Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Malkyr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Cultists aren't a 5 point model, and making them 5 points doesn't suddenly make Chaos Marines an option.

With the strategems available to them plus Abaddon or an Iron Warriors warlord Cultists are probably a 6 or 7 point model (assuming Marines stay 13 and Daemons are still 7). I currently own 60 and that still isn't enough for "competitive play" in my opinion, though I never wanted to play a horde army with CSM.

You play under the assumption that they'll have a Strategem active each turn compared to another unit that can be targeted for that. Iron Warriors requires you to build in a specific direction, and Abigail locks you into a trait that's useless overall.

No, Cultists are just worth it at 4 points. 5 points is ridiculous.

Ice_can wrote:
Same but really infantry squads beat cultists hands down if they are 5ppm I can see a lot of salt from choas player's.
It also maybe that GW has learned from 2017 and is keeping the saltest nerfs under lock and key to prevent pre release complaining.

I wouldn't even mind 5 ppm that much, even as a Guard player. I will be happy for conscripts to be cheaper than infantry, as having them at the same cost makes them almost completely pointless.I can see myself taking 6 squads and 40 conscripts over the current 9 squads I take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had forgotten that the Emperor's Blade was a previous formation, centred around hellhounds and chimera veterans. Will be interesting to see if veterans get a boost from it, as they are a rarer choice these days.

Mandragola wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No invul. near objectives hits some armies pretty hard (hello Harlequins) and some not at all (mostly hordes of most flavours), but generally the idea is great as it makes holding an objective for a point vs. making a unit more vulnerable an actual risk-assessment and thus skill-based decision vs. the tactically irrelevant no-brainer it is currently, which is what you want in tournaments.

Dropping the atrocious CA17 first-turn rule that made drop-count-management a strategic irrelevancy is also great.



Point increase on cultists IMO wasn't the way to go. Should've stayed at their price but lost access to all stratagems not explicitly designed for them (as with Gretchin) IMO would have been the way both balance-wise and fluff-wise (they aren't usually VoTLW, etc..).

Woah, I hadn't spotted that they'd gone back to auto first turns. That's huge. It's actually a pretty big nerf for soup armies and anyone who fields multiple detachments. It's a major bonus for my knights and a decent one for my marines - if I can fit them all into three repulsors.

I definitely agree on cultists. They are not chaos marines, and obviously shouldn't get access to legion traits and the like. I wouldn't mind if they got their own thing, so that khorne cultists were different to nurgle ones. You could do something like how IG vehicles get different rules to infantry from the same regiment. There's just no way they should just count as alpha legion veterans of the long war.

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

Also the new Acceptable Casualties invalidates the Boots on the Ground rule, so Flyers can keep you in the game now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Malkyr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Cultists aren't a 5 point model, and making them 5 points doesn't suddenly make Chaos Marines an option.

With the strategems available to them plus Abaddon or an Iron Warriors warlord Cultists are probably a 6 or 7 point model (assuming Marines stay 13 and Daemons are still 7). I currently own 60 and that still isn't enough for "competitive play" in my opinion, though I never wanted to play a horde army with CSM.

You play under the assumption that they'll have a Strategem active each turn compared to another unit that can be targeted for that. Iron Warriors requires you to build in a specific direction, and Abigail locks you into a trait that's useless overall.

No, Cultists are just worth it at 4 points. 5 points is ridiculous.

The fact that they're seen in massive numbers in every competitive chaos list since the dawn of the edition would suggest otherwise. Don't get me wrong, hitting cultists means that Chaos definitely need to be given back power somewhere else, but it's not totally ridiculous to hit the most powerful unit in the codex.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
6ppm guardsman is completely stupid on top of the fact that vet’s cost that, infantry squad like cultists will go to 5 ppm

Not saying that Guardsmen won't go up, but I have been looking for that rumour in all the different sources and it has never really come up. The only time it is referenced is 3rd hand and people wishlisting. I would have expected such a rumour to be one of the primary things people look up/remember if they had their hands on the primary source. Let's just say I wouldn't really be surprised either way at this point.

Right? It drives me batty. If I were the one who had access to the CA the very first thing I'd look for is IS point costs.

