puma713 wrote:? What is the case? Why can't a BA player deploy the unit via deepstrike, thereby splitting into combat squads at deployment?

Corrode wrote:

puma713 wrote:? What is the case? Why can't a BA player deploy the unit via deepstrike, thereby splitting into combat squads at deployment?

What are you talking about? You can't combat squad a unit held in reserve, which a unit that was Deep Striking would have to be. The only provision for combat squadding on Deep Strike is if you do so by Drop Pod; there's no other rule that allows you to combat squad on arrival.

puma713 wrote:
That's just it - this FAQ is a bit of a slippery slope. You can say that a unit within 6" "caused" the destruction of the unit by not allowing a regroup. If the unit would have been normally allowed to regroup, but couldn't and was destroyed, what was the cause of the destruction? Running off the table. Yes, but what caused them to run off the table? Not being able to regroup. What caused them not to be able to regroup? A unit within 6".

A unit was destroyed by an exploding vehicle. The DE unit didn't destroy the enemy unit, a vehicle did. Yes, but the vehicle's destruction is what caused the unit to be destroyed and what caused the vehicle to be destroyed was the DE unit.

They are similar causal leaps.

Ah, that was what I was missing. I don't have any codices on me, since I'm at work. I thought there was a provision that states that "upon deployment", you may combat squad. Because if there wasn't you wouldn't be able to ever combat squad.

Which raises the debate about deep strike deployment versus deep strike movement.

gannam wrote:Q: When a Damaged – Weapon Destroyed result is rolled
and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in, combi or coaxial
weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

This seems like a new nerf to Razorbacks with las/plas on them.

Now if they get a weapon destroyed, both weapons are gone.

Q: If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and twin-linked
plasma gun suffers a weapon destroyed result, does it
destroy both weapons or just one? (p35)
A: Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the twinlinked
plasma gun.

Maelstrom808 wrote:On the plus side...if I drop a spore pod with warriors into difficult terrain, they won't have to take a dangerous terrain test since it's not a "vehicle" Not that I'd normally play it that way, but it's handy ammo for playing against a RAW junkie

wyomingfox wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:On the plus side...if I drop a spore pod with warriors into difficult terrain, they won't have to take a dangerous terrain test since it's not a "vehicle" Not that I'd normally play it that way, but it's handy ammo for playing against a RAW junkie

As a tyranid player, I think I should also apply this rule to Spore Pods even though the FAQ doesn't expressly mention thier scenario (not a vehicle). The mechanics would seam to be similar. Then again there is the Shadow in the Warp FAQ and I know SM players wouldn't apply that FAQ to their hoods when up against enemy psychers in a transport .

yakface wrote:Consistent except for every other anti-psychic thing in the game besides Shadow in the Warp affecting psykers in vehicles?

Crevab wrote:Crap, no more Drop Podding into terrain. My marines might explode

Melissia wrote:

yakface wrote:Consistent except for every other anti-psychic thing in the game besides Shadow in the Warp affecting psykers in vehicles?

How many other anti-psychic psyker powers are there?

General Hobbs wrote:

Crevab wrote:Crap, no more Drop Podding into terrain. My marines might explode

Where do you see this???? I can't find any text that says differently.....

Ozymandias wrote:Holy Crap! Time to start adding some TH/SS models to my Deathwing army. 3+ Invul save with Feel no Pain as Troops!? Yes please!

wyomingfox wrote:Shadow in the Warp is not listed in the codex as a "psychic power"

BrassScorpion wrote:Death Wing Terminators can have an Apothecary in one squad and a banner too. Check out my conversions for those in the Gallery.

Melissia wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Shadow in the Warp is not listed in the codex as a "psychic power"

Neither are the powers used by that Doom fellow, but them being psychic in nature is the reason why GW says they don't work on transported individuals.

gannam wrote:Q: When a Damaged – Weapon Destroyed result is rolled
and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in, combi or coaxial
weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

This seems like a new nerf to Razorbacks with las/plas on them.

Now if they get a weapon destroyed, both weapons are gone.

