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.

Makumba wrote:

Dealing with vehicles is definitely not what you want Rubrics for, true. But it's not what you take them for; you don't take a lascannoned-out Predator to kill Cultists.

yes, but if 10x1 and 1x5 csm with 3 plasmaguns rubrics kill meq/geq the same and teq and vehicles better, and they don't cost more then the 1ksons, then the 1ksons make no sense as a unit. 1ksons are like falcons, yes they kill stuff and even have some special rules, but in the end it is just more viable to spam serpents.

Rubrics kill MEQs way better than GEQs. AP3. Sure, they can't take down tanks, but you'd be slowed to spring an entire army of Thousand Sons. You'd also completely dominate the psychic phase.

 vipoid wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

Dealing with vehicles is definitely not what you want Rubrics for, true. But it's not what you take them for; you don't take a lascannoned-out Predator to kill Cultists.

But, this is an edition where your opponent's army can be made up exclusively of vehicles.

So, spending a lot of points on a squad that can only hurt infantry may well seem like a dubious investment (unless, of course, you're lucky enough to have a group that doesn't go in for that kind of crap).

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

 ChazSexington wrote:

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

But, that's the thing - many people don't know what army they'll be facing in advance, and so can't tailor their list against it (and, many people probably wouldn't want to list-tailor anyway).

 vipoid wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

But, that's the thing - many people don't know what army they'll be facing in advance, and so can't tailor their list against it (and, many people probably wouldn't want to list-tailor anyway).

While there are some that have issues with list tailoring, it's basically unavoidable at this level. If you play in any kind of established/regular group, you'll at least know the rough makeup of the meta, and you'd be mad not to adjust your choices accordingly. There's nothing wrong with this at all, it simply demonstrates an awareness of what you're facing and helps you get the best from your units. If you're meta is 60%+ GEQ, you're probably better off leaving the Tsons out. On the other hand, if there's a similar bias towards MEQ, you're probably safe to take them.

 vipoid wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

But, that's the thing - many people don't know what army they'll be facing in advance, and so can't tailor their list against it (and, many people probably wouldn't want to list-tailor anyway).

I could also field just flyers, rendering most armies useless. It's the same argument. You should take well-rounded armies, as mentioned above, to suit your meta and friends. Also, most people play SMs, so you can safely take them almost regardless.

Just because something is useful against a certain set of targets doesn't make it good. Being bad against entire Codexes of target profiles makes you generally bad. No one ever argued that Thousand Sons weren't good at destroying MEQ targets. It was more that having that specialization isn't worthwhile enough against the broad field of armies. You will run into those armies, and you will have grossly overpaid for some bolters. If you're only going to take them against other marines, then you've entered list tailoring territory and it's no different from saying flamers are awesome because they destroy orks and guardsmen, while ignoring their relative uselessness against MEQ. Choices that are good in limited circumstances are bad in general circumstances because the niche where they excel isn't necessarily going to be there.

150 points per warp charge if you're going MSU Thousand Sons (ha) is not dominating a psychic phase where other people are bringing ML3 for that price tag and ML1 Troops for 100. Never mind the part where the aspiring sorc is stuck rolling on the low grade Tzeentch table.

 GreyHamster wrote:
Just because something is useful against a certain set of targets doesn't make it good. Being bad against entire Codexes of target profiles makes you generally bad. No one ever argued that Thousand Sons weren't good at destroying MEQ targets. It was more that having that specialization isn't worthwhile enough against the broad field of armies. You will run into those armies, and you will have grossly overpaid for some bolters. If you're only going to take them against other marines, then you've entered list tailoring territory and it's no different from saying flamers are awesome because they destroy orks and guardsmen, while ignoring their relative uselessness against MEQ. Choices that are good in limited circumstances are bad in general circumstances because the niche where they excel isn't necessarily going to be there.

150 points per warp charge if you're going MSU Thousand Sons (ha) is not dominating a psychic phase where other people are bringing ML3 for that price tag and ML1 Troops for 100. Never mind the part where the aspiring sorc is stuck rolling on the low grade Tzeentch table.

To be honest, I think most armies will be packing something the Tsons will be useful againt. Tau Battlesuits and Necron warriors/Immortals fit the same target profile as Marines, they'll clean up againt Sisters wounding on 3s and ignoring armour. AP3 can help against Nid Warriors and bigger bugs, you're not wounding the latter as often but you're still ignoring its saves. Eldar, DE, orks and Guard it's less useful against, but against anything with a 4+ save (Aspect Warriors, DE Jetbikes I think, Ard Boys/Nobz, Scions/Veterans in Carapace) you're still doing double damage against. There's plenty for them to do well outside of their primary target, and that's before we factor in their durability, psychic potential and potential super-scoring.