Same but really infantry squads beat cultists hands down if they are 5ppm I can see a lot of salt from choas player's.
It also maybe that GW has learned from 2017 and is keeping the saltest nerfs under lock and key to prevent pre release complaining.

IS at 6 points wouldn't be unwarranted in my opinion, but it definitely would cause waves! It's amazing that they've kept it under lock for so long and even had the balls to call out cultists first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No invul. near objectives hits some armies pretty hard (hello Harlequins) and some not at all (mostly hordes of most flavours), but generally the idea is great as it makes holding an objective for a point vs. making a unit more vulnerable an actual risk-assessment and thus skill-based decision vs. the tactically irrelevant no-brainer it is currently, which is what you want in tournaments.

Dropping the atrocious CA17 first-turn rule that made drop-count-management a strategic irrelevancy is also great.



Point increase on cultists IMO wasn't the way to go. Should've stayed at their price but lost access to all stratagems not explicitly designed for them (as with Gretchin) IMO would have been the way both balance-wise and fluff-wise (they aren't usually VoTLW, etc..).

Woah, I hadn't spotted that they'd gone back to auto first turns. That's huge. It's actually a pretty big nerf for soup armies and anyone who fields multiple detachments. It's a major bonus for my knights and a decent one for my marines - if I can fit them all into three repulsors.

I definitely agree on cultists. They are not chaos marines, and obviously shouldn't get access to legion traits and the like. I wouldn't mind if they got their own thing, so that khorne cultists were different to nurgle ones. You could do something like how IG vehicles get different rules to infantry from the same regiment. There's just no way they should just count as alpha legion veterans of the long war.

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

Not stupid. Think about it for a moment - going second is a big advantage. Picking to go second would be the only choice. Forcing one to go first "fixes" that.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Also the new Acceptable Casualties invalidates the Boots on the Ground rule, so Flyers can keep you in the game now.

Which is fine, if it's a rule in "some" missions and not all of them. Flyers wouldn't be able to hold the centre objective in the previewed mission anyhow.

A good tournament (or a good set of tournament missions) will mix it up. You'll have objective -heavy missions, than maybe kill points, than a spoiler mission like the Relic or this one, which provides an incentive against mathhammering solely for kill points and/or board control., etc...

40K just becomes dumb and skill-free, if the win-conditions are always certain, knowable in advance and mostly unchanging, such as always Maelstrom or always "hold something, kill something", where players don't need to have the skill to adapt to radically different win-conditions with the same army and can just execute the rote game plan their army was made for over and over and over again without risk of an upset.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Also the new Acceptable Casualties invalidates the Boots on the Ground rule, so Flyers can keep you in the game now.

Not the same. Boots on the Ground means flyers can't control objectives. This doesn't conflict with that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
6ppm guardsman is completely stupid on top of the fact that vet’s cost that, infantry squad like cultists will go to 5 ppm

Not saying that Guardsmen won't go up, but I have been looking for that rumour in all the different sources and it has never really come up. The only time it is referenced is 3rd hand and people wishlisting. I would have expected such a rumour to be one of the primary things people look up/remember if they had their hands on the primary source. Let's just say I wouldn't really be surprised either way at this point.

Right? It drives me batty. If I were the one who had access to the CA the very first thing I'd look for is IS point costs.

Same but really infantry squads beat cultists hands down if they are 5ppm I can see a lot of salt from choas player's.
It also maybe that GW has learned from 2017 and is keeping the saltest nerfs under lock and key to prevent pre release complaining.

IS at 6 points wouldn't be unwarranted in my opinion, but it definitely would cause waves! It's amazing that they've kept it under lock for so long and even had the balls to call out cultists first.

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

 ph34r wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
6ppm guardsman is completely stupid on top of the fact that vet’s cost that, infantry squad like cultists will go to 5 ppm

Not saying that Guardsmen won't go up, but I have been looking for that rumour in all the different sources and it has never really come up. The only time it is referenced is 3rd hand and people wishlisting. I would have expected such a rumour to be one of the primary things people look up/remember if they had their hands on the primary source. Let's just say I wouldn't really be surprised either way at this point.

Right? It drives me batty. If I were the one who had access to the CA the very first thing I'd look for is IS point costs.