Q: What is meant when the term ʻturnʼ is used? (p9)
A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player turn.
Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a complete
game turn both players get a player turn. Hence one game
turn will comprise two player turns.

wyomingfox wrote:

Melissia wrote:

yakface wrote:Consistent except for every other anti-psychic thing in the game besides Shadow in the Warp affecting psykers in vehicles?

How many other anti-psychic psyker powers are there?

Shadow in the Warp is not listed in the codex as a "psychic power"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:

Crevab wrote:Crap, no more Drop Podding into terrain. My marines might explode

Where do you see this???? I can't find any text that says differently.....

Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.

Ozymandias wrote:Well they didn't fix RW bikes not being able to turboboost during scout like Marines but otherwise I'll take it!

Dark Angel FAQ:
"Page 54 – Storm shield
Change to “A storm shield is a solid shield that has an energy field generator built into it. The energy field iscapable of deflecting almost any attack, even blows from lascannons and power weapons. A model with a storm shield has a 3+ invulnerable save. A model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the +1 Attack bonus for being"

Corrode wrote:Combat squadding from a drop pod is specifically allowed by the combat squad rule. Any other form of combat squadding in reserve is not.

Problem solved!

yakface wrote:GW have never, ever, ever seemed to make any effort to produce a new codex to fix 'issues' with the old one. Instead they seem to make new codexes based on what miniature line they want to work on, what miniature line revamp would work into the schedule, etc, etc, etc.

wyomingfox wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Well they didn't fix RW bikes not being able to turboboost during scout like Marines but otherwise I'll take it!

They might have; the old DA FAQ prevented RW bikes from turboboosting in the scout phase. That FAQ is now gone.

Janthkin wrote:

Melissia wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Shadow in the Warp is not listed in the codex as a "psychic power"

Neither are the powers used by that Doom fellow, but them being psychic in nature is the reason why GW says they don't work on transported individuals.

And you'd like to argue that a Psychic Hood isn't?

Melissia wrote:I would argue that the Psychic Hood is not a psychic power which GW doesn't label as a psychic power in game. No, it is a piece of technology which makes it harder for psykers to use psychic powers within its range.

I'm not saying I approve. Just that this is actually internally consistent.

warboss wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Well they didn't fix RW bikes not being able to turboboost during scout like Marines but otherwise I'll take it!

They might have; the old DA FAQ prevented RW bikes from turboboosting in the scout phase. That FAQ is now gone.

sorry, but the rule is in the codex. the faq ruling was there because the main rulebook faq said you CAN turbo boost in general while the DA codex said ravenwing can NOT. they still can't unfortunately...

odmiller wrote:There's a reason for this. Deathwing Assault.

If they could turboboost you'd be getting 30" pinpoint deepstrikes of termies on turn one.

ryan3740 wrote:I find one thing really wrong in these SM updates.

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p35)
A. No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

The underlined portion is actually incorrect. Read the rules for Combat Squad. It specifically says that you CAN combat squad when disembarking from the drop pod. So how can GW say you can combat squad and you cannot? In the Dark Angels rules for Combat Squad it specifically states, "Any unit left in reserve cannot combat squad." I compared word for word the Combat Squad rule between Dark Angels and Space Marines. That sentence is not in the Space Marine rules. After this sentence is the exception for disembarking from Drop Pods. SM codex actually reads oddly missing this sentence. I've had it confuse people why there is an exception for drop pods, when there's nothing to exception to. In codex Space Marine there is no rule saying you cannot break down into combat squads in reserve.

Now, the the answer to the question is correct, but GW's reasoning is not. You cannot both DEPLOY a unit on the table and NOT DEPLOY a unit by keeping them in reserve. You either deploy and combat squad now, or stay in reserve and combat squad later. Except DAs.

Corrode wrote:Combat squadding from a drop pod is specifically allowed by the combat squad rule. Any other form of combat squadding in reserve is not.

