The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

The FAQ's are not official and have no effect on the rules yet. (Unless I missed a release)

It's perfectly possible that this will change so I would relax and wait until things are official. The army you just bought is perfectly usable.

Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

Fickle are the whims of GW - still, they have your money now and so it's not their problem.

Which, let's face it, sucks. I've had similar happen to me with two armies which have been invalidated by rules changes and codex unit/character removals - so you're not alone.

You can ask people to allow you to play with the pre-FAQ rules, or use the models as proxies - though expect some people to be a pain about it (for reasons that escape me).


Probably not the advice that's particularly popular with some on here - but have you considered other games? I've found trying other war games to be good for the soul while GW tries to sort itself out.

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

It is unwise to base your army around a single, and fickle, linchpin.

One-trick-ponies are not useful for very long.

It's like atm how DE players are throwing their toys out of the pram over jinking transports being clarified....

Was it really that amazing taking advantage of an extremely obvious oversight? From what I've seen DE mostly play exactly the same as before.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

You mean until. The FAQ means nothing until then. Any rule changes based on it are house rules and nothing more.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

I don't think holofields are an option for DE, no.
I think there's something called a night shield, but that just gives stealth, iirc.

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

No, they apparently don't.

Venoms have flickerfields, which confer a 5+ invuln.

Raiders can purchase night-shields to gain stealth.

Night-shields can also purchase night-shields.

At any rate, I stand by what I said. Pay for night-shields; use cover. Enjoy your 4+ cover saves without having to jink.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

No, they apparently don't.

Venoms have flickerfields, which confer a 5+ invuln.

Raiders can purchase night-shields to gain stealth.

Night-shields can also purchase night-shields.

At any rate, I stand by what I said. Pay for night-shields; use cover. Enjoy your 4+ cover saves without having to jink.

That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

I'm not purchasing the GSC until these FAQs are properly released. Like you I got really excited about a fluffy fun genestealer army but GW have really taken the wind out of my sails. I won't be purchasing them unless the FAQ is changed. Sorry that you got them beforehand, I feel your pain.

Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

You mean until. The FAQ means nothing until then. Any rule changes based on it are house rules and nothing more.

If you say so. It seems foolish to ignore the coming FAQ. Most of it will be the same, if not all.

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

CrownAxe wrote:There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

Warhammer 40k BRB, 4th edition, p. 78:

"As a general rule, about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it, and there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which blocks line of sight and provides cover..."

If you then look at the following page, you'll find that they envision dividing a 6 x 4 foot table into a 6 squared grid and putting a terrain piece in each.

At my FLGS, the standard is a grid of 9 squares with a terrain piece in each.

That said, if you look at the pictures on p. 79 of the 4th ed rulebook, the terrain pieces seem fairly large.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

No idea where you got that from. Standard here is 4 and won't help the DE player much. You mean a person who doesn't want to either play a different army (in fact the opposite of Dark Eldar) or have no shooting power in a shooting based book is somehow being irrational?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

Irrelevant. Jink overall makes no sense. They have chosen to attempt balance over fluff and should continue that.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

Warhammer 40k BRB, 4th edition, p. 78:

"As a general rule, about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it, and there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which blocks line of sight and provides cover..."

If you then look at the following page, you'll find that they envision dividing a 6 x 4 foot table into a 6 squared grid and putting a terrain piece in each.

At my FLGS, the standard is a grid of 9 squares with a terrain piece in each.

That said, if you look at the pictures on p. 79 of the 4th ed rulebook, the terrain pieces seem fairly large.

Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

In all honesty I haven't seen a game without at least 6 pieces of scenery since playing games and school. Albeit we played with none at all back then xD

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

Yeah, I've never had a standard "must use" terrain minimum or limit. For us it usually end up being however much we have on hand that fits the bill. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it becoming more standardized in terms of volume and type, but I definitely don't see it as a must. Besides which, those passages you just listed seem more like a guideline than a hard and fast rule.

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

How is it standard practice to use terrain rules from over 10 years ago?

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

and this is why being overly dependant on allies is a risky no matter what your army. there's no telling when GW'll change the allies matrix, change the allies rules or just introduce 8th edition and say "ya know what? allies where a bad idea!"

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

How is it standard practice to use terrain rules from over 10 years ago?

This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.

Traditio wrote:
This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.

Again, just suggestions/ guidelines rather than actual rules. Again, it mentions that the standards get more lax as the editions go forth.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Traditio wrote:
This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.

Again, just suggestions/ guidelines rather than actual rules. Again, it mentions that the standards get more lax as the editions go forth.

It wasn't a strict "rule" even in 4th edition.

I'm not making the claim that there is a "rule" that you HAVE to do this.

I simply assumed that it was more or less standard procedure among players, especially given that my own FLGS (only relevant because the owner's been playing for over a decade) has an informal "9 pieces (imagine a 9 square grid)" ethos.

And if the DE player did bring night shields and played with such a terrain "rule," he should reliably get 4+ cover saves without jinking.

No?

You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Traditio wrote:

I simply assumed that it was more or less standard procedure among players, especially given that my own FLGS (only relevant because the owner's been playing for over a decade) has an informal "9 pieces (imagine a 9 square grid)" ethos.

Rules for a number of terrain pieces are problematic unless every terrain piece is the same size.


The best rule of thumb I've seen for getting the 'right' amount of terrain on the table is to divide the table into quarters, fill one quarter with as much terrain as will fit in there, and then spread that terrain out to cover the table.


My usual process is to just keep plonking terrain on there until my opponent starts whimpering or the table collapses (whichever comes first), and go with that.



An awful lot of the problems that people have with 40K are just caused by not having enough terrain on the board.

 CrownAxe wrote:
You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Let me rephrase my recommendations to the DE, then:

1. Use more terrain.
2. Pay the points cost for night shields.
3. Enjoy the 4+ non-jinking cover saves.

What I'm saying shouldn't be as controversial as what you're making it out to be.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Let me rephrase my recommendations to the DE, then:

1. Use more terrain.
2. Pay the points cost for night shields.

What I'm saying shouldn't be as controversial as what you're making it out to be.

It's 'controversial' because it's not how Dark Eldar are supposed to work. They're supposed to be a fast-moving strike force, not sitting around huddled behind the bushes.

The FAQ suddenly makes them not as good as they used to be at what they are supposed to do, and telling people to suddenly start using their army in a way contrary to what they're supposed to be good at might 'fix' the issue from a rules perspective, but not from a background one.

insaniak wrote:It's 'controversial' because it's not how Dark Eldar are supposed to work. They're supposed to be a fast-moving strike force, not sitting around huddled behind the bushes.

The FAQ suddenly makes them not as good as they used to be at what they are supposed to do, and telling people to suddenly start using their army in a way contrary to what they're supposed to be good at might 'fix' the issue from a rules perspective, but not from a background one.

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

Just food for thought.

At any rate, I've played games against Dark Eldar raider/venom spam after the release of the FAQ drafts.

If you follow the 9 piece terrain rule, it's pretty easy for DE to get cover saves, even without being "huddled behind the bushes."

Venoms, raiders and ravagers are fast vehicles and skimmers. They move 12 inches per movement phase and can still fire at full BS. And they ignore terrain when making said movements.

DE players can use this to position their vehicles to gain cover without "huddling." [Remember, for this last point, that cover is always relative; Cover is always relative to 1. the one firing, 2. the target and 3. whatever it is that intervenes between them. In the case of a solar eclipse, one scarcely would say that the sun is "huddled" behind the moon.]

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

Imho, GW could easily fix this by giving all of the vehicles the option to upgrade to flicker fields.

Edit:

Though, in the absence of that, I do think that my advice, given that the rules are as they are, is tactically sound:

You don't want to jink and you don't want your vehicles to go boom? Then get night shields and use cover.

Simple as that.

Traditio wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

Imho, GW could easily fix this by giving all of the vehicles the option to upgrade to flicker fields.

Edit:

Though, in the absence of that, I do think that my advice, given that the rules are as they are, is tactically sound:

You don't want to jink and you don't want your vehicles to go boom? Then get night shields and use cover.

Simple as that.

How is this any different then you insisting on you using lascannons but us suggesting that grav is more tactically sound?

CrownAxe wrote:How is this any different then you insisting on you using lascannons but us suggesting that grav is more tactically sound?

I'm not proposing that he change his army (except to the extent that I'm saying that he should scribble "night shields" onto his army roster"). Aside from that, all I'm saying is: 1. put more stuff on the table (which could mean anything from notebooks to actual terrain pieces) and 2. be more tactical in the movement phase.

Wow, you guys seem to like empty tables. Currently we divide the table into 6 areas and roll a d3 for each , for an average of 12 pieces

While it may suck for DE, lets be real, from both a basic rules and background perspective, Jink forcing passengers to snapshot makes sense, and was likely just one of the litany of things GW just missed when hastily re-issuing 6E and the flashy new 7E, much like the issues with immobilized skimmers Jinking.

Being able to Jink with no effect on passengers was a little silly, particularly when the non-skimmer counterpart, Smoke Launchers, prevents shooting from passengers entirely (on top of only being able to be used once, for a lower cover save, and sometimes having to buy them or not have access to them at all).

Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While it may suck for DE, lets be real, from both a basic rules and background perspective, Jink forcing passengers to snapshot makes sense, and was likely just one of the litany of things GW just missed when hastily re-issuing 6E and the flashy new 7E, much like the issues with immobilized skimmers Jinking.

Being able to Jink with no effect on passengers was a little silly, particularly when the non-skimmer counterpart, Smoke Launchers, prevents shooting from passengers entirely (on top of only being able to be used once, for a lower cover save, and sometimes having to buy them or not have access to them at all).

Not to mention also at the cost of being able to move flat-out. If you read the rules for smoke-launchers, it explicitly says that you can pop smoke in lieu either of shooting OR moving flat out.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

 wuestenfux wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

It was you who asked "why would you", not me. Yes, they're not yet official, and your way of treating them is perfectly fine - I'm just saying that it's not the only way to treat them ;-)

I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick. Sucks that it prevents you from playing how you want, but you can still run GSC and Tyranids...right?

This happens to me all the time .

Made an ork army -> 6th edition rule changes killed it

Made a new ork army -> They FAQ killed off my HQ

Made a squiggoth -> FW made it roughly 4x as expensive to field

Made a Inquisition army based around the priests being able to use the LD of Inquisitors -> 7th killed that

New made a new ork army and gave the new codex a try -> It happened to become unplayable weak.

Made a DE hellion army -> They removed my hq and only option to take them as troops.

Made a new Inquision Crusader army with all converted power axes. 7th edition codex update ->Crusaders sword only

Decided to switch to WFB with my old armies awaiting for a new edition. -> AOS : (

Made a new ork army based on with tank busta's -> New FAQ kills it again.

I guess that this is the fate of being original instead of using the usual tactics with the usual armies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick.

The thing is that all interesting unusual armies are " A gimmick" while almost all SM, Eldar & Tau builds are to popular to be just a gimmick.
This is really sucky

 Griddlelol wrote:
I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick. Sucks that it prevents you from playing how you want, but you can still run GSC and Tyranids...right?

They can be fielded alongside each other, but all the synergy is gone. The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp. The basic concept of the list I really enjoyed was the idea that the enemy started the game surrounded by multiple small 'Stealer units which would attack in waves, first turn Broodkin second turn Lictors and manufactorum. Of the few games I played the list was incredibly fun for me and my opponent, very different dynamic from other forces in the game, but now I can't infiltrate anywhere near each other my deployment options for so many small units are basically non-existant. 5x5 5 man stealer units, 5 lictors and at least 4 Broodkin units really get in each others way.

I understand it's a ''gimmick'' but I didn't get excited to make the list because it was powerful or an exploit, I got excited about the idea of a tyranid vanguard force ambushing an army with waves of rending taloned monsters popping outta every shadow. Something a little different from gun-lines that plague my meta and A tyranid army that didn't rely on Flyrants. I guess I'm agreeing with Oldzoggy, I should of just spent my money on 4 flyrants and not tried to go down a themed fluff route.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp.

Ouch this is horrible. Has there been a similar comment on the facebook draft FAQ ?

GSC treat tyranids as AoC. AOC are treated as enemies, and as such I believe they get in the way of each others infiltration and shadow in the warp would affect them. That's how i'd read it at least.

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

It was you who asked "why would you", not me. Yes, they're not yet official, and your way of treating them is perfectly fine - I'm just saying that it's not the only way to treat them ;-)

Okay no problem.

If somebody in our gaming group wants to play with these FAQ's, it will not be a problem. But the players here ignore them so far.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
GSC treat tyranids as AoC. AOC are treated as enemies, and as such I believe they get in the way of each others infiltration and shadow in the warp would affect them. That's how i'd read it at least.

I know why it happened. It was just me asking if somebone complained at the FAQ draft that this happened just so that GW knows how we interoperate what this does.
It might just reduce the chance of them ruling this way. Posting it here will just result in me thinking: Glad I did no start a genestealers army ; )

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous.

The FAQs are drafts, so maybe give them feedback and explain how it doesn't make sense that GSC and Tyranids aren't best of friends.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous..

I dare to challenge that. Allmost all white scars lists are build around a few special rules of one HQ that doesn't even have a model for editions now and jet they get buffed instead of FAQ't / rule changed into oblivion.
It is only dangerous if you are a non mainstream player.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp.

Ouch this is horrible. Has there been a similar comment on the facebook draft FAQ ?

There has been a torrent of abuse on the FAQ for obvious reasons, it destroyes any synergy the Tyranids and GSC might have had. I mean sure drop podding in Cult with Tyranocites was dumb fluff wise but the FAQ already nixed that. I can only hope they reverse the decision as I was considering building a Vanguard Nid army along the same lines as Alex was (though I'd be looking at adding Mawlocs, they work great with a bunch of Lictors), the only thing that stopped me was not wanting to spend £80 on 5 Lictors.

As far as DE are concerned I think all the talk of them being nerfed to oblivion with the Jink FAQ is pure BS. Anybody running Venoms didn't rely on the Warriors for firepower and the Raiders can take Splinter Racks to twin link everybody's weapon. With 10 guys, one with a splinter cannon thats a minumum of 9 twin linked poison shots at 24" (assuming the Raider moved so the cannon's salvo range is halved) with up to 24 twin linked shots at 12". Admitedly at 85pts they're a bit expensive for AV10 all round but a 3+ jink makes them quite survivable. The only unit this really hurts are Trueborn, though at least the Venom's they'd be riding in have Flickerfields. Frankly, given the usability of Reavers, Incubi, Scourges, Razorwings, Grotesques and Talos I don't see any reason to weigh yourself down to a single unit type in the DE codex.

pm713 wrote:
No idea where you got that from. Standard here is 4 and won't help the DE player much. You mean a person who doesn't want to either play a different army (in fact the opposite of Dark Eldar) or have no shooting power in a shooting based book is somehow being irrational?

you play with ONLY FOUR terrain pieces?! better be some bigass multistructure multileveled pieces of terrain

seriously, i know there is no rules for it in the book (a shamful disgraze btw) but you guys should reaaaaally consider putting more terrain on the table. you should take alook at miniwargamings youtube channel, thats how a proper table should look like:



it just adds so much more variance into the game, actual maneuvering and hiding is a big part of 40k and if playing without terrain you are loosing that aspect of the game.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous..

I dare to challenge that. Allmost all white scars lists are build around a few special rules of one HQ that doesn't even have a model for editions now and jet they get buffed instead of FAQ't / rule changed into oblivion.
It is only dangerous if you are a non mainstream player.

What are you talking about?
There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

And White Scars armies are based on their Chapter Tactics, Scout from Khan is a really nice buff but just reinforces the armies general play style and basic design concept of "Look at me, I'm on a hors...erm, bike!". That's really not going to change, so having WS bike squads will never be a bad idea. Now, if I based my entire SM army around the Lib Conclave with Inquisition "warp charge battery" henchmen, I'd be royally fethed by the FAQ. "Great, you have 12 charges and can channel on a 2+, but you can only cast a total of two powers from your Conclave". "But you can just roflstomp with a Gladius" - sure, but there are other viable DE army lists, too - right?

I see White Scars Gladius as a gimmick. I don't think it's going to be viable for a long time. I'm still surprised they didn't rule that transports can't score in the most recent FAQ...

 Griddlelol wrote:
I see White Scars Gladius as a gimmick. I don't think it's going to be viable for a long time. I'm still surprised they didn't rule that transports can't score in the most recent FAQ...

a) How is that a gimmick? It's literally the core detachment for Space Marines.
b) You'll probably never hear a Space Marine player go "oh, hot damn, I'm out of Tactical Marines, I am doomed!". Not even a WS player.
c) Any vehicle is scoring, how the feth are you surprised by than? Come on.
c2) If you're actually refering to ObSec from the BDC - well, the rules on that really are clear as day (simply anything that's part of that formation gains ObSec IIRC), so why would they have to clarify anything there? It's not like there's a fluff reason to change it like with the BB+transports ruling.

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No idea where you got that from. Standard here is 4 and won't help the DE player much. You mean a person who doesn't want to either play a different army (in fact the opposite of Dark Eldar) or have no shooting power in a shooting based book is somehow being irrational?

you play with ONLY FOUR terrain pieces?! better be some bigass multistructure multileveled pieces of terrain

seriously, i know there is no rules for it in the book (a shamful disgraze btw) but you guys should reaaaaally consider putting more terrain on the table. you should take alook at miniwargamings youtube channel, thats how a proper table should look like:



it just adds so much more variance into the game, actual maneuvering and hiding is a big part of 40k and if playing without terrain you are loosing that aspect of the game.

Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

If we're being pedantic (addressing the OP), according to fluff a genestealer cult would not be on the board with Tyranids. Genestealer cults prepare a world/system for a Tyranid invasion and often sacrifice themselves to the Tyranids when they arrive.

As far back as 2nd edition, you could not ally Genestealer cults with actual Tyranid forces.

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

The Scout thing isnt tied to the bike. And whats your point anyway? It really doesnt matter whether or not you have to convert a model for the game and the rules.

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

I'm not making terrain that might not be used and even if it is used I will have to get rid of in a few months.