Same but really infantry squads beat cultists hands down if they are 5ppm I can see a lot of salt from choas player's.
It also maybe that GW has learned from 2017 and is keeping the saltest nerfs under lock and key to prevent pre release complaining.

IS at 6 points wouldn't be unwarranted in my opinion, but it definitely would cause waves! It's amazing that they've kept it under lock for so long and even had the balls to call out cultists first.

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

Given vets are elites not troops and a not taken in competitive lists why would they need a points increase.
Really why can't they be the same points with just more expensive weapons? Infantry arn't just good they are borderline offensively OP at 4ppm.

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Mandragola wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No invul. near objectives hits some armies pretty hard (hello Harlequins) and some not at all (mostly hordes of most flavours), but generally the idea is great as it makes holding an objective for a point vs. making a unit more vulnerable an actual risk-assessment and thus skill-based decision vs. the tactically irrelevant no-brainer it is currently, which is what you want in tournaments.

Dropping the atrocious CA17 first-turn rule that made drop-count-management a strategic irrelevancy is also great.



Point increase on cultists IMO wasn't the way to go. Should've stayed at their price but lost access to all stratagems not explicitly designed for them (as with Gretchin) IMO would have been the way both balance-wise and fluff-wise (they aren't usually VoTLW, etc..).

Woah, I hadn't spotted that they'd gone back to auto first turns. That's huge. It's actually a pretty big nerf for soup armies and anyone who fields multiple detachments. It's a major bonus for my knights and a decent one for my marines - if I can fit them all into three repulsors.

I definitely agree on cultists. They are not chaos marines, and obviously shouldn't get access to legion traits and the like. I wouldn't mind if they got their own thing, so that khorne cultists were different to nurgle ones. You could do something like how IG vehicles get different rules to infantry from the same regiment. There's just no way they should just count as alpha legion veterans of the long war.

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

Player 2 now gets to completely counter deploy and then still gets an opportunity to seize. That's a good thing.

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Malkyr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Cultists aren't a 5 point model, and making them 5 points doesn't suddenly make Chaos Marines an option.

With the strategems available to them plus Abaddon or an Iron Warriors warlord Cultists are probably a 6 or 7 point model (assuming Marines stay 13 and Daemons are still 7). I currently own 60 and that still isn't enough for "competitive play" in my opinion, though I never wanted to play a horde army with CSM.

You play under the assumption that they'll have a Strategem active each turn compared to another unit that can be targeted for that. Iron Warriors requires you to build in a specific direction, and Abigail locks you into a trait that's useless overall.

No, Cultists are just worth it at 4 points. 5 points is ridiculous.

The fact that they're seen in massive numbers in every competitive chaos list since the dawn of the edition would suggest otherwise. Don't get me wrong, hitting cultists means that Chaos definitely need to be given back power somewhere else, but it's not totally ridiculous to hit the most powerful unit in the codex.

The fact they're seen so much suggests how bad the Chaos Marine profile is, seeing as once you have other troop choices in a Legion they surprisingly get taken. Ya know, since the dawn of this edition AND previous editions.

Shocker.

 ph34r wrote:

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

As someone already mentioned, they are different roles.

And good/bad is relative. If infantry squad goes to 5-6ppm, conscripts look pretty good relative to it. The fact is IS is one of the most popular units in the game. Do you really not see an issue in game balance with that?

If the points go up, relatively speaking, MEQ and TEQ look better.

IG vets being Elites instead of Troops on top of getting rid of the Platoon system is the issue.

Some may think 5ppm Cultists are ridiculous, others might see 40pt min Troops as equally ridiculous.

Some guy on TSons FB confirmed TS point changes, but denied the smite change. He seems pretty confident in any case.

With the Wraith Knight down like 100 points I think the changes on Greater Daemons have to be true. They cant be so close to the Knight.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IG vets being Elites instead of Troops on top of getting rid of the Platoon system is the issue.

Eh, I don't see elite Veterans as that big a deal. You can still take Vanguard detachments. Obsec is nice but you can adapt to not having it.

I think the problem with infantry squads is there are two different ways to take them. You have pure Guard lists using them for the heavy lifting, and you have stuff like the loyal 32 and people using them only as a cheap screen. Trying to balance both of those aspects with a single point difference is pretty difficult.

