Cultists in TS armies

[Sawtooth]

Curious to see if anyone is getting mileage out of these guys. The cover change hurt them, but we also have a psychic power to give them an invulnerable save. But there are other tages for said power, and Tzaangors can accomplish a lot of what you want cultists for, anyway.

[Paladin777]

If I desire to start running chaff, it's very much going To be in the form of tzaangors. point for point their durability alone does it for me!

[Realgone]

I like them and often run two blob of 20 with autoguns and 2 flamers. Wouldn't say they are great but they do work and look way better on the table top than tzaangor imo.

[Sawtooth]

I had thought of going autoguns, especially since Tzaangors are so good in CC. I desperately want to use Kairic acolytes for the job, but I'd use them in AOS and need a way to give them temporary guns. I'm not a great moder, haven't figured it out yet.

[Raven1]

So if you want cheap units that also work Tzaangors are the way to go. Cheap chaff that can also objectives then brimstone horrors are the way to go.

[Skerr]

As much as I love the models from DV plus the renegade sprues from FW I keep them for my Black Legion which i don't play any more or I use in Shadow War.

 

For 1000 sons I think they work but not my style. I'm all in with Goatbirdmen though would also try brimstones once I get caught up painting.

 

That being said they are great bottom of the barrel meat bags for whatever grind you might need.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Skerr

[Sawtooth]

I appreciate the input. They seem to not really be bad for what their job is at all, just outshone by other things. Ah well, maybe the Codex will do something interesting with them.

[Prot]

Ah I love my Tzaangors. They're just so much better for CC imo. I did paint up a full squad of Thousand Sons Cultists I just prefer the Tzaangors yo be honest I never had a problem with their looks.

[Sawtooth]

If you were going to take cultists alongside Tzaangors in a TS army, if for nothing but variety and liking the models, do you think close combat or shooty options serve this army better?

[Tamika]

I will take two squads of Cultists in my Thousand Sons for objective grabbers but will equip them for close combat.

 

Also taking two squads of Tzaangors equipped for close combat as well.

[Tamika]

Here are some of my cultist thousand sons with a daemon prince on foot with axe.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Tamika

[Sonoftherubric21]

Generally I find that Tzaangors (even at 3 points more) are better point for point.  The 3 points is made up for in 5++/ T4. 

 

I gladly use Cultists in my Death guard or Black Legion, but a blob (or 2) of Tzaangors are fantastic. I own 40 and using that many has made many an opponent sweat, they hit hard enough where they are dangerous, and if you babysit with a sorcerer for the re-roll invuls aura they are truly great for their price point.  Almost as good as an ork boy given the stats. 

 

It also fills our biggest gaps in the 1k sons, bodies and melee prowess for a decent price point. (they are discount assault marines honestly) 

[Sawtooth]

Why is close combat the preference for so many? My first instinct is to go ranged, and it seems that is the wrong choice. And again, absolutely I think Tzaangors are the better deal, but I'd still like to field cultists.

[Zodd1888]

CC is preferred as most fodder/chaff/meat shields are going to end up in combat without the ability to shoot. Those that can shoot will generally have a better chance of hitting and wounding, or jave more attacks, in CC vs. range. Additionally, most cheap chaff units are usually pretty poor at shooting or have a weak ranged weapon.

 

If you intended to hold a backfield objective and use your cheap troops to hold the objective then it would make more sense for range.

 

IMO.

 

Edit: Ranged can also work if you intend on falling back with your chaff.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Zodd1888

[Paladin777]

I think if you are going to have close combat chaff/bubble wrap then it really should be tzaangors, point for point they outshine cultists whether you decide to use the blades or pistol/chainsword. As has been said earlier, if you want a backfield objective holder than do agree that there is a solid argument for using cultists kitted out for range.

 

YMMV

[Archaeinox]

If you were going to take cultists alongside Tzaangors in a TS army, if for nothing but variety and liking the models, do you think close combat or shooty options serve this army better?

 

TBH I would use the cultists for assaulting forward and tzaangors for objectives. At least the tzaangors will get invuls whereas the cultists probably wont get a damn thing despite camping in your deployment zone cover.

 

Anything that can tag your cultists from across the table is probably -1 or -2 AP anyway, and anything that charges them will probably be able to make them disappear (electropriests and the like) so might as well have the guys holding your precious stuff get the 5++ and T4 like gors.

 

Brimstones are better for this purpose but we should all get accustomed to using TS stuff as troops for when the codex drops and we will want to be all "TS"

Edited October 14, 2017 by Archaeinox

[Prot]

I would use shooty Cultists and bladed Tzaangors myself. I think the roles are pretty self evident by the weapon and save loadout plus the Tzaangors can tank a little longer and are slightly better at approaching tanks for tieing them up for a turn or two. My Cultists work best in ruins with ranged weapons.

[Sawtooth]

Thanks everyone, sound reasoning all around. I shall continue experimenting with modeling ideas, perhaps I can make it work. And maybe in our codex we'll get a trait or stratagem that lets slain cultists mutate into Tzaangors like in Age of Sigmar :p