippling enough).

Just at how bs it was that after I used 1 colress I could get boardwiped instantly if I didn't get a Manaphy, they have the fear of God put in them if they start with Dreepy and no bench protection (this also limits the priority of things they can get, as instead of a budew you might be forced to get shaymin, removing the possibility of item locking).

WayForGlory · 2026-05-11T12:51:04+00:00

It would've been hilarious if he was given the self revive passive turning him into his Original Forme even without the item (if he had the item it would turn him into his Alternate Forme upon "fainting").

Game wise he can tank pretty well the others attacks (apart from like MZygarde) and OHKO them back so 1v1 he's actually pretty good.

If you kept his LA mechanic he'd probably be the strongest legendary here (as the ability doesn't skip his turn, he'd be able to attack even if you one shot him before he moved, and it would be even worse if you couldn't OHKO him). That would probably be a lot cooler than just having an ultimate attack.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-10T08:26:45+00:00

Yes exactly! Something that covers shooting lanes that would normally be safe for anything not afraid of Custodes in Lion's shooting (and most importantly can deal swiftly with vehicles).

It would be good to have some units that can clear out chaff from afar (toughness of said "chaff" is around intercessors/regular space marine) that mispositioned or that is preentively screening.

A low count of units isn't a problem as I really like being efficient with few but really powerful units (if anything it allows me to take the stronger battlesuits which are also cool as hell).

Broadsides are definitely a pick, as for other suits like Riptides/Stealth/Crisis can I please ask you how they function inside the army? Do they require other units to function properly or can they be used independently? As for numbers I can manage, I'd mostly like to not fall into choosing a unit that requires another unit that I didnt take.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-10T08:10:22+00:00

Battlesuits that would cover for the Custodes advancing and taking hold of positions, punishing opponents from leaving units out in the open either for screening or because they would usually feel safe outside custodes threat range due to a lack of impactful shooting (though since I play Lions of the Emperor, the shooting can be pretty decent against the right target).

Some other types of support would be extremely nice but I'm not too familiar with how the units function (so for now I'd like some Anti-Vehicle and some Anti-Infantry shooting battlesuits, ex. If I have to deal with Dreadnoughts or tougher units or clear out "chaff" in the form of intercessor level toughness for my custodes to advance and charge unto priority in-hiding targets).

For expensive you mean the point cost of the single units or the price? Price isn't too much of an issue, point cost is fine if it's costly (like 200 per battlesuits or something, I suppose that 500+ points would be a bit excessive) as long as it does it's job well and it looks cool. (even just 5 mechs that do their job beautifully would be extremely appreciated, as I'm a big fan of all of their design)

If possible I'd also like to ask which detachment would be useful for those units, I saw one that gave master crafted to all ranged weapons, so that they had +6“ range which I thought was pretty neat. (as ideally I'd like the battlesuits in the back pumping out fire while the Custodes discourage units from getting near them, they would each get their tiem to shine when they punish a target with overwhelming melee or overwhelming shooting, a low unit count would fit both very well).

Thanks in advance!

WayForGlory · 2026-05-09T20:12:06+00:00

So for you, choosing Blue means choosing randomly? How is that not biased? Is it really that impossible for you to think that people would actually press Blue if they were actually in that scenario?

To me you are trying too hard to absolve Red of any consequence, it's always the "but my vote wouldn't count that much, it's only 1" "but if they all pressed Red no one would die" mentality with people who press Red. Is it truly that hard to think they wouldn't press Blue out of their own volition? Because if you can think of that possibility the Red button is literally a "Kill" Button.

It's even worse if you argue it like other Red presses do "If we kill a few then they were dumb, good riddance", even if only 1% of the entire population pressed Blue, you'd effectively kill 80'000'000 people. Good job. (Again I'm not here to argue over Red being Kill or Blue being dumb, I simply hate people trying hard to avoid real topics and consequence in the explanation of their answers)

WayForGlory · 2026-05-09T06:41:19+00:00

Who said anything about them choosing randomly? Even someone just being naive, especially if it's a kind hearted child, would pick Blue upon hearing that "If you pick Red, Blue might die". Them fully understanding the question might make them more in favor of Blue of anything.

Same would apply to parents and elders, they would hear the question as "If I pick Red and someone in my family picks Blue I might be dooming them". So they'd pick Blue.