I don't think you can really judge 1ksons without factoring the cost and benefits (or lack there of) of the sorc. My only major gripe about 1ksons is the sorc. Even then its really just the Tz power table. If the table had some useful powers on it, the sorc could add the versatility he was meant to, and the unit would be ok. Right now you are paying HQ sorc price for the 1kson aspiring sorc that is vastly inferior because of his power table. Fixing the table would also make the required HQ choice to make 1ksons troops easier to swallow.

Not everyone realizes, but in addition to a marked psyker being required to take at least one god specific power, they're also capped at taking no more than half their powers from that table. There's a maximum because you're supposed to want to take those powers.

 Paradigm wrote:


To be honest, I think most armies will be packing something the Tsons will be useful againt. Tau Battlesuits and Necron warriors/Immortals fit the same target profile as Marines, they'll clean up againt Sisters wounding on 3s and ignoring armour. AP3 can help against Nid Warriors and bigger bugs, you're not wounding the latter as often but you're still ignoring its saves. Eldar, DE, orks and Guard it's less useful against, but against anything with a 4+ save (Aspect Warriors, DE Jetbikes I think, Ard Boys/Nobz, Scions/Veterans in Carapace) you're still doing double damage against. There's plenty for them to do well outside of their primary target, and that's before we factor in their durability, psychic potential and potential super-scoring.

I just ran a Grey Knight list they'd be completely useless against. It's an actual Marine book and there were no 3+ targets for them. I frequently see and run armies where they have no particularly good targets. Tyranid and Necron Warriors are actually only 4+ as well. Usable is not the same as efficient, either. Double damage against 4+ also assumes those units won't be in cover and that you're paying the same points cost for a normal bolter. Because you're paying so much more for the AP3 you're not actually gaining as much as the superficial direct comparison implies, as you are nearly double the price tag of a standard Chaos bolter and it becomes a rather modest increase when you look at the more meaningful damage per point metric. Outside of the MEQ profile it's becoming increasingly more of a 'well, I have it on the table, might as well go for the long shot' moment rather than being an efficient choice.

Their points to durability ratio is awful against small arms for a MEQ unit and frankly even against AP3- it is not great compared to other marines due to cover being a thing. ObSec isn't as meaningful for a high cost, small, and slow infantry unit as it is for disposable or fast choices. Their psychic potential is almost trivial since you are forced into a mediocre power. Being able to cast Warp Breath was a boost but really not enough one. SM Bikes are a far better Troops choice. They have access to cover at will, ObSec, T5, and the ability to take guns that are useful against many target types. They also can move up to four times as fast, and pay less points per wound. In an in-codex Comparison, look at plague marines. T5 and FNP represent an actual durability increase against small arms and FNP is almost as good as 4++ against anything under S10, while they cost the same points per model. This is meaningful because plague marines demand high quality guns to answer them with any degree of efficiency, while thousand sons do not. Access to actual specials broadens the plague marine target access, and they share Fearless and ObSec.

 GreyHamster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


To be honest, I think most armies will be packing something the Tsons will be useful againt. Tau Battlesuits and Necron warriors/Immortals fit the same target profile as Marines, they'll clean up againt Sisters wounding on 3s and ignoring armour. AP3 can help against Nid Warriors and bigger bugs, you're not wounding the latter as often but you're still ignoring its saves. Eldar, DE, orks and Guard it's less useful against, but against anything with a 4+ save (Aspect Warriors, DE Jetbikes I think, Ard Boys/Nobz, Scions/Veterans in Carapace) you're still doing double damage against. There's plenty for them to do well outside of their primary target, and that's before we factor in their durability, psychic potential and potential super-scoring.

I just ran a Grey Knight list they'd be completely useless against. It's an actual Marine book and there were no 3+ targets for them. I frequently see and run armies where they have no particularly good targets. Tyranid and Necron Warriors are actually only 4+ as well. Usable is not the same as efficient, either. Double damage against 4+ also assumes those units won't be in cover and that you're paying the same points cost for a normal bolter. Because you're paying so much more for the AP3 you're not actually gaining as much as the superficial direct comparison implies, as you are nearly double the price tag of a standard Chaos bolter and it becomes a rather modest increase when you look at the more meaningful damage per point metric. Outside of the MEQ profile it's becoming increasingly more of a 'well, I have it on the table, might as well go for the long shot' moment rather than being an efficient choice.

Their points to durability ratio is awful against small arms for a MEQ unit and frankly even against AP3- it is not great compared to other marines due to cover being a thing. ObSec isn't as meaningful for a high cost, small, and slow infantry unit as it is for disposable or fast choices. Their psychic potential is almost trivial since you are forced into a mediocre power. Being able to cast Warp Breath was a boost but really not enough one. SM Bikes are a far better Troops choice. They have access to cover at will, ObSec, T5, and the ability to take guns that are useful against many target types. They also can move up to four times as fast, and pay less points per wound. In an in-codex Comparison, look at plague marines. T5 and FNP represent an actual durability increase against small arms and FNP is almost as good as 4++ against anything under S10, while they cost the same points per model. This is meaningful because plague marines demand high quality guns to answer them with any degree of efficiency, while thousand sons do not. Access to actual specials broadens the plague marine target access, and they share Fearless and ObSec.