Necronplayer wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

As someone already mentioned, they are different roles.

And good/bad is relative. If infantry squad goes to 5-6ppm, conscripts look pretty good relative to it. The fact is IS is one of the most popular units in the game. Do you really not see an issue in game balance with that?

Veteran/Infantry Squads are effectively the same damn thing. 10 models with a HWT, Sergeant, Vox, and Special Weapon. The only difference is that the Veteran Squad can ditch an additional 2 Lasguns for Special Weapons that the Infantry Squad can't.

Infantry Squads are "one of the most popular units in the game" because it lets schmucks cheese the Command Point system. That's where the vast majority of "the popularity" is coming from.
Conscripts aren't going to see a resurgence. It just ain't gonna happen. The effectiveness there was Conscripts and Commissars, Commissars are trash tier now. They're worse versions of Ethereals from the Tau's original release.

Nobody whined this much about Guard Infantry Squads for editions prior. Remove the ability to cheese the CPs with Brigades and we can shut nonsense like yours down.

 mokoshkana wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Mandragola wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No invul. near objectives hits some armies pretty hard (hello Harlequins) and some not at all (mostly hordes of most flavours), but generally the idea is great as it makes holding an objective for a point vs. making a unit more vulnerable an actual risk-assessment and thus skill-based decision vs. the tactically irrelevant no-brainer it is currently, which is what you want in tournaments.

Dropping the atrocious CA17 first-turn rule that made drop-count-management a strategic irrelevancy is also great.



Point increase on cultists IMO wasn't the way to go. Should've stayed at their price but lost access to all stratagems not explicitly designed for them (as with Gretchin) IMO would have been the way both balance-wise and fluff-wise (they aren't usually VoTLW, etc..).

Woah, I hadn't spotted that they'd gone back to auto first turns. That's huge. It's actually a pretty big nerf for soup armies and anyone who fields multiple detachments. It's a major bonus for my knights and a decent one for my marines - if I can fit them all into three repulsors.

I definitely agree on cultists. They are not chaos marines, and obviously shouldn't get access to legion traits and the like. I wouldn't mind if they got their own thing, so that khorne cultists were different to nurgle ones. You could do something like how IG vehicles get different rules to infantry from the same regiment. There's just no way they should just count as alpha legion veterans of the long war.

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

Player 2 now gets to completely counter deploy and then still gets an opportunity to seize. That's a good thing.

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that they do this way for 20 years, then decide to switch it for 8th, and then switch it right back.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

As someone already mentioned, they are different roles.

And good/bad is relative. If infantry squad goes to 5-6ppm, conscripts look pretty good relative to it. The fact is IS is one of the most popular units in the game. Do you really not see an issue in game balance with that?

Veteran/Infantry Squads are effectively the same damn thing. 10 models with a HWT, Sergeant, Vox, and Special Weapon. The only difference is that the Veteran Squad can ditch an additional 2 Lasguns for Special Weapons that the Infantry Squad can't.

Infantry Squads are "one of the most popular units in the game" because it lets schmucks cheese the Command Point system. That's where the vast majority of "the popularity" is coming from.
Conscripts aren't going to see a resurgence. It just ain't gonna happen. The effectiveness there was Conscripts and Commissars, Commissars are trash tier now. They're worse versions of Ethereals from the Tau's original release.

Nobody whined this much about Guard Infantry Squads for editions prior. Remove the ability to cheese the CPs with Brigades and we can shut nonsense like yours down.

I mean, I don't disagree with you. I'm all for shifting the loyal 32 meta. But if the last FAQ is any indication on GWs stance on CP farm/generation, they mean for it to stay.

ERJAK wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Mandragola wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
No invul. near objectives hits some armies pretty hard (hello Harlequins) and some not at all (mostly hordes of most flavours), but generally the idea is great as it makes holding an objective for a point vs. making a unit more vulnerable an actual risk-assessment and thus skill-based decision vs. the tactically irrelevant no-brainer it is currently, which is what you want in tournaments.

Dropping the atrocious CA17 first-turn rule that made drop-count-management a strategic irrelevancy is also great.



Point increase on cultists IMO wasn't the way to go. Should've stayed at their price but lost access to all stratagems not explicitly designed for them (as with Gretchin) IMO would have been the way both balance-wise and fluff-wise (they aren't usually VoTLW, etc..).