@ pm713, RedNoak is just trying to help. No need to gak on it.

@ RedNoak thanks for the link.

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

Much as I tend to disagree with Traditio, he's got a good point.

Whilst there is no set rule in the current meta about how much terrain is enough terrain, it's not exactly stupid to assume that more terrain = more good.
It nullifies a lot of the shooting game, and allows for melee combat and (somewhat) tactical movement to be a thing.

You can't exactly say that "my army is bad" when you're using a table that nerfs your army alone. As illustrated here, you can easily make some impromptu terrain, even if it's just books or boxes. Just don't complain about a facet of the game which you're partially to blame for.

Regarding passengers being able to fire at full BS when the vehicle can only make Snapshots - I'm a firm believer of both the passengers and vehicle snap shooting. Even as an abstraction, it made little sense. It sucks that the main victim is an underpowered codex, but the solution is to then improved that codex, not create a possibly broken, illogical gimmick.

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

The Scout thing isnt tied to the bike. And whats your point anyway? It really doesnt matter whether or not you have to convert a model for the game and the rules.

Why Does it matter if you have to convert a model or not?
Ask that any special character who did not have a model from the game guard, or k , Tyranids or darkeldar codex.
Spoiler it matters a lot

pm713 wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

I'm not making terrain that might not be used and even if it is used I will have to get rid of in a few months.

Well that's on you. It's cheap, simple, and would (hopefully) give you far more chances in your games.
You do you.

pm713 wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

I'm not making terrain that might not be used and even if it is used I will have to get rid of in a few months.

Why would you have to get rid of it in a few months, unless you're planning on moving, or really beat the heck out of your terrain. Terrain is terrain and thus far has been some of the only things in 40k that have never been invalidated by any rules or editions..

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

pm713 wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases. When I play at the store there's more terrain. The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

then make some
i know... we all started with books-under-a-sheet-hills, but scratch building terrain is not as difficult as it initially seems and for me at least part of the hobby.

you can take a look at gamzas youtube channel he has lots of "trash terrain" tutorials

I'm not making terrain that might not be used and even if it is used I will have to get rid of in a few months.

Why would you have to get rid of it in a few months, unless you're planning on moving, or really beat the heck out of your terrain. Terrain is terrain and thus far has been some of the only things in 40k that have never been invalidated by any rules or editions..

Because I am moving.

I didn't intend to gak on what Noak said. All I meant was to point out that helpful as the advice is it isn't of use to me at this time.

pm713 wrote:Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases.

When I said "9 pieces of terrain," I don't necessarily mean actual terrain pieces.

It could be anything from DVD cases to notebooks to flower pots.

I'm sure that you get thirsty every once in a while. Do you have water bottles, water glasses, etc? I'm sure that you have tons of things around your home that you can put on a table to obscure line of sight.

Even if they are clear glasses, you could just point to them and say: "Hey, we're pretending that you can't see through these. Got it?"

Do you know how big a paint brush is relative to a guardsman or a tactical marine?

The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

The Scout thing isnt tied to the bike. And whats your point anyway? It really doesnt matter whether or not you have to convert a model for the game and the rules.

Why Does it matter if you have to convert a model or not?
Ask that any special character who did not have a model from the game guard, or k , Tyranids or darkeldar codex.
Spoiler it matters a lot

You're still not making any sense to me, sorry. How is this relevant rules wise? This really doesn't seem to relate to the topic at all, so maybe we should move this to pm or elsewhere

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

The Scout thing isnt tied to the bike. And whats your point anyway? It really doesnt matter whether or not you have to convert a model for the game and the rules.

Why Does it matter if you have to convert a model or not?
Ask that any special character who did not have a model from the game guard, or k , Tyranids or darkeldar codex.
Spoiler it matters a lot

You're still not making any sense to me, sorry. How is this relevant rules wise?

Because characters without models have been systematically removed from the rules in most cases of late.

 Eldarain wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

Nobody fields that model or uses it ever.
Its Khan on a Moondrakkan that they use and Moondrakkan or even a mounted khan does not have a model.

The Scout thing isnt tied to the bike. And whats your point anyway? It really doesnt matter whether or not you have to convert a model for the game and the rules.

Why Does it matter if you have to convert a model or not?
Ask that any special character who did not have a model from the game guard, or k , Tyranids or darkeldar codex.
Spoiler it matters a lot

You're still not making any sense to me, sorry. How is this relevant rules wise?

Because characters without models have been systematically removed from the rules in most cases of late.

Ah, OK. But even if we lost the Khan, white scars would still beat the snot out of many armies, they're not a monobuild and all units you'd use in a "Khan" army can be used in any ws army. Heck, I frequently switch between ws and iron hands when playing bikes, both are valid and fun ...

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Its at home and I don't own terrain. The "terrain" is DVD cases.

When I said "9 pieces of terrain," I don't necessarily mean actual terrain pieces.

It could be anything from DVD cases to notebooks to flower pots.

I'm sure that you get thirsty every once in a while. Do you have water bottles, water glasses, etc? I'm sure that you have tons of things around your home that you can put on a table to obscure line of sight.

Even if they are clear glasses, you could just point to them and say: "Hey, we're pretending that you can't see through these. Got it?"

Do you know how big a paint brush is relative to a guardsman or a tactical marine?

The point of saying was more highlighting Traditio being ridiculous again.

That would just be 0 space that isn't terrain of some kind.

You're right. Trying to claim rules from 4th are the current standard wasn't ridiculous at all. Nor was the suggestion that DE players should reverse the entire theme of their army.

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

I've shot from a jinking vehicle in Iraq, it's actually not as bad as you would imagine.
There's also technology in use that factors in vehicle/turret movement and keeps the rounds on target with deadly precision.

If anything I'd just go with a type of test to see if Ballistic skill is effected on the passengers. Things like communication between driver and crew/passengers also helps mitigate accuracy loss...like yelling out "BUMP" or "Brace yourselves".

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

I've shot from a jinking vehicle in Iraq, it's actually not as bad as you would imagine.
There's also technology in use that factors in vehicle/turret movement and keeps the rounds on target with deadly precision.

If anything I'd just go with a type of test to see if Ballistic skill is effected on the passengers. Things like communication between driver and crew/passengers also helps mitigate accuracy loss...like yelling out "BUMP" or "Brace yourselves".

Modern MBTs can also fire accurately while jinking, but they cannot in 40k.

So either they have stabilization tech applied to all their guns (both vehicles and passengers) or they don't have it at all.

There should be no situation when a Vehicle must snapfire because of violent maneuvers but the passengers don't.

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

I've shot from a jinking vehicle in Iraq, it's actually not as bad as you would imagine.
There's also technology in use that factors in vehicle/turret movement and keeps the rounds on target with deadly precision.

If anything I'd just go with a type of test to see if Ballistic skill is effected on the passengers. Things like communication between driver and crew/passengers also helps mitigate accuracy loss...like yelling out "BUMP" or "Brace yourselves".

Why would the passengers be better off than the gunner though? And can we leave realism outside, please?

And @pm713: i played a game of SM vs Nids last week, i think we had 13 pieces of terrain and my rhinos and Land Raider did just fine navigating those.

And last but not least: can you guys just stop being rude towards Traditio for no fething reason? I'll report that kind of behaviour from now on.

nekooni wrote:

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

I've shot from a jinking vehicle in Iraq, it's actually not as bad as you would imagine.
There's also technology in use that factors in vehicle/turret movement and keeps the rounds on target with deadly precision.

If anything I'd just go with a type of test to see if Ballistic skill is effected on the passengers. Things like communication between driver and crew/passengers also helps mitigate accuracy loss...like yelling out "BUMP" or "Brace yourselves".

Why would the passengers be better off than the gunner though? And can we leave realism outside, please?

And @pm713: i played a game of SM vs Nids last week, i think we had 13 pieces of terrain and my rhinos and Land Raider did just fine navigating those.

And last but not least: can you guys stop just being rude towards Traditio for no fething reason? I'll report that kind of behaviour from now on.

Lack of room my friend lack of room.

I agree realism shouldn't be applied to the current Jink rule. It's clear Jink is not meant to be realistic.

I wouldn't say there's no reason for it after all his trolling.

I could easily agree with leaving realism outside, however I find this relevant as the fluff references our "outside history" as part of the wh40k history. Following that connection you can easily apply the logic that our outside tech could of been available in some form at the very least in the wh40k past

Well MBTs cannot jink at all in 40k.

Stay on a jinking attack helicopter, then tell me how easy it is to accurately shoot.

pm713 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Blitzen the Solitaire wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

I've shot from a jinking vehicle in Iraq, it's actually not as bad as you would imagine.
There's also technology in use that factors in vehicle/turret movement and keeps the rounds on target with deadly precision.

If anything I'd just go with a type of test to see if Ballistic skill is effected on the passengers. Things like communication between driver and crew/passengers also helps mitigate accuracy loss...like yelling out "BUMP" or "Brace yourselves".

Why would the passengers be better off than the gunner though? And can we leave realism outside, please?

And @pm713: i played a game of SM vs Nids last week, i think we had 13 pieces of terrain and my rhinos and Land Raider did just fine navigating those.