Fair point on the GK, but I would point out that armies heavy in 2+ saves are the exception rather than the rule. I am aware that Crons and Nids Warriors are 4+ save, I just lumped them in to save going over each codex twice. As for cover, I imagine it would be very very rare for all their targets to be in cover, so just focus on the ones that aren't. Again, not ideal, but it's the same principle of target selection that one would apply to any AP3/2/1 guns. And if you're doing double damage, and paying less than double the points, you're ahead on that, so against anything 4+ or better, Tsons are doing better than equal points of bolters per model.

Again small arms, you're right, but the same could be said for any marines and people rarely baulk at the cost for Sternguard (only a point less and without the 4++). The 4++ comes into its own when you're trying to hold an objective and the big guns are trying to shift you. As was pointed out before, they're also capable of moving away from cover with no loss in durability.

No-one is saying they're better tha Bikers or Plague Marines, just that they can be used effectively by those who want to use them.

But there is nothing that does everything that 1ksons do better than 1ksons, which means there are times when 1ksons are better than other units. Which means, once again, we're talking about units that are different, not better.

I get (kind of) what you're trying to say but I'm not sure that's a very good point. The problem is that the 1K sons aren't *that* good at any one thing. The biggest complaint about Tac. marines is that they pay a premium to be average at everything. Meaning that, very often, in terms of infantry on infantry, they can often come out on the losing side when you go point for point against other armie's infantry.

1KSons take that to the next level by being even more expensive than the standard marines but having abilities that end up getting in each other's way. Yes, the 4+ invuln is nice, but as someone else asked, how often is someone shooting at 1Ksons with something that would require it. AP3 bolter? Cool! I'll just run them ....oh wait no. S&P. If I don't chunk them in a transport (making them even more expensive) they probably aren't getting into any kind of range to use that effectively.

You also mentioned CC vs monstrous creatures, but the MC is likely only going to enter CC at a time of its chosing (let's face it - Rubrics aren't running anything down), and then you're paying for the AP3 bolter you're not using.

Sometimes, I feel like your arguments for certain units are made in a vacuum. The CSM book has more effective (and less expensive) ways of getting AP3 if I want it. It also has more effective (and less expensive) ways to get additional warp charges (and in an unbound environment that argument becomes pointless), it also has better (and less expensive) ways to take down MCs. So for me the issue isn't what units can do one thing better than than the 1Ksons (because as I mentioned, the swiss army knife approach fails for these guys), I'm still looking for that one good reason to take 1Ksons because they can give me something no other unit in the book can (something useful mind you).

That's a serious question too. I would actually like to find a good use for them in my more competitive games. There's always a reason to take several different units over any other given unit, but thus far I've not seen a good reason to take 1Ksons specifically over other competing units ...

And you're going to disregard the fact that it's a strategy game where some things are harder than others as "mere L2P?". If you don't want to learn how to play a game better, why bother with a strategy game in the first place?

I don't have time to go back through your post history to call up the specific quote, but I very much remember that the last time a poster called 40K a "strategy game" it resulted in a fairly lengthy dissertation (by you) that 40k is NOT a strategy game but rather a dice game or a "game of chance". If I didn't know better I'd swear you sometimes just think up a point and then watch the threads and wait for someone to post an opinion so that you can jump in and post the opposite opinion just for the sake of being a contrarion. lol


Don't get me wrong, there are times when you make good points that I hadn't thought of, and I generally appreciate it when someone has opinions that go "against the grain" so to speak, but it just seems like, at times, you take the opposite side of an argument just for the sake of it.

Edited for the initial post sounding unitentionally snarky ....

As for cover, I imagine it would be very very rare for all their targets to be in cover, so just focus on the ones that aren't.

Ehm... the range on a bolter isn't that great, and if the table is set up with the average amount of terrain (ie, it isn't a soccer field), then *most* of their targets will either be out of range and/or in cover most of the time. You can, at the very least, expect that units with it available will GTG.

Or you'll be driving up the table (adding the cost of the transport) in order to get into range, or to a mid-field objective, which then invites pot-shots by someone with a lascannon or a missile launcher or whatever.

And this doesn't even get into "deployable" cover like Bastions and ADLs, which can keep the enemy both in-range *and* in cover... and, in most cases, if it's in range of your bolters, you are most certainly in range of whatever it's packing.

 Paradigm wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Just because something is useful against a certain set of targets doesn't make it good. Being bad against entire Codexes of target profiles makes you generally bad. No one ever argued that Thousand Sons weren't good at destroying MEQ targets. It was more that having that specialization isn't worthwhile enough against the broad field of armies. You will run into those armies, and you will have grossly overpaid for some bolters. If you're only going to take them against other marines, then you've entered list tailoring territory and it's no different from saying flamers are awesome because they destroy orks and guardsmen, while ignoring their relative uselessness against MEQ. Choices that are good in limited circumstances are bad in general circumstances because the niche where they excel isn't necessarily going to be there.