Woah, I hadn't spotted that they'd gone back to auto first turns. That's huge. It's actually a pretty big nerf for soup armies and anyone who fields multiple detachments. It's a major bonus for my knights and a decent one for my marines - if I can fit them all into three repulsors.

I definitely agree on cultists. They are not chaos marines, and obviously shouldn't get access to legion traits and the like. I wouldn't mind if they got their own thing, so that khorne cultists were different to nurgle ones. You could do something like how IG vehicles get different rules to infantry from the same regiment. There's just no way they should just count as alpha legion veterans of the long war.

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

Player 2 now gets to completely counter deploy and then still gets an opportunity to seize. That's a good thing.

That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that they do this way for 20 years, then decide to switch it for 8th, and then switch it right back.

You mean they realized something didn't work and decided to fix it? That is stupid...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Some guy on TSons FB confirmed TS point changes, but denied the smite change. He seems pretty confident in any case.

Points going up/down or did he not elaborate?

 Trickstick wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IG vets being Elites instead of Troops on top of getting rid of the Platoon system is the issue.

Eh, I don't see elite Veterans as that big a deal. You can still take Vanguard detachments. Obsec is nice but you can adapt to not having it.

I think the problem with infantry squads is there are two different ways to take them. You have pure Guard lists using them for the heavy lifting, and you have stuff like the loyal 32 and people using them only as a cheap screen. Trying to balance both of those aspects with a single point difference is pretty difficult.

Those Vanguard detachments aren't giving you 5CP for 180 points and arn't ObSec.
Guardsmen and their officers giving the cheapest 5CP and the most point efficient troops for the points was downright dangerous hence why they were in every imperial list since the conscript nerf.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

The only good IG infantry unit that is good is the Infantry Squad and you want to make them cost 50% more? Do Veterans, who are already bad, get worse? Do all IG infantry models just no longer get taken ever?

As someone already mentioned, they are different roles.

And good/bad is relative. If infantry squad goes to 5-6ppm, conscripts look pretty good relative to it. The fact is IS is one of the most popular units in the game. Do you really not see an issue in game balance with that?

Veteran/Infantry Squads are effectively the same damn thing. 10 models with a HWT, Sergeant, Vox, and Special Weapon. The only difference is that the Veteran Squad can ditch an additional 2 Lasguns for Special Weapons that the Infantry Squad can't.

Infantry Squads are "one of the most popular units in the game" because it lets schmucks cheese the Command Point system. That's where the vast majority of "the popularity" is coming from.
Conscripts aren't going to see a resurgence. It just ain't gonna happen. The effectiveness there was Conscripts and Commissars, Commissars are trash tier now. They're worse versions of Ethereals from the Tau's original release.

Nobody whined this much about Guard Infantry Squads for editions prior. Remove the ability to cheese the CPs with Brigades and we can shut nonsense like yours down.

IS aren't just for CP. They actually do their job really well.

First Strike seems a pleasant change, as both players can potentially score it.

ERJAK wrote:

Wait a second...did anyone else read the full deployment rules on that mission? It says 'one player deploys their ENTIRE ARMY first and then the other player deploys THEIR ENTIRE ARMY, and then it says 'whoever finishes deploying first, goes first' which means the player who deployed first goes first, drop count is irrelevant because you don't alternate deployments.

Their mission design is stupid.(just like auto first turns based on what faction you brought. And that is what decides it, faction. Not 'tactics'.)

This is how deployment worked in several previous editions. Basically if you deploy and go first for the sweet alpha strike, your opponent can counter-deploy to mitigate the alpha strike and swoop in on objectives. Not always perfect, but I at least found that it generally did work better than the "alternate deploy then roll to see who goes first" that 8E and 3E/4E used.

Usually saves time as well. Strategically, you give up first turn in most cases in favour of deploying to counter.

 Sasori wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Some guy on TSons FB confirmed TS point changes, but denied the smite change. He seems pretty confident in any case.

Points going up/down or did he not elaborate?

Down I had heard though any word on Wargear?

Assuming these points changes to Thousand Sons are accurate, is this enough to actually make Rubrics and Scarabs worth using? I know in the past they've been borderline.