Problem solved!

oldone wrote:ok i take back what i said GW are such fan boys

Fetterkey wrote:Hm, Deathwing seems like an incredibly strong army now, with the potential to take mass TH/SS with Cyclone missiles in the same squad. Not sure how I feel about that.

warboss wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Hm, Deathwing seems like an incredibly strong army now, with the potential to take mass TH/SS with Cyclone missiles in the same squad. Not sure how I feel about that.

while i'm glad that this updates them to 5e standards for the most part, this isn't as much of a power boost overall as it is just a simplification to avoid confusion. is the SS and cyclone missile launcher specifically a boost? absolutely, but they're no better than their vanilla marine counterparts.. The FNP apothecary? to be honest, i'd prefer the old apothecary rule as it allowed me one no roll required terminator saved every player turn. the best part was that it applied to a model within 6" so it didn't have to be from the same squad and worked against plasma weapons. I'd consider this one to be a lateral change in power but good in the sense that now all marine apothecaries grant FNP (it was sometimes painful to explain to other players that my medic was different from theirs). smoke launchers? i prefered the only-glancing hits-with smoke since it coudn't be screwed up by my roll and guaranteed that my vehicle coudn't be one-shot destroyed by anything short of a melta. what this does is make DA more standard and less confusing on the tabletop with a medium boost to deathwing specifically.

puma713 wrote:

ryan3740 wrote:I find one thing really wrong in these SM updates.

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p35)
A. No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

What prevents this? Is it the combat squad rule? If so, does anyone have that wording? Combat squadding in reserve and combat squadding from reserve are two very different things.

warboss wrote:

puma713 wrote:

ryan3740 wrote:I find one thing really wrong in these SM updates.

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p35)
A. No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

What prevents this? Is it the combat squad rule? If so, does anyone have that wording? Combat squadding in reserve and combat squadding from reserve are two very different things.

you have to read the exact wording. "SQUADS THAT ARE PLACED IN RESERVE MAY NOT..." in your example, did you ever place your squad in reserve? if so, you cannot break down into combat squads.

Fetterkey wrote:It's a huge power boost. Vanilla marines can't take TH/SS terminators that also have strong long-range shooting options available, much less FNP.

Mahu wrote:

warboss wrote:

puma713 wrote:

ryan3740 wrote:*snip*

All the FAQ prevents you from doing is splitting a single unit into combat squads after you have placed it in reserve, clarifying to those confused about the ability to combat squad when a unit arrives from reserves. The Drop Pod exception still take precedent, of course.

I find one thing really wrong in these SM updates.

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p35)
A. No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

The underlined portion is actually incorrect. Read the rules for Combat Squad. It specifically says that you CAN combat squad when disembarking from the drop pod. So how can GW say you can combat squad and you cannot? In the Dark Angels rules for Combat Squad it specifically states, "Any unit left in reserve cannot combat squad."

Mahu wrote:

warboss wrote:
you have to read the exact wording. "SQUADS THAT ARE PLACED IN RESERVE MAY NOT..." in your example, did you ever place your squad in reserve? if so, you cannot break down into combat squads.

I feel I can go over the whole internet explaining this.

This is not true.

The decision to combat squad and the decision to put a unit into reserves happens at the same time. Deployment.

So the decision to combat squad can happen before you decide to place one or both units in reserve, as there is no set order.

All the FAQ prevents you from doing is splitting a single unit into combat squads after you have placed it in reserve, clarifying to those confused about the ability to combat squad when a unit arrives from reserves. The Drop Pod exception still take precedent, of course.

Nothing has changed as far as combat squads go.

DarknessEternal wrote:All good things.

Still no word on Djinn Blades though.

Pyronick wrote:Anybody else notice that the bottom of Page 4 on the Vanilla Space Marines FAQ said Warhammer: Codex Vampire Counts!

Silly intern.

Xenith wrote:Woohoo, the Furioso libby can now take a frag cannon!