And last but not least: can you guys stop just being rude towards Traditio for no fething reason? I'll report that kind of behaviour from now on.

Lack of room my friend lack of room.

I agree realism shouldn't be applied to the current Jink rule. It's clear Jink is not meant to be realistic.

I wouldn't say there's no reason for it after all his trolling.

@Space on a standard table you have enough room. If you mean storage, just proxy something as terrain. And if you're playing on a non standard table with basically no terrain it's no wonder that you have issues finding cover. Not the FAQ Or games fault .


How about reading the board rules? That should give you plenty of reason not to.

Ah, OK. But even if we lost the Khan, white scars would still beat the snot out of many armies, they're not a monobuild and all units you'd use in a "Khan" army can be used in any ws army. .

Lets simplify it for you and look at army builds instead of all the cool characters non SM players lost.
Before the 6th update of the SM codex these builds where kinda similar in theme and obscureity and based around a HQ that did not have a model.

Whazdakka or Da rippa's biker army (Ork)
Barons hellion army. (DA)
Khans bike army (SM)
Mogul Kamir's rough riders (Guard) This one did have a model but it went oop.

Now look at what their rules update did to them.

Whazdakka gone.
Da rippa no longer supported by fw.
No biker detachment or formation in the codex or any supplement.
Ork Bikes lose their exhaust cloud special rule

The baron is gone no hellions formation or detachment.

Mogul and the rough riders are just gone.

Now look at what happens if you are a space marine player instead.
SM bikes get a HUGE buff by giving them relentless grav weapons
Khan stays, and the build gets their own relics decurion style detachment, warlord trait and multiple formations.

This is just sad.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
In all honesty I haven't seen a game without at least 6 pieces of scenery since playing games and school. Albeit we played with none at all back then xD

6 is little compared to what we have. Albeit some are more of individual walls but still. Plenty.

In game with lots of big guns that reach far having plenty of terrain is common sense to ensure it doesn't boil down to gunlines lobbing big shells at each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
@Space on a standard table you have enough room. If you mean storage, just proxy something as terrain. And if you're playing on a non standard table with basically no terrain it's no wonder that you have issues finding cover. Not the FAQ Or games fault .


How about reading the board rules? That should give you plenty of reason not to.

Only good reason to not have more terrain on board is "I don't want to". Not having terrain is rarely going to be viable excuse. I mean who DOESN'T have bunch of random stuff in their home? Books? Cups? DVD's? CD's? ANYTHING?

Now I'm sure people who have very barren rooms lives(Buddhist monks for one) but I doubt that type of people are prime candinates for miniature games so odds of that being reason for "no terrain" is...Well slim

 oldzoggy wrote:

Ah, OK. But even if we lost the Khan, white scars would still beat the snot out of many armies, they're not a monobuild and all units you'd use in a "Khan" army can be used in any ws army. .

Lets simplify it for you and look at army builds instead of all the cool characters non SM players lost.
Before the 6th update of the SM codex these builds where kinda similar in theme and obscureity and based around a HQ that did not have a model.
(...)

This is just sad.

I really don't get your point, sorry. Your criticism is that WS were a monobuilt and now they're not, and that that's unfair? Isn't the issue just that GW axed some characters from other armies for whatever reason?

I'm pretty sure that popular codexes also lost access to quite a few rules or even models in the past. Just recently there was this FAQ which wrecked the Lib Conclave and straight up changed the rule for the entire Drop Pod Taxi service thing, which a lot of Imperial players used. Both these changes destroyed a ton of builds for Space Marine players. If you relied on them, you just got bitchslapped. Same with the IC character rulings for people running ETC (Not everyone uses ITC rules) style rules - if you relied on ICs in your Skyhammer Annihilation force - tough luck. Doesn't work anymore.

It's the nature of a FAQ/Errata to change rules and to invalidate army builts that relied on abusing certain mechanics - like BB Transports, LibConclave Power Spamming - or Jinking but Full BS Passenger shooting.
It's not wrong to use these mechanics as long as there was no clear ruling against them, I'm not trying to judge anyone for that - but all these instances apparently werent the intention of the author.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Only good reason to not have more terrain on board is "I don't want to".

Exactly - and as I said: if you're playing on a non standard table with basically no terrain it's no wonder that you have issues finding cover. Not the FAQ or games fault .

nekooni wrote:

I'm pretty sure that popular codexes also lost access to quite a few rules or even models in the past. Just recently there was this FAQ which wrecked the Lib Conclave and straight up changed the rule for the entire Drop Pod Taxi service thing, which a lot of Imperial players used. Both these changes destroyed a ton of builds for Space Marine players. If you relied on them, you just got bitchslapped. Same with the IC character rulings for people running ETC (Not everyone uses ITC rules) style rules - if you relied on ICs in your Skyhammer Annihilation force - tough luck. Doesn't work anymore.

Are you really comparing no longer being able to smuggle ic's in your killer formation to no longer being able to field your xenos army.
Lol sure I'll bite.

First it is important to make a difference between popular amries and Imperial armies. There is a huge gab in popularity between admech and SM.

On the Lib conclave
- This is not an army this max 5 guys on bikes. There is a huge difference between no longer being able to run your speed freak army or having to find an other use for your 5 converted starter set bikes.
- This unit isn't killed off at all. Sure it can't cast as much as easy as it used to do but they got a huge boost by giving them a rulebook worth of SM only powers with tons of unique and potentially game breaking powers

On the Drop pod thing
- Ad mech, IG, sisters and Inq are not a top popular army so no suprize there that these got hit.
- SM's don't suffer from it since they can use their own pods.

On the IC's smuggling in Close combat with the Skyhammer Annihilation force.
- The Skyhammer Annihilation force isn't dead its still just as killy as before as are the IC's you just can't max its power lvs as much as you or others would like to.
This is in no way a fair comparison to what happened to the less popular books.

My point isn't that white scars are a "gimmick" my point is that GW is likely to feth your army over if you are doing something creative unless you play a popular army then you might even expect a boon.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

Good thing I didn't get my hopes up and buy the GSC. Dodged an expensive bullet, there.

 oldzoggy wrote:

On the Lib conclave
- This is not an army this max 5 guys on bikes. There is a huge difference between no longer being able to run your speed freak army or having to find an other use for your 5 converted starter set bikes.
- This unit isn't killed off at all. Sure it can't cast as much as easy as it used to do but they got a huge boost by giving them a rulebook worth of SM only powers with tons of unique and potentially game breaking powers

It was nerfed harshly. If I'm not an Ultramarine player my Conclave can cast a total of 2 (!) powers per Psychic Phase. That's a fraction of what it could do before. And I can't run them as a Psychic Scream unit either because they are only ever allowed to cast PS once as long as they stick together as a unit.

On the Drop pod thing
- Ad mech, IG, sisters and Inq are not a top popular army so no suprize there that these got hit.
- SM's don't suffer from it since they can use their own pods.

I can't use an AD to bring in a Drop Pod for my Gladius Grav-Centurions anymore, I'll have to play 55pts more for a 2nd Scout Squad at very least - and I cannot bring other Chapters in that way, e.g. Iron Hands Gladius with Red Scorpions AD w/ Drop Pod. That entire built doesn't really work anymore (Caveat: This is based on my assumption that the BB transport ruling will also extend to Vanilla Chapters allied each other, which seems to be the FAQs intention. It is not in the FAQ that way right now).

On the IC's smuggling in Close combat with the Skyhammer Annihilation force.
- The Skyhammer Annihilation force isn't dead its still just as killy as before as are the IC's you just can't max its power lvs as much as you or others would like to.
This is in no way a fair comparison to what happened to the less popular books.

It's not gone but the army list doesn't work that way. Just like you have to find something else to compensate for the changes mentioned/whined about in this very thread.

My point isn't that white scars are a "gimmick" my point is that GW is likely to feth your army over if you are doing something creative unless you play a popular army then you might even expect a boon.

Ignoring that SM get hit by nerfs just like other armies do. Yes, SM gets too many new toys by comparison, I'd rather have seen AM,Ork and Tyranid Codex Updates / Supplements instead of the Angels of Death book, and I'm a SM player. I tried playing a Tyranid player last week, brought 10-man tactical Squads, assault marines, regular termis, a land raider and honour guard in a simple CAD - and I still shredded him to tiny, pitiful pieces. It's not fun to win that way at all, I love the look of Nids on the table, but I can't have an interesting match with them as a SM player.

Why did I even try. Sure have it SM's are just as frequently and just as hard Nerfed by GW as all the less popular armies.

nekooni wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

On the Lib conclave
- This is not an army this max 5 guys on bikes. There is a huge difference between no longer being able to run your speed freak army or having to find an other use for your 5 converted starter set bikes.
- This unit isn't killed off at all. Sure it can't cast as much as easy as it used to do but they got a huge boost by giving them a rulebook worth of SM only powers with tons of unique and potentially game breaking powers

It was nerfed harshly. If I'm not an Ultramarine player my Conclave can cast a total of 2 (!) powers per Psychic Phase. That's a fraction of what it could do before. And I can't run them as a Psychic Scream unit either because they are only ever allowed to cast PS once as long as they stick together as a unit.