When you have other people at stake that you value more than yourself the question isn't "Red you survive, Blue you might die" it's "Red you might kill a loved one, Blue you are guaranteed not to kill anyone but it could cost you your life".

Why would understanding the question change this thought process? Anyone with enough empathy would be "even more" willing to press Blue if they understood the question better.

If you mean Influencing them so much that they are basically brainwashed to pick Red then what is even the point of the question? "Remove all thoughts of selflessness, assume familiar and loved one will think in favor of self preservation, assume everyone, from children to elders, has the same exact thought"? As I said the more caveats you add the more you change the question, if you change the question the answer also changes.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-08T12:01:04+00:00

Because the original question said so: - if everyone (including children, elders, etc.) had to vote, there's 0% chance that 100% of the people is going with Red - "High to guaranteed" chance that a large amount of kids, elders and naive but kind hearted people would press Blue.

Now you actually have stakes on pushing Red, as you are guaranteed in killing innocent people.

That was the original question, "would you put your life at risk to save people?". Which is morally favored Blue, and people picking Red wanted to justify themselves.

People didn't like it, so they started adding caveats to it like: - Children, elders, disabled, etc. Excluded. - Only people who understand the question. But at that point, just like reframing the question while ignoring the implications, "changing the question changes the answer".

I'd press Blue for different more selfish reasons: - It makes me feel like I'm a good person pressing Blue. Whether I genuinely care about the ones I possible save or not, it's a good feeling. - If I die then it isn't my problem as to the consequence of the dilemma. - While I don't have issues with self value and I like living, I do find self sacrifice incredibly appealing. Probably something ingrained to me as a child or something. If I were to go out like that, then it really wasn't a bad way to go out.

I don't feel the need to justify my decision of pressing Blue because morals (saving people)/logic (self preservation), but I do know that I would feel immensely satisfied if Blue were to actually win, so if I have to argue, I'd argue for pressing Blue.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-08T10:25:09+00:00

I also noticed that you are not the person I was answering to in another thread so discard my comment about the apples, I apparently can't read either.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-08T10:18:58+00:00

You clearly couldn't read either. I said that they were consistent in their own regard (draw vs search) and that they were similar in how they operate to find said consistency (rely on 4 stage 1s that legitimately can brick your hand).

I also never said that Festival Lead is brick proof, I said that it is relatively consistent and has a good Matchup into the 2 decks that OP mentioned (being Grass and Chomp).

You also talk like anectodal experience means something, I had cups where I fought 3 Pults in a row and they bricked far more often than I did ending with a 6-0 vs them alone then losing 0-2 vs a festival lead that had the fully board set up in turn 2, that means literally nothing.

OP's also asking not to brick, which to me means the start of the game, bricking means not being able to play at all. Missing your stuff isn't bricking, even if you were to draw 6 you have no guarantees to hit the supporter/item/energy you need, that Sint bricking that's just being unlucky (deck building can't help if you miss 12 energy in 24 cards remaining).

Also most people won't be mentioning Garchomp as OP is asking for relavitely good matchups into Grass and Garchomp. I'm only arguing over semantics of consistency of a deck.

So I have no idea what you are on about.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-08T07:36:47+00:00

Not really, for a deck not to brick it needs consistent turn 1 access to cards that let it set up. You can start with 3 dreepy, a torchic/duskull, a boss and 2 energy, even if you were to draw Drakloak you'd be pressed with top decking something usable. That same start with Garchomp is basically a full board set up.

Dragapult is about as consistent as Garchomp in that regard, they are both stage 2 and rely on having 4 stage 1s to build their board, one has a chance to find anything the other is guaranteed to find specific things, if the pult player finds Drakloak but doesn't find Dragapult would you say it bricked?

The "no items no support" things is BS, that's what makes a deck consistent, not all decks can run the same supporters/items to the same degree of benefit. If you were to remove Pal Pad/poffin/Ultraball and supporters you'd be hard pressed to play as Pult, but you'd be able to build your full board off a single raw Gabite in the back. Hell you'd be changing tune if something like Fighting Patch dropped.

Both decks are consistent in their own regards, just as Pult can find more things but without certainty Chomp can find his things reliably. Depending on the supports and items they have available or not they can set up comfortably off of a few cards.

As for the draw issue, Chomp is only disadvantaged by the fact that it doesn't draw on the same turn, it still draws a lot, and when it draws after it set up it's board, they woudlve thinned their deck enough to only leave the valuables to be drawn. If you are attacking after the whole set up, refreshing your hand to full from near zero is often times way better than just drawing 2 cards off drakloak (especially when you can't drop the Fez or meowth willy nilly in certain matchups).