Q: Can a Furioso Librarian take additional wargear (such
as extra armour)? (p29)
A: No.

you're addign the distinction, not GW. the FAQ is saying squads in reserve cannot use combat squads while the drop pod has a specific exclusion to this general ruling under its own rules. the ruling makes no distinction between combat squading before deployement, during deployment, after deployment, coming in from reserve, on tuesdays, if your unit is painted aqua, etc... it simply says units placed in reserve can't combat squad. end of line. for better or worse, that's the ruling.

WHen do you decide if a unit is going to combat squad? During Deployment.

When do you decide if a unit is going to be held in reserve? During Deployment.

Mahu wrote:You are making an assumption.

You don't understand the ruling.

WHen do you decide if a unit is going to combat squad? During Deployment.

When do you decide if a unit is going to be held in reserve? During Deployment.

A unit that is combat squaded immediately acts as two separate units. You are still in deployment, which means those two separate units, can then be deployed or held in reserve.

All the FAQ says is that you cannot make the choice to deploy a unit using the Combat Squad rules if you have already placed the unit in reserve. It is to clarify the after effects such as units that can deepstrike, etc. that are still technically deployed at the time they arrive from reserve.

You are assuming one of two things; that there is a set order of decisions during deployment that doesn't exist, or that the FAQ wording is saying something that it is not. Either way, it is wrong.

cgage00 wrote:Also the hive tyrans not being IC in tyrant guard is kinda dumb. but oh well.

Shep wrote:Unfortunately, the FAQ wording is just way too straightforward and cut and dry to wiggle out of this.

I say unfortunately, because I don't necessarily agree with the ruling.

Exact wording is...

A: No, because squads that are place in reserve may not break down into combat squads


There just isn't any interpretation to make.

Is your squad placed in reserve? Yes

May it break down into combat squads? No

If you "can't break down into combat squads" then I don't see how you can break down into combat squads, under any rationale

Shep wrote:
Exact wording is...

A: No, because squads that are place in reserved may not break down into combat squads


There just isn't any interpretation to make.

Is your squad placed in reserve? Yes

May it break down into combat squads? No

If you "can't break down into combat squads" then I don't see how you can break down into combat squads, under any rationale

Kevin949 wrote:Aw man, no necron lovin. :( Heh. Mostly I was hoping for power weapon/rending additions to some models. LoL

Theduke07 wrote:oh wow at not being able to combat squad in reserve. What an nonsense ruling. How was this even an issue? IN addition I now have to take dangerous terrain on my marines when out of a drop pod into terrain? Jesus this needs a clean up.

padixon wrote:The Voidraven Bomber has gotten waay better

Q: Can a void mine be used regardless of the speed the
Voidraven Bomber is moving at in its Movement phase?
(p47)
A: Yes.
Q: A void mine is used in the Movement phase. How does
this effect what weapons can be fired by the Voidraven
Bomber in the Shooting phase? (p47)
A: The void mine does not count towards the number of
weapons a Voidraven Bomber can fire that turn.

They can do a 36" movement, drop a str 9 blast lance weapon that only scatters d6, and also get a 4+ cover save...

Sir Harry Flashman, VC wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Aw man, no necron lovin. :( Heh. Mostly I was hoping for power weapon/rending additions to some models. LoL

Anyone know if other books will be Re-FAQed? Did GW do the Warhammer books all at once the other week or staged? It would be nice for the Necrons to have there rules brought up to the current edition and not two behind

Pyronick wrote:Anybody else notice that the bottom of Page 4 on the Vanilla Space Marines FAQ said Warhammer: Codex Vampire Counts!

Silly intern.

Hulksmash wrote:Maybe that's why it took so long to post them. They had lost 'em

Hulksmash wrote:So side note but does anyone think this was done to help make up for the 4% they were down? DISCUSS!

(I loves me some conspiracy theories )

Hulksmash wrote:So side note but does anyone think this was done to help make up for the 4% they were down? DISCUSS!

(I loves me some conspiracy theories )

Kevin949 wrote:

Theduke07 wrote:oh wow at not being able to combat squad in reserve. What an nonsense ruling. How was this even an issue? IN addition I now have to take dangerous terrain on my marines when out of a drop pod into terrain? Jesus this needs a clean up.