150 points per warp charge if you're going MSU Thousand Sons (ha) is not dominating a psychic phase where other people are bringing ML3 for that price tag and ML1 Troops for 100. Never mind the part where the aspiring sorc is stuck rolling on the low grade Tzeentch table.

To be honest, I think most armies will be packing something the Tsons will be useful againt. Tau Battlesuits and Necron warriors/Immortals fit the same target profile as Marines, they'll clean up againt Sisters wounding on 3s and ignoring armour. AP3 can help against Nid Warriors and bigger bugs, you're not wounding the latter as often but you're still ignoring its saves. Eldar, DE, orks and Guard it's less useful against, but against anything with a 4+ save (Aspect Warriors, DE Jetbikes I think, Ard Boys/Nobz, Scions/Veterans in Carapace) you're still doing double damage against. There's plenty for them to do well outside of their primary target, and that's before we factor in their durability, psychic potential and potential super-scoring.

This is a pretty good way of describing it. Having AP3 doesn't mean you're wasting it against 4+; you're still using it.

JubbJubbz wrote:
I don't think you can really judge 1ksons without factoring the cost and benefits (or lack there of) of the sorc. My only major gripe about 1ksons is the sorc. Even then its really just the Tz power table. If the table had some useful powers on it, the sorc could add the versatility he was meant to, and the unit would be ok. Right now you are paying HQ sorc price for the 1kson aspiring sorc that is vastly inferior because of his power table. Fixing the table would also make the required HQ choice to make 1ksons troops easier to swallow.

Not everyone realizes, but in addition to a marked psyker being required to take at least one god specific power, they're also capped at taking no more than half their powers from that table. There's a maximum because you're supposed to want to take those powers.

The Sorcerer comes at 2 points cheaper (negligible), but does get MoT, Aura of Dark Glory (4++) and VotLW for free, which makes it a bit sweeter.

 GreyHamster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


To be honest, I think most armies will be packing something the Tsons will be useful againt. Tau Battlesuits and Necron warriors/Immortals fit the same target profile as Marines, they'll clean up againt Sisters wounding on 3s and ignoring armour. AP3 can help against Nid Warriors and bigger bugs, you're not wounding the latter as often but you're still ignoring its saves. Eldar, DE, orks and Guard it's less useful against, but against anything with a 4+ save (Aspect Warriors, DE Jetbikes I think, Ard Boys/Nobz, Scions/Veterans in Carapace) you're still doing double damage against. There's plenty for them to do well outside of their primary target, and that's before we factor in their durability, psychic potential and potential super-scoring.

I just ran a Grey Knight list they'd be completely useless against. It's an actual Marine book and there were no 3+ targets for them. I frequently see and run armies where they have no particularly good targets. Tyranid and Necron Warriors are actually only 4+ as well. Usable is not the same as efficient, either. Double damage against 4+ also assumes those units won't be in cover and that you're paying the same points cost for a normal bolter. Because you're paying so much more for the AP3 you're not actually gaining as much as the superficial direct comparison implies, as you are nearly double the price tag of a standard Chaos bolter and it becomes a rather modest increase when you look at the more meaningful damage per point metric. Outside of the MEQ profile it's becoming increasingly more of a 'well, I have it on the table, might as well go for the long shot' moment rather than being an efficient choice.

Their points to durability ratio is awful against small arms for a MEQ unit and frankly even against AP3- it is not great compared to other marines due to cover being a thing. ObSec isn't as meaningful for a high cost, small, and slow infantry unit as it is for disposable or fast choices. Their psychic potential is almost trivial since you are forced into a mediocre power. Being able to cast Warp Breath was a boost but really not enough one. SM Bikes are a far better Troops choice. They have access to cover at will, ObSec, T5, and the ability to take guns that are useful against many target types. They also can move up to four times as fast, and pay less points per wound. In an in-codex Comparison, look at plague marines. T5 and FNP represent an actual durability increase against small arms and FNP is almost as good as 4++ against anything under S10, while they cost the same points per model. This is meaningful because plague marines demand high quality guns to answer them with any degree of efficiency, while thousand sons do not. Access to actual specials broadens the plague marine target access, and they share Fearless and ObSec.

I might test them against Plague Marines, and Plague Marines vs CSMs.

All in all, I don't think Rubric Marines is the best unit available to CSM players, but their firepower in taking down MEQs is unparalleled. If you're playing your friends whom you know brings MEQs, they're worth the outlay. If your local meta has loads of MEQ played, they are still good. In a completely random pick up game, they can still be worthwile due to, on average, most people play SMs. In a competitive tournament, where people play less random factions (I presume), they would not be as useful if IG, DE and Eldar are top tier, but would be if SM, CSMs et al are.