On the Drop pod thing
- Ad mech, IG, sisters and Inq are not a top popular army so no suprize there that these got hit.
- SM's don't suffer from it since they can use their own pods.

I can't use an AD to bring in a Drop Pod for my Gladius Grav-Centurions anymore, I'll have to play 55pts more for a 2nd Scout Squad at very least - and I cannot bring other Chapters in that way, e.g. Iron Hands Gladius with Red Scorpions AD w/ Drop Pod. That entire built doesn't really work anymore (Caveat: This is based on my assumption that the BB transport ruling will also extend to Vanilla Chapters allied each other, which seems to be the FAQs intention. It is not in the FAQ that way right now).

On the IC's smuggling in Close combat with the Skyhammer Annihilation force.
- The Skyhammer Annihilation force isn't dead its still just as killy as before as are the IC's you just can't max its power lvs as much as you or others would like to.
This is in no way a fair comparison to what happened to the less popular books.

It's not gone but the army list doesn't work that way. Just like you have to find something else to compensate for the changes mentioned/whined about in this very thread.

My point isn't that white scars are a "gimmick" my point is that GW is likely to feth your army over if you are doing something creative unless you play a popular army then you might even expect a boon.

Ignoring that SM get hit by nerfs just like other armies do. Yes, SM gets too many new toys by comparison, I'd rather have seen AM,Ork and Tyranid Codex Updates / Supplements instead of the Angels of Death book, and I'm a SM player. I tried playing a Tyranid player last week, brought 10-man tactical Squads, assault marines, regular termis, a land raider and honour guard in a simple CAD - and I still shredded him to tiny, pitiful pieces. It's not fun to win that way at all, I love the look of Nids on the table, but I can't have an interesting match with them as a SM player.

Behold my fiddle.

It is so very large.

Yeah man, I hate when they close the loopholes that let me turn my gak up to eleven...

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Behold my fiddle.

It is so very large.

As I've said before - I'm not complaining about those nerfs. The claim was "everyone but space marines gets nerfed". They do get nerfed, it's just that they're on a high power level even after being nerfed (and in some builts at ridiculous levels before those nerfs). The point is simply that there are SM lists that were "invalidated" by the FAQ, it's just that SM have enough alternate lists that still work and that the basic power level of SM is much higher than e.g. Orks or Nids.

I am failing to see a problem here, a lot of power builds where hit hard. If you want to turn things up to 11, well, you still can. You just have to think a little harder and tailor your list to suit your opponents army.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Yeah man, I hate when they close the loopholes that let me turn my gak up to eleven...

That's not fair at all.

The white dwarf said that the Genestealer cultists were treated like Tyranids in the allies matrix, which many people interpreted to mean they were battle brothers to tyranids (some said they were come the apocalypse) however under no interpretation of the rule was I lead to believe allies of convenience. This wasn't an FAQ, this was an errata. I wasn't exploiting a loop-hole, I was playing based on the only information available. Sure it was turned up to 11, with 100% of the army infiltrating, but what time of day was an army of almost purely genestealers considered powergaming? It was a fun dynamic that changed the kind of game the opponent played, changing every game from a mission into a scenario. Claiming i was exploiting a loop-hole feels like you are doing me a disservice.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
That's not fair at all.

The white dwarf said that the Genestealer cultists were treated like Tyranids in the allies matrix, which many people interpreted to mean they were battle brothers to tyranids (some said they were come the apocalypse) however under no interpretation of the rule was I lead to believe allies of convenience. This wasn't an FAQ, this was an errata. I wasn't exploiting a loop-hole, I was playing based on the only information available. Sure it was turned up to 11, with 100% of the army infiltrating, but what time of day was an army of almost purely genestealers considered powergaming? It was a fun dynamic that changed the kind of game the opponent played, changing every game from a mission into a scenario. Claiming i was exploiting a loop-hole feels like you are doing me a disservice.

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the "le sigh, I can't do a Superfriends Ultramarines grav Centurions made invisible by a scouting White Scars Librarian Conclave on bikes riding a Flesh Tearers Drop Pod and supported by Space Wolves Thunderwolf Cavalry!" camp. Allied shenanigans can be brutally ridiculous like my example, or they can be cool and fluffy like yours.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the "le sigh, I can't do a Superfriends Ultramarines grav Centurions made invisible by a scouting White Scars Librarian Conclave on bikes riding a Flesh Tearers Drop Pod and supported by Space Wolves Thunderwolf Cavalry!" camp. Allied shenanigans can be brutally ridiculous like my example, or they can be cool and fluffy like yours.

There is no such camp. I'm not at all complaining about the changes, I'm just commenting on the claim that everyone BUT Space Marines gets nerfed and SM never do. We got nerfed, end of story. We deserved it, and the FAQ rulings , especially the BB thing, makes way more sense fluffwise than how it was before.

But hey, since I play a popular codex and said anything on nerfs, I must be whining about them. That I've repeatedly said "the nerfs that affected SM are fine/deserved" can be ignored, right?

All I'm saying is "deal with it", don't blame other PLAYERS for rule changes made by GW that negatively affect your army list. If your army list is "invalidated", deal with it: Change your list so it works once again. SM players have to do this just like any other players do.

On the whole, I like most of the FAQ changes (bar the grenades one, but... meh).

Poor DE though... they lost just about the best thing they had going for them.

I for one really, really hope they are listening, and will sort the tier 3 codices out ASAP.

GW may have thrown terrain completely out of the window in terms of emphasis and rules, but our still-sane friends at FW push terrain density in 30k if anyone wants modern precedence

The thing is, DE have a right to complain about Jink and passengers but it's not as if letting them fire at full BS magically fixes DE because they are still a pile of gak that only became a Codex because Eldar stopped being able to use their Raiders/WWP in Wave Serpents.

 Frozocrone wrote:
The thing is, DE have a right to complain about Jink and passengers but it's not as if letting them fire at full BS magically fixes DE because they are still a pile of gak that only became a Codex because Eldar stopped being able to use their Raiders/WWP in Wave Serpents.

DE are only bad because of superheavies and bull gak MCs like the riptide. If those things didn't exist, DE would be fine. Lances + everything having poison would make them basically effective against everyone else.

Codexes were fine until the most efficient way to play was to stop using them; any faction that can't cherry pick via detachments, formations and allies (or player that finds it distasteful) will have a bad time

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Codexes were fine until the most efficient way to play was to stop using them; any faction that can't cherry pick via detachments, formations and allies (or player that finds it distasteful) will have a bad time

that statement perfefectly summerizes the current power meta

if we look at the bottom dexes what do we find? lack of ability to cherrypick units (orks, tyranids, classic CSM, guard)
and even with those... beeing competitive at higher point games just means min maxing with multiple CAD's

RedNoak wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Codexes were fine until the most efficient way to play was to stop using them; any faction that can't cherry pick via detachments, formations and allies (or player that finds it distasteful) will have a bad time

that statement perfefectly summerizes the current power meta

if we look at the bottom dexes what do we find? lack of ability to cherrypick units (orks, tyranids, classic CSM, guard)
and even with those... beeing competitive at higher point games just means min maxing with multiple CAD's

BA can cherry pick and are still ghastly. To make them playable, you have to replace all the BA units with good vanilla ones. Taking units from other lists doesn't make your list good. It just lets you play another list, which you could have done already.

 Traditio wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
The thing is, DE have a right to complain about Jink and passengers but it's not as if letting them fire at full BS magically fixes DE because they are still a pile of gak that only became a Codex because Eldar stopped being able to use their Raiders/WWP in Wave Serpents.

DE are only bad because of superheavies and bull gak MCs like the riptide. If those things didn't exist, DE would be fine. Lances + everything having poison would make them basically effective against everyone else.

It really doesn't. Even if that were true they aren't "fine".

Lances and Poison are outdated. Back in 5th, they were good to decent. 6th came and high strength/high rate of fire were what you needed to deal with vehicles. 7th made vehicles tougher and DE got left behind.

The best weapons now are small doses of poison and lance to supplement Haywire and Disintegrators. Cluster Caltrops if you go with Reavers which are...D6 S6. So high strength (and potentially high rate of fire). Dark Lances are terrible in 7th. Ravagers got a kick in the teeth by losing Aerial Assault. Not to mention the streamlining of the Codex.

Even more infuriating for DE players, they lost a lot of fluff, characters and interesting components because GW couldn't be fething bothered to make some models for them (don't quote Chapter House, because Tyranids got the Tyrannocyte to make up for the Mycotic Spore and Genesteal Cult's provide a new take on Yrmgal variants). Heck, just the other day, I noticed that on Forgeworld, the Ravenwing Fighter, one of the only three DE models you can buy, got shifted to Last Chance to Buy.

I would not be surprised if DE got slowly phased out.

 Traditio wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
The thing is, DE have a right to complain about Jink and passengers but it's not as if letting them fire at full BS magically fixes DE because they are still a pile of gak that only became a Codex because Eldar stopped being able to use their Raiders/WWP in Wave Serpents.

DE are only bad because of superheavies and bull gak MCs like the riptide. If those things didn't exist, DE would be fine. Lances + everything having poison would make them basically effective against everyone else.