Uh...didn't you always have to do that if you DS'd into difficult terrain it was treated as dangerous terrain.

timetowaste85 wrote:This was some of the best news I got today!! My newly started black templars just started hugging each other (in a non-heretical way) in happiness for having good land raiders and storm shields now! I wish rhino prices were cheaper, bolt pistols and CCW came standard on marshals and captains, but hey, their special rules make it worth spending the extra points. The templars are great now! We no longer need a new codex-this update was all that was really needed. Just a bit bummed about how they changed the holy orb is all. That's my only complaint. Oh, and the Signum. So 2 "blah" changes and a bunch of "Hell Yes!" changes

Brother Bartius wrote:that Runes of warding no longer work on psychic powers cast from inside a vehicle

puma713 wrote:

Brother Bartius wrote:that Runes of warding no longer work on psychic powers cast from inside a vehicle

Where'd you get this?

Hulksmash wrote:Yeah I'm excited enough to pick up 2-3 more boxes of termies and 3 Landspeeders. The new core of my army is probably gonna look ilke 5 Terminator Troop squads w/1 of them upgraded, 3 Typhoons, and 2 drop podding dreadnoughts. Right around 1850 or so. Might be a little higher but I'll tweak if I need too. Might even get the Venerable Dreads since I don't have any yet and they are pretty Or maybe not since I've got 2 dreads already painted in my armies colors. Either way, awesome!

yakface wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Brother Bartius wrote:that Runes of warding no longer work on psychic powers cast from inside a vehicle

Where'd you get this?

He got it from the erroneous discussion that went on earlier in this thread.

It is wrong. The only anti-psychic ability that doesn't affect psykers in a vehicle is Shadow in the Warp because the Tyranid FAQ says so.

Fateweaver wrote:Im eagerly awaiting the cries of cheese now with the UPDATED DW terminators.

Kevin949 wrote:What's really lame is they didn't change the BT PoTMS to BS 4 (Or I missed it?). well, good for me anyway since I play against BT a lot. Bad for my friend. Haha.

insaniak wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:What's really lame is they didn't change the BT PoTMS to BS 4 (Or I missed it?). well, good for me anyway since I play against BT a lot. Bad for my friend. Haha.

They did, by replacing the PotMS entry with a new entry that doesn't include the line about it being BS2. So vehicles with the PotMS will now fire at their own BS, as they do in the Marine codex.

Unfortunately, that causes problems for the BT Drop Pod, which doesn't have a BS of its own, as it can only fire using the PotMS... which up until now had its own BS...

Icon720 wrote:I am dusting off my DA and will be glueing on TH/SS tonight.

Beliel LC
Sarg TH/LS
Apoth TH/LS
Trooper -Cyclone TH/LS
Trooper- TH/LS
Trooper -LC

FNP and diversified. Plus they deep strike on turn one!

Steelmage99 wrote:

Icon720 wrote:I am dusting off my DA and will be glueing on TH/SS tonight.

Beliel LC
Sarg TH/LS
Apoth TH/LS
Trooper -Cyclone TH/LS
Trooper- TH/LS
Trooper -LC

FNP and diversified. Plus they deep strike on turn one!

Couldn't help but smile at the awesomeness that is a Deathwing Terminator Squad where the Sarge, the Apothecary and two Troopers are armed with Land Speeders.

"Take that, you bastards! I got a Thunder Hammer in my right hand and a flying Heavy Flamer/Multi Melta in my left!"

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p35)
A. No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

Nephil1m wrote: I think the intention here may be to say "No, squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads, [they have to break down into CS as a function of deployment/arrival.]"

insaniak wrote:

Nephil1m wrote: I think the intention here may be to say "No, squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads, [they have to break down into CS as a function of deployment/arrival.]"

I think that's over-analysing it, to be honest. I'm more inclined to think the intention here was simply to create consistency between the various marine codexes, and whoever wrote the FAQ didn't notice that the caveat in Codex: Dark Angels about not being able to split if kept in reserve does not exist in the other Marine books...

reds8n wrote:The recent rerelease of the DA upgrade sprue makes a whole lot more sense all of a sudden eh ?