I'd still like to see them a point cheaper, mind.

 Paradigm wrote:

Again small arms, you're right, but the same could be said for any marines and people rarely baulk at the cost for Sternguard (only a point less and without the 4++). The 4++ comes into its own when you're trying to hold an objective and the big guns are trying to shift you. As was pointed out before, they're also capable of moving away from cover with no loss in durability.

No-one is saying they're better tha Bikers or Plague Marines, just that they can be used effectively by those who want to use them.

Thousand Sons are bad BECAUSE they are not up to the standard presented by good units. If you are worse than all good units, how are you not mediocre at best? I challenge you to use Thousand Sons effectively against a pure Green Tide, Guard blob, or 2+ GK list. There are giant gaping holes in the functionality of Thousand Sons, not just ability to handle target types, but ability to be cost effective against entire codexes. Sternguard are used because they occupy a more worthwhile niche than Thousand Sons and different tools. They have access to drop pods, to guarantee one round of rapid fire. Just stock without upgrades, they can overwhelm MCs with poisoned(2+) wounds, annihilate light infantry in cover with dragonfire, kill MEQ and 4+ in the open about as easily as Thousand Sons. They can access a selection of combi-weapons to cleanly kill whatever else you might need them to and certain Chapter Tactics (like Ultramarines) can make their alpha strike better. They even have access to ObSec if you run Crimson Fists and Kantor. Being able to fail morale is quite handy with ATSKNF, they have a chance to get out of a fight that's slowly whittling them down or they can't do anything in. Sternguard are a swiss army knife that Thousand Sons are very much not. The vast increase in depth and breadth of utility makes the sternguard worth the fragility, especially with reliable delivery to where they need to go. Thousand Sons are not strong because they are grossly overspecialized into a niche that is not particularly worthwhile in a general sense. If everyone around you plays 4 Tactical Squads or Grey Hunter packs popping out of pods in the open, Thousand Sons are fantastic. If you're squaring off with masses of Flesh Hounds or Guardsmen hiding behind defense lines, they are likely to be grossly inefficient.

 GreyHamster wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Again small arms, you're right, but the same could be said for any marines and people rarely baulk at the cost for Sternguard (only a point less and without the 4++). The 4++ comes into its own when you're trying to hold an objective and the big guns are trying to shift you. As was pointed out before, they're also capable of moving away from cover with no loss in durability.

No-one is saying they're better tha Bikers or Plague Marines, just that they can be used effectively by those who want to use them.

Thousand Sons are bad BECAUSE they are not up to the standard presented by good units. If you are worse than all good units, how are you not mediocre at best? I challenge you to use Thousand Sons effectively against a pure Green Tide, Guard blob, or 2+ GK list. There are giant gaping holes in the functionality of Thousand Sons, not just ability to handle target types, but ability to be cost effective against entire codexes.

There are plenty of units that the same could be said about, though. The price you pay for specialising against one target type is the risk that your oppoenent has gone all-in on one thing; against the same Green Tide or Blob list, the Tri-las predator is also somewhat useless, as is a unit of Multi-melta Devastators. Does this make them bad units? No. It's just a quirk of the system that sometimes you'll be met with a paper to your rock, sometimes scissors.

And as for them being mediochre, to me that's somewhat synonymous with 'good enough'. No, they're not the top of their slot or their army, but that never has to relegate a unit to uselessness. There is plenty of scope for things to still be useful while not neccessarily being the absolute best use of points.

Sternguard are used because they occupy a more worthwhile niche than Thousand Sons and different tools. They have access to drop pods, to guarantee one round of rapid fire. Just stock without upgrades, they can overwhelm MCs with poisoned(2+) wounds, annihilate light infantry in cover with dragonfire, kill MEQ and 4+ in the open about as easily as Thousand Sons. They can access a selection of combi-weapons to cleanly kill whatever else you might need them to and certain Chapter Tactics (like Ultramarines) can make their alpha strike better. They even have access to ObSec if you run Crimson Fists and Kantor. Being able to fail morale is quite handy with ATSKNF, they have a chance to get out of a fight that's slowly whittling them down or they can't do anything in. Sternguard are a swiss army knife that Thousand Sons are very much not. The vast increase in depth and breadth of utility makes the sternguard worth the fragility, especially with reliable delivery to where they need to go. Thousand Sons are not strong because they are grossly overspecialized into a niche that is not particularly worthwhile in a general sense. If everyone around you plays 4 Tactical Squads or Grey Hunter packs popping out of pods in the open, Thousand Sons are fantastic. If you're squaring off with masses of Flesh Hounds or Guardsmen hiding behind defense lines, they are likely to be grossly inefficient.

As I said before, it does vary from meta-to-meta, but again, the same can be said for anything. If you see a lot of MEQ (or, as I outlined before, anything that uses 4+ saves or better on a regular basis), and many do, then Tsons are useful and will do well. If, on the other hand, the meta is dominated by Invulnerable saves, infantry hordes and then yes, they're useless. That`s something you have to take into account when selecting your models.