Please, please stop, you have no idea what you're talking about. Not just about this either, but every thread you start.

Drasius wrote:Please, please stop, you have no idea what you're talking about. Not just about this either, but every thread you start.

I've played against DE both before and after the FAQ. I have yet actually to win a game against DE.

If you disagree with me, then by all means, please explain my alleged error based on actual facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Lances and Poison are outdated. Back in 5th, they were good to decent. 6th came and high strength/high rate of fire were what you needed to deal with vehicles. 7th made vehicles tougher and DE got left behind.

What you are saying is inconsistent. It's widely acknowledged that vehicles were much tougher in 5th than they are now. If lances were good in 5th against non-superheavy vehicles, then they're even better now.

And again, poison is just fine against everything else that's not: 1. a superheavy, 2. a GMC or 3. a bull gak MC like a riptide.

Yes, they don't get scatbikes, grav cannons, etc., but all of those things are OP. We need less OP bull gak in the game, not more.

 Frozocrone wrote:

I would not be surprised if DE got slowly phased out.

Your codex is newer than the current CSM codex.

Just saying.

The Raven going to last chance was probably an aesthetic choice. The model was based on the 3rd ed Dark Eldar design so if anything it was one of the most likely to get the chop. Plus, FW have stated that they discontinue models that don't sell the clear up space - sad but true. See also all the Chaos dreadnoughts that went with.

Don't forget, FW discontinued the Eldar Cobra and Scorpion and a few years later re-released them with an updated design aesthetic. So we might possibly see the Raven come back that way.

 Traditio wrote:

Drasius wrote:Please, please stop, you have no idea what you're talking about. Not just about this either, but every thread you start.

I've played against DE both before and after the FAQ. I have yet actually to win a game against DE.

If you disagree with me, then by all means, please explain my alleged error based on actual facts.

I'll take a swing at it.
The 7th Edition Dark Eldar codex, not counting the Covens units/supplement, is incredibly squishy. Squishier than IG, Nids, Orks, Eldar, or anything else. They also aren't as fast as several other armies. Biker armies, Eldar, and Corsairs (probably missing a few armies) are all more mobile, and pack far more durability and firepower than the Dark Eldar can reasonably bring, while being as fast, or faster than them.
Poison spam doesn't deal with 2+ MC's very well, and does almost nothing to GC's due to wounding on 6's. It also does nothing against deathstars, who almost always have invisibility and/or rerollable 2+/3+ saves, which render both poison and lance useless against them.
Lance spam, while possible, doesn't bring the ROF to deal with the sheer number of high durability units out there. 3 Triple Lance Ravagers won't kill a Knight or a WK, and won't be very good against MC's like Riptides and Dreadknights, due to their mobility, plus their invul saves. In older editions DE were sufficiently mobile and hit hard enough to make them a very high risk high reward army, but in the new edition with the increase in mobility for everyone else, and the rather insane increase in firepower that everyone brings means that DE are stuck as a high risk regular reward.
DE lacks ignores cover weapons that most armies have access to, and rely almost exclusively on cover saves, so hunters eye, markerlights, flamers (god, feth flamers), and all the rest of that Ignores Cover stuff feths DE harder than any other army, while having no access to it at all.
The FAQ didn't really change the power of the DE, as their main firepower comes from Scourges, Venoms (who don't need to jink often due to their range and invul) and Reavers, who usually do stuff with their HOW. This, while plenty of casual lists, is nowhere near enough to deal with most of the stuff that other dex's can throw.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

I would not be surprised if DE got slowly phased out.

Your codex is newer than the current CSM codex.

Just saying.

The Raven going to last chance was probably an aesthetic choice. The model was based on the 3rd ed Dark Eldar design so if anything it was one of the most likely to get the chop. Plus, FW have stated that they discontinue models that don't sell the clear up space - sad but true. See also all the Chaos dreadnoughts that went with.

Don't forget, FW discontinued the Eldar Cobra and Scorpion and a few years later re-released them with an updated design aesthetic. So we might possibly see the Raven come back that way.

Yeah, I do feel for Chaos players. I don't actually play DE anymore, I just got so disheartened by the lack of support and the fact that Craftworlds do everything better that I decided to focus on Orks and Blood Angels (primarily for 30k purposes).

You would think that Chaos Space Marines would (and should) get a new Codex considering they have gone almost five years without a new one (only some new formations) whereas Eldar and SM get new ones. It's blows my mind, considering that Chaos is the main enemy of the Imperium. Heck there is a whole game devoted to Imperium vs Chaos! GW needs to get their priorities straight.

I am aware about stopping model ranges on FW part. I've asked about why some legions don't have Rhino doors and that was their response. It's just annoying that DE only have three vehicles down to two. Not to mention Corsairs which do Dark Eldar better lol.

Traditio wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Lances and Poison are outdated. Back in 5th, they were good to decent. 6th came and high strength/high rate of fire were what you needed to deal with vehicles. 7th made vehicles tougher and DE got left behind.

What you are saying is inconsistent. It's widely acknowledged that vehicles were much tougher in 5th than they are now. If lances were good in 5th against non-superheavy vehicles, then they're even better now.

And again, poison is just fine against everything else that's not: 1. a superheavy, 2. a GMC or 3. a bull gak MC like a riptide.

Yes, they don't get scatbikes, grav cannons, etc., but all of those things are OP. We need less OP bull gak in the game, not more.

Except that's not what I've said, in this thread and in other threads. Single shot weapons are bad in this edition and ever since Hull Points became a thing. Dark Lances are terrible anti-tank weapons. Against a Rhino they do a hull point 43% of the time and cause an explosion 7% of the time. Assuming you're not Snap-firing mind. To guarantee wrecking a 35 point Rhino, you need about 7 Dark Lances, or three Ravagers.

Poison is only good against high toughness, elite units (such as a Monstrous Creature). It's middling against everything else. Venom's only do 4 wounds on average per volley, or 2 wounds, 1.33 wounds and 0.64 wounds against 4+, 3+ and 2+ respectively, not accounting for FnP, rerollable saves etc etc. On such a frail platform, you expect more.

It's a glass hammer army that seems to have forgotten it's toolbox. The only part of your comment I agree with is less OP stuff, but considering the direction that GW is going in, this is unlikely to change.

 Frozocrone wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

I would not be surprised if DE got slowly phased out.

Your codex is newer than the current CSM codex.

Just saying.

The Raven going to last chance was probably an aesthetic choice. The model was based on the 3rd ed Dark Eldar design so if anything it was one of the most likely to get the chop. Plus, FW have stated that they discontinue models that don't sell the clear up space - sad but true. See also all the Chaos dreadnoughts that went with.

Don't forget, FW discontinued the Eldar Cobra and Scorpion and a few years later re-released them with an updated design aesthetic. So we might possibly see the Raven come back that way.

Yeah, I do feel for Chaos players. I don't actually play DE anymore, I just got so disheartened by the lack of support and the fact that Craftworlds do everything better that I decided to focus on Orks and Blood Angels (primarily for 30k purposes).

You would think that Chaos Space Marines would (and should) get a new Codex considering they have gone almost five years without a new one (only some new formations) whereas Eldar and SM get new ones. It's blows my mind, considering that Chaos is the main enemy of the Imperium. Heck there is a whole game devoted to Imperium vs Chaos! GW needs to get their priorities straight.

I am aware about stopping model ranges on FW part. I've asked about why some legions don't have Rhino doors and that was their response. It's just annoying that DE only have three vehicles down to two. Not to mention Corsairs which do Dark Eldar better lol.

To be fair, Doom of Mymeara does everything better. Corsairs seem to be a better raiding force than DE and the Pale Courts battlehost allows Craftwords to do...well..craftworlds better.

CSM is basically the eternal scapegoat - there are still people who believe that Siren or Iron Warriors ruined 40k forever (in the era of Tau Fish of Fury, the first SM Bikestar lists, Nidzilla and Eldar Craftworld shenanigans) and will hyperventilate the moment Chaos get anything of value. I think part of the delay and hesitation is just that - well, that or plans to do a DE style range rework from the ground up.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

I would not be surprised if DE got slowly phased out.

Your codex is newer than the current CSM codex.

Just saying.

The Raven going to last chance was probably an aesthetic choice. The model was based on the 3rd ed Dark Eldar design so if anything it was one of the most likely to get the chop. Plus, FW have stated that they discontinue models that don't sell the clear up space - sad but true. See also all the Chaos dreadnoughts that went with.

Don't forget, FW discontinued the Eldar Cobra and Scorpion and a few years later re-released them with an updated design aesthetic. So we might possibly see the Raven come back that way.

Yeah, I do feel for Chaos players. I don't actually play DE anymore, I just got so disheartened by the lack of support and the fact that Craftworlds do everything better that I decided to focus on Orks and Blood Angels (primarily for 30k purposes).

You would think that Chaos Space Marines would (and should) get a new Codex considering they have gone almost five years without a new one (only some new formations) whereas Eldar and SM get new ones. It's blows my mind, considering that Chaos is the main enemy of the Imperium. Heck there is a whole game devoted to Imperium vs Chaos! GW needs to get their priorities straight.