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Q. If Korʼsarro Khan rolls a 6 to wound a model with a
Toughness so high he cannot usually wound it, will
Moonfang still inflict Instant Death on it? (p94)
A. Yes.

pffft...who needs consistancy?

Q. Some Space Marine squads can take a Razorback as a
dedicated transport. A Razorback has a transport capacity
of six models. Can you still choose this as a dedicated
transport for a squad with more than six models in? (p40)
A. Yes.

Shinkaze wrote:
FAQs are supposed to solve problems, not introduce more right? Nice wordings.

Does anyone else think that the PfP ruling in regasds to Beastmaster goes against the actual text for PfP? It seems to me that if that is their intent they should errata the rule instead of making a ruling on it. If they think that Beastmaster squads are too powerful with it I understand, I just think they should fix the rule instead of making a ruling that contradicts the text in the codex.

focusedfire wrote:@ Kevin- IMO, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of the change to the BT. This faq just made the BT the shootiest mechanized army in the game. Remember, BT can get potms on every vehicle in their codex as a buyable upgrade.

In essence, this faq just turned the very assault oriented BTS into an effective and highly mobile ranged combat army without reducing the hth abilities for balance.

focusedfire wrote:@ Kevin- IMO, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of the change to the BT. This faq just made the BT the shootiest mechanized army in the game. Remember, BT can get potms on every vehicle in their codex as a buyable upgrade.

In essence, this faq just turned the very assault oriented BTS into an effective and highly mobile ranged combat army without reducing the hth abilities for balance.

focusedfire wrote:@Yakface- I understand your point but feel that you may have overlooked that the landspeeders can also take potms in the BT codex.

I have playtested against spammed bs 4 landspeeders with multi meltas, assault cannons& potms. Imho, there is nothing balanced about 1st turn meltas on your tanks. The BTs can field three such speeder squadrons and have around 1k points left to load up with a hq, troops and razorbacks. The build I playtested against still had room for 2 predators, 3 troops w/razorbacks and 2 HQs (each joined to a different troop) at the 1750 point level.

Kevin949 wrote:The change to PoTMS for BT was minimal (again, I see no mention of them changing it to BS4)

Archibald-TK wrote:It's indeed BS4 PotMS. The new rule doesn't diminish the BS of the vehicle to 2 anymore and is the same wording than in the Vanilla Codex unless I'm mistaken.

Hulksmash wrote:@sarigar

I could see it going both ways actually. However having watched and played this hobby for....way to long...I straight up told a buddy of mine how they would rule on it and shockingly....I was right again...

Oh well, I'm actually very happy with all of them w/the sole exception of the combat squading oopsy that seriously impacts BA's, Scout Bikers (hey I use them!), and a couple of other units.

Sarigar wrote:The one part I did like was the models coming out of a Drop Pod also count a Deep Striking. When I hear arguements that models coming out of Drop Pods aren't deep striking, it's only the drop pod or Vendettas are the models Outflanking, not the IG Vets inside, it makes me sad. I feel like it's the MtG generation trying to work their magic on 40K (no offense to all you MtG players out there, but over the years, I've heard some, interesting, rules discussions coming from that crowd).

Archibald-TK wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@Yakface- I understand your point but feel that you may have overlooked that the landspeeders can also take potms in the BT codex.

I have playtested against spammed bs 4 landspeeders with multi meltas, assault cannons& potms. Imho, there is nothing balanced about 1st turn meltas on your tanks. The BTs can field three such speeder squadrons and have around 1k points left to load up with a hq, troops and razorbacks. The build I playtested against still had room for 2 predators, 3 troops w/razorbacks and 2 HQs (each joined to a different troop) at the 1750 point level.

Hello.

I was skimming over the thread and noticed that issue for PotMS. I'd like to point out that only vehicles that list it as an option can buy it in the BT Codex, namely Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predyators and Vindicators. LS can't buy PotMS.