Thousand Sons don't have grenades do they?

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Thousand Sons don't have grenades do they?

Nope, making SaP kinda pointless too since, while you COULD charge, you're likely to get a penalty for Initiative. That's another problem they have.

They really should have kept some form of the "The Sorcerer Commands!" so that the sorcerer gave them relentless until he died and the TS reverted to having SNP, thereby making them less of a super-sergeant tax and actually affecting the unit like in the fluff (not to mention allowing them to overwatch).

 Paradigm wrote:


There are plenty of units that the same could be said about, though. The price you pay for specialising against one target type is the risk that your oppoenent has gone all-in on one thing; against the same Green Tide or Blob list, the Tri-las predator is also somewhat useless, as is a unit of Multi-melta Devastators. Does this make them bad units? No. It's just a quirk of the system that sometimes you'll be met with a paper to your rock, sometimes scissors.

The difference is that things like Predators or Devastators have the option of different kits, they can be made to fit whatever your army needs and can vary wildly in cost and abilities. TSon's don't have that flexiblity, and their special abilities (AP3 and resiliency) can be done as well or better by other units that also generally have greater flexibility (Baledrakes, Plague Marines, etc).

As a Chaos Player, if I have a clear need for AP3, my default go-to is going to be a Baledrake, and then probably Obliterators, not Tsons. If I need something that's just going to be a nightmare to shift off an objective, well, again, several other units come to mind before Tsons. On top of that, I really am not looking for one thing to do both of these things, usually because doing one means its carrying out (or is incapable of carrying out) the other.

 Paradigm wrote:


As I said before, it does vary from meta-to-meta, but again, the same can be said for anything. If you see a lot of MEQ (or, as I outlined before, anything that uses 4+ saves or better on a regular basis), and many do, then Tsons are useful and will do well. If, on the other hand, the meta is dominated by Invulnerable saves, infantry hordes and then yes, they're useless. That`s something you have to take into account when selecting your models.

Trilas preds and MM devs ARE bad as well, for exactly the reason you stated. They're basically dead units in certain matchups and far too immobile and linear. They're not as bad as Thousand Sons because they fill a role that can't be attempted by basic troops but they are also pretty bad choices.

Imbalanced metas aren't the focus of general discussion. In a diverse meta where every codex brings its strongest options, thousand sons are very frequently dead weight, while sternguard are not. A brace of combi-meltas let them realistically engage pretty much any list construct in an efficient manner, while thousand sons require rather specific conditions to excel. And thus they are in the general case, quite bad. The core point is thus, you have a finite number of points, why are you taking something that only thrives sometimes as opposed to something that always excels? Taking thousand sons means you are NOT taking something more efficient in their place, and you have made the list overall weaker because you have less Obliterators or Baledrakes or whatever efficient units you cut to shoehorn in your pet choice. If you are looking to win, you don't sacrifice efficiency. If you don't care about winning, then your perspective is largely irrelevant to a discussion on unit power and efficiency because you do not value either. It's like barging into a fluff discussion on favorite legions and proclaiming that Death Guard are better than World Eaters because Plague Marines are a better unit than Berzerkers.

You only have some many points to cover all the potential constructs you might face. Offensive units are often set up to be able to effectively engage as much as possible. When you take specialists, you take specialists that excel in their role and can double dip into a secondary role as opposed to clunkier ones that are sort of good at it. The baledrake is primarily an MEQ killer, but it scours away all infantry short of a 2+ because it ignores cover, and has the speed to threaten the backfield the turn it arrives. It also can take a shot at filling the anti-air role through vector strike and in a pinch it can poke hull points off light vehicles or wounds off MCs. Thousand Sons fill the same anti-MEQ role and do almost none of the other things. The drake is far less often a dead unit, while you have to use something else to cover all the bases the Thousand Sons left open. Good units are useful against vast swathes of the competitive meta, while bad ones like Thousand Sons are only useful against smaller subsections of it.

Have you guyz actually played with t-sons?

 koooaei wrote:
Have you guyz actually played with t-sons?

I have played against them a few times and used them twice. I don't recommend them whatsoever for any task. If you want something scoring, Plague Marines or Cultists are the better way to do it because cover exists, and don't require terribad HQ options to make them OS. If you want AP3 specifically, Baledrakes exist and eliminate things better. If you want Warp Charges, 10 more points gives you a CAD with two Cultists and a Sorcerer, which covers more area. You can TRY to shoehorn all these things into a single unit, and it's pretty awful.

 Paradigm wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

But, that's the thing - many people don't know what army they'll be facing in advance, and so can't tailor their list against it (and, many people probably wouldn't want to list-tailor anyway).

