Night Lords (Bricky) VS Adeptus Custodes (Ates) | LIVE Battle Report Warhammer 40K 10th Edition 

The witcher crossover was dope ngl.

Yoooo-! I've been wanting that forever and I absolutely cannot wait to see him on there!

@@theholts7111 same man

Stop I can't take it anymore

LISTEN! Hear me and OBEY!

Pog beacon. . .

"By Azura, I'm about to pitch this bitch into a lake-"

NO PLEASE

He's practicing for Play On

Average Air Canada L.

I came to the comments to find this one lol. As soon as he mentioned playon.

But it is, isn’t it? Bricky on left, his hand shows up on left. It was messed up but they fixed it like two episodes ago.

You can still have thematic armies though even if there are no rules distinction. If your orks are black and red then you can always say they are Goffs, if your loyalist marines are green with lots of flamethrowers and no primarch then you can say they are Salamanders and if your eldar hurt the eyes with lots of wraithguard who look like Marge Simpson then you can always say they are Craftworld Lyanden. If you aren't going to embrace the thematics then you probably don't need to bother with any more than just assembling models and painting them according to templates because the rules don't say you can change the characters positions or add embellishment. Plus you're trying to convince chaos of truth. They deny your imperial truth.

@@consolescrub4031 That’s ridiculous. My army certainly looks like Night Lords. It just plays like every other CSM faction that doesn’t have its own rules though. It might as well be Alpha Legion or Iron Warriors. Yeah, I could bring all my Raptors and Warp Talons, but they don’t do anything special. Might as well be Word Bearers. I’ve been playing this game for 30 years. Seen a lot of strange choices and changes from 1st edition to now. I’m really enjoying 10th so far, but I don’t like the sameness. I want Ulthwe to play like they are. Same with Imperial Fists and Night Lords. My army is clearly Night Lords to use your example, they just don’t play like it.

@@TheSniperGTO Firstly I do have to agree that 10th edition currently doesn't have much support for subfactions (I can understand that though considering each new subfaction added which is competitively legal has to be roughly balanced against every other possible subfaction or you get things like the aeldari stomp we saw at the start of this edition but even more lopsided). I'm glad you're enjoying 10th edition but I would suggest in the absence of specific rules for it you might need to consider whether you want to play thematically or competitively. Yes the units you field don't play differently depending on the colour but you can make your army feel more thematic by the units you field and how you field them. You could get the feel of Iron Warriors by using few daemonic units beyond daemon engines and obliterators while taking as many havocs and terminator bricks as you can get away with, then blasting everything which approaches an objective while you curse whoever assigned you this match up or you could go for Word Bearers by leaning hard into the daemonic units like possessed and bringing enough cultists to make your opponent think you're playing guard before you just try weigh down the enemy units with disposable flesh and dark sorcery. Mechanically the colour of the paint and the faction you declare yourself as has no impact currently (beyond a few exceptions) but you can use it to decide how you build your armies. If you really want it to feel different and you're playing with friends in a casual setting you could always have a pregame agreement to let you use 9th edition Night Lord stratagems instead of 10th edition Chaos Space Marines ones. The rules are designed for a competitive setting anyway so changing them for a casual game should hardly be world ending and if you're looking to play Night Lords competitively are you trying to win by playing the strongest things possible or in spite of the fact you're running a thematic list? It's a broken record by now but while two armies might use the same ruleset, they can feel and play differently based on the units the army contains and how the person chooses to play them. (Obviously not as differently as if they had their own separate subfaction rules but I'm uncertain how repeating that here changes things so sometimes we have to choose between making do or not playing at all.)

@@consolescrub4031 I totally get that. I still play, and enjoy it, I just miss the, I don’t know, flavor everyone had. Like I said, I’ve been playing for 30+ and have 11 or 12 armies. Right now, I switched to Death Guard and Grey Knights after crushing everybody with Eldar (I have a big enough army to rule of 3 all of the gamebreakers). Maybe when the codex drops, they will have some army rules you can look at and clearly see “this is Salamanders”…or “this one is clearly Night Lords.” I mean, I put them on the table and did well, they just didn’t feel Night Lordy to me. I have HH for that now.

@@TheSniperGTOFair enough and it's good you have the options to do so. Honestly I'm more concerned for those starting out in the hobby and trying to build an army based on a subfaction whose lore they are interested in (especially as the price could be a bit restrictive for a result which may struggle against experienced players). Hopefully this will be an area for improvement with new codices although I hesitate to estimate when we would likely get these additions especially for the less popular factions like Death Guard. In an ideal world we would have tabletop rules for all the subfactions including named characters, all the unique weapons and tools named in books (within some limits, like maybe keep exterminatus off the table) along with fluffy stratagems and enhancements which are balanced enough to be within ~3% winrate of every other subfaction but I don't see this happening before the actual year 40,000.

Battlescribe more than likely.

It calls out except for Armor saves so he can't affect AP at all

Like that time a Custode 1v1'd a lord of skulls...and won?

TBF, that one had a name.@@ardynamberglow3124

Yeah so I do believe those are custodian wardens who have a once per game 4+ fnp until the end of phase. As for fight first they changed it in 10th. now no matter what, defender gets to pick activations first, so if the defender has a fight first unit they get to activate even if you charged them.

@@Fizzlenuke what... ight, they need to fix fights first. Charges should ALWAYS come first

​@Psychosurgeonpls havent units with FF always fought first?

@@PVT900 no, charges always cam first as the charging player gained the FF keyword, and because it is that players turn it defaults to them, the defending player ALWAYS gets first activation when alternating however and as a result after a tough unit is charged you will always fight last for every other round you are in combat with them