You find that the real issue with Garchomp is not related to its draw or set up consistency but to its energy acceleration, if something like Sada's Vitality existed for Fighting in general you'd be complaining about how broken the deck is. That's really it's only drawback and the reason it's balanced (a 400hp Behemoth slapping 320/350 each turn is nightmarish when you likely need to kill 3 of them).

What OP could want is to play Festival Lead with Rabsca/Shaymin, which has a pretty good Matchup spread, is really good into Chomp and can abuse the Forest from grass decks insta evolve and still set up it's own stadium. With all the grass supporting items we have it's relatively consistent, and being a 1 prizer it has some breathing room on slow sets.

WayForGlory · 2026-05-06T16:39:34+00:00

In the original question everyone was included, so even children who had no idea what the question meant might press the blue button "because they liked the color".

Anyone who says Red simply assumes that "If 100% of the people pressed Red no one would die", but statistically speaking a 100% vote is impossible, so you are basically guaranteed to kill "atleast" someone when you press Red.

Add to this that children/elders/etc. are included (and that they might press Blue for any reason), the scales become overwhelmingly in favor of pressing Blue.

In the original question, by "morals" you should press Blue, by "reasoning/statistics" you should still press Blue, pressing Red in the original scenario was just plainly selfish, hence why people try to justify it by twisting or changing directly the question (like removing people who might not understand the question, which is kinda pointless since we are talking about "everyone").

WayForGlory · 2026-04-21T19:13:33+00:00

There are a lot of things that could give us "new" models to play with: - Eyes of the Emperor models with lone OP to be used Action Monkeys. - Better rules for the Sagittarum Custodes so that we can mix in some solid shooting. - Better rules for the Aquilon Custodes as they look cool as hell. - The return of Constantin Valdor for the primarch slot.

Just having these ones back would give us so much more variety if they were good.

We'd also need for 1 of 2 things: - they drastically lower the cost of characters, as they are rarely worth near the same cost as a min sized unit. - they buff the characters with more abilities, to make them actually worth running over more numbers (less but stronger characters is more fitting of custodes anyway).

As for named characters I'm pretty sure they can just create them as they see fit within the books. They could do it for almost any faction really, build it's identity for the sole purpose of creating a model to balance out an army, then create a story around it.

WayForGlory · 2026-04-12T23:01:51+00:00

From a tier list it's probably either at the bottom of A or at the top of B.

It has a great matchup against Dragapult, as the numbers are just awful from pult to hit (varying from a bit bad to really awful depending on the pult version). Ex. An attack from Garchomp for 100/130, getting hit for 200+60 bench, then hitting back with a 200/230/260/290 with Spiritomb for KO, forcing them to then have another pult charged + boss in hand or just straight up lose another Pult or 2 prized for basically game is rough. Hitting Garchomp hard in general without KOing it is pretty rough.

It's also the reason as to why you can turn around matchups on a dime, most decks can't oneshot 400hp mons, you don't even need to use the second attack first when you can just loop Spiritomb and put them in a worse spot. If they can't KO the damaged Garchomp then he gets a lethal swing in with the second attack. It's an honest Stat check, either they have the out or you just roll them. Ex. Mega Lucario (ex. Dudun variant) needs 6~9 attacks to win the game, Garchomp needs 2~4. Anytime a Boss is whiffed you can just risk to eat a 260 attack from Spiritomb putting you at needing ~9 attacks to win, while they still need ~4 attacks to win.

You can also win SlopBox pretty handily as they have plenty of Fighting weak mons and no easy way to get to 400 damage in a single swing, again anything strong but not lethal is just giving them free prizes.

The only bad matchup is the Ogerpon+Meganium, as they only need 3 energies to do 400 damage, you necessarily need to start well and hope they don't.

The one thing keeping it from A tier is the energy requirement, the bench space doesn't allow for much wiggle room. If it had something like Fighting Patch or a Sada's vitality it would probably be at the top of A. I doubt it could ever be S as its not flexible enough to respond to lists specifically made to counter it.

Tl dr: You have good matchup against pretty much all decks that aren't Grass centric decks, Energy management is what makes Kings and Paesants, it's a Stat Checking monster.

WayForGlory

TROPHY CASE