While there are some that have issues with list tailoring, it's basically unavoidable at this level. If you play in any kind of established/regular group, you'll at least know the rough makeup of the meta, and you'd be mad not to adjust your choices accordingly. There's nothing wrong with this at all, it simply demonstrates an awareness of what you're facing and helps you get the best from your units. If you're meta is 60%+ GEQ, you're probably better off leaving the Tsons out. On the other hand, if there's a similar bias towards MEQ, you're probably safe to take them.

How do you tailor an 1ksons army to play against a mecha list, without using counts as and playing them as something else?

The problem here is that if someone wants to play an 1ksons army it sucks and is bad. If someone plays a random chaos army they could technicly tailor and sometimes use 1ksons. But in reality why bother with spending money on units that will be maybe ok in a few games, it is better to run the stuff that is always good. Otherwise people would have to buy multiple armies to play with and in fact the only good way to play w40k would be to have multiple choices for most armies and mix them depending on the opponent. The cost of those armies would only be buffed by the cost of the truck one would need to transport those and paying someone to drive it for you, plus of course the cost of gas , insurance, obligatory winter tier set etc.

The only thing good about them is the sorc with divination that can try to get the no cover save power and then they are a ok anti meq unit. But if they roll different powers or have to few power dice to cast multiple powers, they are realy bad.

GreyHamster wrote:

Spoiler:

 Paradigm wrote:


As I said before, it does vary from meta-to-meta, but again, the same can be said for anything. If you see a lot of MEQ (or, as I outlined before, anything that uses 4+ saves or better on a regular basis), and many do, then Tsons are useful and will do well. If, on the other hand, the meta is dominated by Invulnerable saves, infantry hordes and then yes, they're useless. That`s something you have to take into account when selecting your models.

Trilas preds and MM devs ARE bad as well, for exactly the reason you stated. They're basically dead units in certain matchups and far too immobile and linear. They're not as bad as Thousand Sons because they fill a role that can't be attempted by basic troops but they are also pretty bad choices.

Imbalanced metas aren't the focus of general discussion. In a diverse meta where every codex brings its strongest options, thousand sons are very frequently dead weight, while sternguard are not. A brace of combi-meltas let them realistically engage pretty much any list construct in an efficient manner, while thousand sons require rather specific conditions to excel. And thus they are in the general case, quite bad.

Yes, it can be helpful to assume a meta where everyone plays a different army, their army is always built to the absolute optimisation and every player is somehow equally talented. However, this situation rarely exists in real life, so if the prduct of this thread is that someone in a Marine-heavy meta reads this and decides to give Tsons a shot and then enjoys that, the job has been done. I always consider advice that can help real people more useful that one which assumes a completely average set of conditions. Like I say, there are caveats to taking them, but in some circumstances that do exist, they can be useful

The core point is thus, you have a finite number of points, why are you taking something that only thrives sometimes as opposed to something that always excels? Taking thousand sons means you are NOT taking something more efficient in their place, and you have made the list overall weaker because you have less Obliterators or Baledrakes or whatever efficient units you cut to shoehorn in your pet choice. If you are looking to win, you don't sacrifice efficiency.

Like I've said several times, no one is saying they're the most effecient unit for their points, and that's not what the thread is about. Just because something is not the absolute best does not make it useless, and does not preclude you from including it in a list you feel confident of winning with. Not everyone wants to play identical lists, but no one is going to go into a game looking to lose, so will put at least some thought into army selection.

If you don't care about winning, then your perspective is largely irrelevant to a discussion on unit power and efficiency because you do not value either. It's like barging into a fluff discussion on favorite legions and proclaiming that Death Guard are better than World Eaters because Plague Marines are a better unit than Berzerkers.

I have to say that this is something I do take issue with. casual and competitve players are not mutually exclusive, and even the most fluffy of players is going to put some thought towards winning the game with the units he has. To basically say the opinion of anyone not solely focused on winning the game is irrelvant is frankly rather insulting to those of use who consider ourselves competent players without going all in to win each game.

We clearly have different attitudes to this discussion, so I'll leave this particular strand here to avoid dragging the thread off topic.

Makumba wrote:

Spoiler:

 Paradigm wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

If you're playing against IG I wouldn't take them, which I've already stated. Take them against MEQs. If you're facing an army made up exclusively of Predators, Land Raiders etc, your CSMs/SMs are still likely to be toast.

But, that's the thing - many people don't know what army they'll be facing in advance, and so can't tailor their list against it (and, many people probably wouldn't want to list-tailor anyway).

While there are some that have issues with list tailoring, it's basically unavoidable at this level. If you play in any kind of established/regular group, you'll at least know the rough makeup of the meta, and you'd be mad not to adjust your choices accordingly. There's nothing wrong with this at all, it simply demonstrates an awareness of what you're facing and helps you get the best from your units. If you're meta is 60%+ GEQ, you're probably better off leaving the Tsons out. On the other hand, if there's a similar bias towards MEQ, you're probably safe to take them.

How do you tailor an 1ksons army to play against a mecha list, without using counts as and playing them as something else?