I am aware about stopping model ranges on FW part. I've asked about why some legions don't have Rhino doors and that was their response. It's just annoying that DE only have three vehicles down to two. Not to mention Corsairs which do Dark Eldar better lol.

To be fair, Doom of Mymeara does everything better. Corsairs seem to be a better raiding force than DE and the Pale Courts battlehost allows Craftwords to do...well..craftworlds better.

CSM is basically the eternal scapegoat - there are still people who believe that Siren or Iron Warriors ruined 40k forever (in the era of Tau Fish of Fury, the first SM Bikestar lists, Nidzilla and Eldar Craftworld shenanigans) and will hyperventilate the moment Chaos get anything of value. I think part of the delay and hesitation is just that - well, that or plans to do a DE style range rework from the ground up.

I pray that DE and CSM both get proper updates soon. Right now I'd love to play DE, but that book is just such a train wreck right now.

Frozocrone wrote:Except that's not what I've said, in this thread and in other threads. Single shot weapons are bad in this edition and ever since Hull Points became a thing.

Even with hullpoints, vehicles are still less durable than they were in 5th edition. Instead of getting the appropriate results on the vehicle damage table a certain number of times (which may be 3 or more times with a dark lance anyway), now you just need to get (usually no more than) 3 glancing hits to wreck a rhino.

 Traditio wrote:
What you are saying is inconsistent. It's widely acknowledged that vehicles were much tougher in 5th than they are now. If lances were good in 5th against non-superheavy vehicles, then they're even better now.

No, it doesn't work like that. Vehicles are weaker overall than they were in 5th, that's not the same as being weaker against all weapon types. The primary difference in durability is mid-strength high-ROF weapons. In 5th those weapons were great for inflicting lots of glances and keeping a vehicle shaken or stunned all game but not very effective at killing it. In 6th those weapons keep their ability to glance a vehicle into a useless paperweight, but now they take away 1/3 of its HP with every glance and quickly kill it. High-strength low-ROF weapons actually got worse in 6th because their chance of a one-shot kill was significantly reduced (cut in half, for lances) and they don't really have the ROF to strip HP fast enough to matter.

And of course the other factor is that heavy vehicles, the things lances are supposed to be best at killing, have all but disappeared from the metagame in 7th. Lances were never all that great against AV 10-12 for their point cost because you pay for the ability to cut a Land Raider or LRBT down to AV 12. And now, with the lance rule marginal at best, they have no real advantage over the high-ROF weapons you took in 5th if you wanted to stop Rhino spam.

And again, poison is just fine against everything else that's not: 1. a superheavy, 2. a GMC or 3. a bull gak MC like a riptide.

IOW, "poison is fine as long as you don't include any of the things it isn't fine against." If you exclude the big units then poison weapons are just bolters (and, in fact, worse than bolters against T3 infantry). And haven't you complained an awful lot about how your bolter tactical marines aren't good enough?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
What you are saying is inconsistent. It's widely acknowledged that vehicles were much tougher in 5th than they are now. If lances were good in 5th against non-superheavy vehicles, then they're even better now.

No, it doesn't work like that. Vehicles are weaker overall than they were in 5th, that's not the same as being weaker against all weapon types. The primary difference in durability is mid-strength high-ROF weapons. In 5th those weapons were great for inflicting lots of glances and keeping a vehicle shaken or stunned all game but not very effective at killing it. In 6th those weapons keep their ability to glance a vehicle into a useless paperweight, but now they take away 1/3 of its HP with every glance and quickly kill it. High-strength low-ROF weapons actually got worse in 6th because their chance of a one-shot kill was significantly reduced (cut in half, for lances) and they don't really have the ROF to strip HP fast enough to matter.

And of course the other factor is that heavy vehicles, the things lances are supposed to be best at killing, have all but disappeared from the metagame in 7th. Lances were never all that great against AV 10-12 for their point cost because you pay for the ability to cut a Land Raider or LRBT down to AV 12. And now, with the lance rule marginal at best, they have no real advantage over the high-ROF weapons you took in 5th if you wanted to stop Rhino spam.

Points noted. I have no substantive comments at this time.

IOW, "poison is fine as long as you don't include any of the things it isn't fine against."

Except, that's literally what I said earlier. "DE suck because of x, y and z units." They aren't bad in general. They're bad because GW has taken a horrible turn for the worse from 6th edition onwards.

If you exclude the big units then poison weapons are just bolters (and, in fact, worse than bolters against T3 infantry). And haven't you complained an awful lot about how your bolter tactical marines aren't good enough?

Except, they're not. My tactical marines' bolters can't hurt carnifexes or wraithlords on 4s. They can't even hurt wraithknights on 6s.

 Traditio wrote:

Drasius wrote:Please, please stop, you have no idea what you're talking about. Not just about this either, but every thread you start.

I've played against DE both before and after the FAQ. I have yet actually to win a game against DE.

Which doesn't mean DE is good...

What you are saying is inconsistent. It's widely acknowledged that vehicles were much tougher in 5th than they are now. If lances were good in 5th against non-superheavy vehicles, then they're even better now.

Umm no. Just because they were tougher then doesn't mean it's better now. They are softer now because better way to take them out came out. Better way which btw does not involve high S low AP guns like dark lance...

Not to mention number of vechiles have gone up. Ability of dark lance to take out vechiles went down, ability of OTHER type of guns went up and numbers went up. Does not make dark lance better.

 Traditio wrote:


Except, they're not. My tactical marines' bolters can't hurt carnifexes or wraithlords on 4s. They can't even hurt wraithknights on 6s.

And my Splinter rifles can't hurt AV 10 vehicles in 6's or T3 on 3's. There are trade offs to everything. I didn't shelve my Dark Eldar because I am a bad Dark Eldar player, I've shelved them because I actively can't keep up with my friends armies unless I went 100% gimmick list e.g Corpsethief Claw which as it happens I've recently learned is a bad idea. The themes I enjoyed the army for where fire power and speed, but now we have little firepower to show for it and we aren't noteworthy in speed. Jinking may not actively be movement, but to me at least it fit the theme. So many armours have a plathora of ignores cover or medium str/high rof weaponry raiders get shredded by the dozen.

I would agree with you that Dark Eldar weren't bad in general, back in 6th we could use them quite effectively. And even the new codex was more of a sidegrade than an upgrade since it removed so many of our special rules (fun fact, we only as 5 unique special rules associated with the units, 3 of which are dodge) but we could still be run in a similar way. That hasn't changed much, its the competition and the changes to the core mechanics that have shelved the army. Not that it matters, the end result is the same.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

If you base your entire army list and purchases around a "one trick pony" idea, you really only have yourself to blame when the meta shifts or an FAQ/Errata invalidates your one trick. Had you built a more balanced list, you'd be fine right now.

I feel for you, but let this be a lesson for the future.

 Kriswall wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

If you base your entire army list and purchases around a "one trick pony" idea, you really only have yourself to blame when the meta shifts or an FAQ/Errata invalidates your one trick. Had you built a more balanced list, you'd be fine right now.

I feel for you, but let this be a lesson for the future.

I don't understand you, what constitutes a 1 trick poney list? Why is 100% infiltrating different from Deepstriking different from drop pods different from reserves? They are all alternative deployment types. Also let me ask you, have you seen many balanced tyranid lists? Ones that don't rely on 2-3 Flyrants? Had I built a more balanced list I would've been shoe horned into the only other viable tyranid list there is. The White Dwarf specifically noted that GSC were treated as tyranids for the allies matrix, was I meant to of expected them to change this? ''Ha, psych! This army we brought out specifically to be Tyranid allies aren't actually good allies anymore! We sure got you!''. I wasn't relying on some flimsy loophole, I was relying the White Dwarf meaning what they say and not changing the rules after people had bought the models with no basis for the rules change.

In my opinion at least, battle brothers using each others Transports was a gimmick, my Dark Eldar shooting full bs out of transports was a gimmick (although it greatly helped a flagging army) but actively changing ally status to one that impeeds infiltration when the *entire* point of the GSC is to infiltrate isn't fixing a gimmick but rather a breach of trust and shows a startling lack of insight into there own rules. Unless of course you believe the Broodlord being effected by the Shadow in the Warp is intentional as well...

Technically, if GSC are treated as Tyranids for the purpose of allying, then they shouldn't even have been in an army with Tyranids; a Faction cannot ally with itself.

That said, Genestealer Cult units could have been taken in a Tyranid regular detachment, if they were indeed the same faction...


....it's less of a 'loophole' and more of GW not being clear in their White Dwarf article. It's certainly unclear to me based on what I have heard!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically, if GSC are treated as Tyranids for the purpose of allying, then they shouldn't even have been in an army with Tyranids; a Faction cannot ally with itself.

Welcome to 7th edition, you must be new here.

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically, if GSC are treated as Tyranids for the purpose of allying, then they shouldn't even have been in an army with Tyranids; a Faction cannot ally with itself.

Welcome to 7th edition, you must be new here.

It's true, the Allied Detachment specifically says that it must be a different faction from the primary detachment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically, if GSC are treated as Tyranids for the purpose of allying, then they shouldn't even have been in an army with Tyranids; a Faction cannot ally with itself.