Largely, you can't, so again, if you play in a heavily mechanised meta and play random opponents so you're likely to face tanks, I'd leave Tsons behind.

However, if you do want to play them against Mech lists, the best bet is to use them in conjunction with your AT units to hit units popped from transports as soon as you can. Not ideal, but better than nothing, and they basically end up in the same position as anything without an AT weapon against an Unbound/ABG/Knight all-tank list, it's not a problem unique to Tsons.

 Ailaros wrote:

ChazSexington wrote:If my maths are off, or I've done something else stupid, let me know and I'll redo the maths later.

Your math is correct, but you're looking at a single tree and calling it the forest.

You're taking 1ksons and comparing only killing power compared to regular CSM. Meanwhile, as you yourself note, you're flat-out ignoring that part where they have a sorcerer (for both psychic phase stuff and force weapon), and you're partially ignoring their invul save (throw them both up against an opponent with a power fist and you'll see what I mean), and you're ignoring fearless too, and votlw.

Yes, of course, 1ksons don't bolter stuff to death as efficiently as CSM. CSM are nearly uniquely good at this. You're comparing the best strength of a unit against only one of the strengths of another unit and declaring the first one the victor. In these circumstances you've set up, of course 1ksons are going to look bad.

But I could come up with any set of circumstances this narrow that make anything look bad. Mutilators will kill a riptide in close combat, but does that mean mutilators are great and riptides are garbage? No, it just means on that particular metric, ignoring everything else, mutilators are better.

Same thing here. 1ksons aren't "objectively" worse so much as they are "specifically" worse, depending on what you specify.

I was expecting you to fully agree with this guy as I know you think TSons are good, respect for keeping it real, even though I know it's probably just the contrarian in you.

I've run my thousand sons army several times over the last year and it's definitely the army that I have the lowest win percentage with, but I still have fun with them every now and then. They definitely suffered against marine armies with lots of 2+ saves and white scars lists. For the grey knights, I had a good bit of success shoring up that weakness with a unit of chosen wielding 5 plasma guns to compliment each other.

The main problems I saw were that the invulnerable save was rarely a factor as them having it just meant opponents would dedicate small arms fire against them instead of wasting heavier guns on them. Sure, a couple times it was clutch against a baleflaming drake or when I was able to tie a monstrous creature down for several turns, but they didn't really do any damage back in those cases either.

The ap3 bolters are nice and I usually could find at least one or two units they were a big threat to (be it crisis suits, tactical marines, or even monstrous creatures like hive tyrants and daemon princes) so having them in a rhino usually got me one or two volleys into that unit.

I wish there was an option to field them without the sorcerer as I'd be more willing to take 5 of them for 115 points and forgo the pysker. The sorc can have his uses, but I don't think his powers compliment the unit very well and he adds too much to their cost imo.

My Iron Warriors are Tzeentch flavored, and Tz is the only Mark in my army, but I stick to CC Terms, Warpsmiths and Ahriman for my Tz units. Not Thousand Sons, as cool as they are.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

...
I wish there was an option to field them without the sorcerer as I'd be more willing to take 5 of them for 115 points and forgo the pysker. The sorc can have his uses, but I don't think his powers compliment the unit very well and he adds too much to their cost imo.

Or you know, they could just make his required discipline decent instead of utter trash...

I'm posting because I am really glad this thread exists, and the reason I am glad is that it has these pretty great posts by Grey Hamster. It is pretty nice when a person who doesn't play a unit can have a really unprejudiced evaluation of it. That's fine.


I have this as a fluff-to-rules contribution. There is nothing on the Thousand Sons model and nothing in the fluff that suggests there is anything special about their bolters, their bolt rounds, or anything else about their shooting. It still feels, since it happened in fourth edition, like ap3 was just thrown on there as a sloppy fix to a weak unit.

It is also really weird that Thousand Sons have an armor save. Normally, the armor protects flesh or machinery that is underneath it. Against thousand sons, the flesh that's being damaged is the armor, and they don't have a special second set of armor over the first set of armor to protect it. It seems wrong to me, it would make more sense if they didn't have an armor save.

Then, also, Thousand Sons have toughness four, like Space Marines. Space Marines have toughness four because they are flesh that has been enhanced with artificial organs. Thousand Sons are made of metal, they are essentially unarmored machinery. To me, unarmored machinery seems much more like artillery, like an eldar grav platform or a thunderfire than it sounds like flesh.

Like, you are never going to build a useful army out of units that have just bolters, even ap3 bolters. From the game designers' perspective it should make more sense to rely on a sorceror, who is also the driver of the unit in fluff.

Anyway, I try pretty hard, but ever since the end of daemonic essence stuff has been rough and rougher still.

I really like your thoughts on them pelican, and agree.

I miss the old system of them being immune to weapons up to strength 4 (or was it 6? i might be confusing them with the old dark eldar grotesque rules). I also liked when they had 2 wounds and were hella tough to kill instead of having the ap3 weapons.