Welcome to 7th edition, you must be new here.

It's true, the Allied Detachment specifically says that it must be a different faction from the primary detachment.

Allied detachment is not only way to ally.

CAD of blood angels, CAD of tau. Hey presto you have alliance of blood angel and tau.

Or CAD of blood angels and the 5 battlewagon formation from orks. Alliance of BA and orks(lol)

You can even repeat CADs, so that technically is an alliance of the same faction.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If you exclude the big units then poison weapons are just bolters (and, in fact, worse than bolters against T3 infantry). And haven't you complained an awful lot about how your bolter tactical marines aren't good enough?

Except, they're not. My tactical marines' bolters can't hurt carnifexes or wraithlords on 4s. They can't even hurt wraithknights on 6s.

Whilst your point may be true, read what Peregrine says.

"If you exclude the big units..."

Tell me, how is Peregrine's restraint different to yours? You decry his restraint, and then impose your own.

Bolters are actually a fair bit stronger as they can actually damage lightly armoured vehicles (only needing 3 6s to kill most vehicles like it) and such bolters can be improved in the vanilla SM codex by none other that your own Crimson Fist/Imperial Fist tactics, Ultramarine tactics (which are accessible in the Gladius) and Raptor tactics, to name but a few.

Bolters and Splinter weapons are both good weapons, with each having strengths over the other - and besides - you don't use bolters in the SM 'dex to kill MCs. You use grav or similar tools.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

If you base your entire army list and purchases around a "one trick pony" idea, you really only have yourself to blame when the meta shifts or an FAQ/Errata invalidates your one trick. Had you built a more balanced list, you'd be fine right now.

I feel for you, but let this be a lesson for the future.

I don't understand you, what constitutes a 1 trick poney list? Why is 100% infiltrating different from Deepstriking different from drop pods different from reserves? They are all alternative deployment types. Also let me ask you, have you seen many balanced tyranid lists? Ones that don't rely on 2-3 Flyrants? Had I built a more balanced list I would've been shoe horned into the only other viable tyranid list there is. The White Dwarf specifically noted that GSC were treated as tyranids for the allies matrix, was I meant to of expected them to change this? ''Ha, psych! This army we brought out specifically to be Tyranid allies aren't actually good allies anymore! We sure got you!''. I wasn't relying on some flimsy loophole, I was relying the White Dwarf meaning what they say and not changing the rules after people had bought the models with no basis for the rules change.

In my opinion at least, battle brothers using each others Transports was a gimmick, my Dark Eldar shooting full bs out of transports was a gimmick (although it greatly helped a flagging army) but actively changing ally status to one that impeeds infiltration when the *entire* point of the GSC is to infiltrate isn't fixing a gimmick but rather a breach of trust and shows a startling lack of insight into there own rules. Unless of course you believe the Broodlord being effected by the Shadow in the Warp is intentional as well...

The White Dwarf never said that GSC were Battle Brothers with Tyranids. Lots of people interpreted it that way. Lots of people didn't. What it actually said was that GSC allied in the same way as Tyranids. I interpreted that as they are Come the Apocalypse with everyone. Being Battle Brothers with Tyranids never made fluff sense. I can't see a Hive Tyrant bro-fisting a 3rd Gen Cultist. Not gonna happen. From a lore perspective, the GSC prepare a planet and then move on. They don't hang out for the biomass scouring. They'd never be fighting Marines side by side with Termagants, for example.

You interpreted a vague rule wrong and it bit you in the ass. Sucks, but that's a risk when you put all your eggs in one basket.

 Kriswall wrote:
From a lore perspective, the GSC prepare a planet and then move on. They don't hang out for the biomass scouring. They'd never be fighting Marines side by side with Termagants, for example.

Just feel like I need to point out that the GSC sticks around and waits to be eaten by the swarm. They're just more biomass for the alien beings they worship as gods. Sort of a Shadow Over Innsmouth vibe.

Fluff debates aside, I just think it's odd the AoC is the decision that was reached. No one, and I mean "no one", could have possibly interpreted "Ally exactly as Tyranids" to mean AoC.

*edited to correct my own negligence.*

 Kriswall wrote:
Being Battle Brothers with Tyranids never made fluff sense. I can't see a Hive Tyrant bro-fisting a 3rd Gen Cultist. Not gonna happen. From a lore perspective, the GSC prepare a planet and then move on. They don't hang out for the biomass scouring. They'd never be fighting Marines side by side with Termagants, for example.

Sigh. Battle Brothers does not literally mean 'brofists and cuddlefests'.

You harp on about fluff sense, try to apply that here but apply it nowhere else.

Let's look at some OTHER Battle Brother factions shall we?

Dark Eldar and Eldar - hmm, hard to see the Farseer brofisting the Archon who just opened up the psychic torture box that brainfethed half the field. Hard to see Drazhar and Karandras having a casual cup of tea together. And yet, these factions are Battle Brothers. Crazy, huh?

Armies of the Imperium - OH BOY. Buckle up sonny, this is going to be fun.

Grey Knights/Inquisition and well...anyone - do you not know what happened after the First War for Armageddon? Where the Space Wolves very nearly kicked off another war because Standard Ordo Malleus Practices were NOT something they agreed with? What about the Grey Knights and Adepta Soritas? I should think the Sisters would NOT be willing to work well with people who slaughtered part of an Order just to wear their blood. Or Dark Angels? Pretty sure the sons of the Lion don't exactly play nicely with the Inquisition. Too many secrets. Flesh Tearers! Hey, everyone loves the Marines with a reputation for murdering everything in an uncontrolled frenzy, right?

Dark Angels and Space Wolves - Oh but they will work together - still one hell of an honour grudge there. I'd not say Battle Brothers in the slightest. But according to the Ally Matrix they are just that.

Black Templars and anyone who brings a psyker - Youre kidding, right?

And you're trying to apply FLUFF LOGIC to GSCs who tend to get psychically whammied when the Hive Fleet come in range. Their brood links get jacked by the Hive Mind and in the end they become frothing cults who die for the Hive Fleets, believing it's the will of their four armed fathers. You harp on about fluff but don't read any of the 2nd ed. Tyranid Codex...particularly the bit where it mentions reports of cults fighting side by side with the Tyrannic invades during Hive Fleet Kraken's invasion. GO READ THE ICHAR FLUFF AGAIN. Please.

And you also chose to interpret the rule as a git.

It specifically stated that ally 'as Tyranids'.

Look at the ally matrix. Tyranids are CTA with everyone apart from themselves.

The fact they specifically ally as Tyranids I'd interpret as 'count as Tyranids for the Matrix' - ie. CTA for everyone apart from Tyranids.

Otherwise they would have said they were Come the Apocalypse with all factions. No need to mention Tyranids at all to state that.

On the bright side, Battle Brothers isn't what it used to be with the draft FAQs. They may be fazing it out entirely.

Also, you seem to be a little high-strung there, DarkStarSabre. I agree with your assessment of Battle Brothers, but you're getting little worked up over this. Go for a walk, take a deep breath, maybe smoke a bowl or something. You sound like you're about to pop a blood vessel, man!

 EnTyme wrote:
On the bright side, Battle Brothers isn't what it used to be with the draft FAQs. They may be fazing it out entirely.

Also, you seem to be a little high-strung there, DarkStarSabre. I agree with your assessment of Battle Brothers, but you're getting little worked up over this. Go for a walk, take a deep breath, maybe smoke a bowl or something. You sound like you're about to pop a blood vessel, man!

Because unfortunately we live in a world where everyone is bubblewrapped so Darwin's law of natural selection is being artificially hampered, allowing people to have the same fething idiotic viewpoints regardless of the number of times they're told otherwise.

And this isn't high strung at all mate. This is perhaps flabbergasted at someone trying to tell me the fluff of a faction I first learned to play the game with back in second edition (and hell, the fluff even goes into Rogue Trader - Mind Slaves were a thing - Tyranid armies used to consist of GSC models, Screamer Killers, Zoats, Warriors, Squig Swarms and best of all a squad of IG, Orks or CSM as mind slaves).

No one cares

 Kriswall wrote:
The White Dwarf never said that GSC were Battle Brothers with Tyranids. Lots of people interpreted it that way. Lots of people didn't. What it actually said was that GSC allied in the same way as Tyranids. I interpreted that as they are Come the Apocalypse with everyone. Being Battle Brothers with Tyranids never made fluff sense. I can't see a Hive Tyrant bro-fisting a 3rd Gen Cultist. Not gonna happen. From a lore perspective, the GSC prepare a planet and then move on. They don't hang out for the biomass scouring. They'd never be fighting Marines side by side with Termagants, for example.

You interpreted a vague rule wrong and it bit you in the ass. Sucks, but that's a risk when you put all your eggs in one basket.

They are psychically mind controlled by hive mind same as termagaunts and when the war is done they will go to biomass collecting same as other tyranids.

They have no free will and are there controlled by hive mind same as termagaunt and carnifax.

Why would hive meet treat parts of itself separately to other parts? They are all organic biomass under its complete control. Hive mind is racist based on looks?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Whilst your point may be true, read what Peregrine says.

"If you exclude the big units..."

Sure. Against marines, bolters and splinter rifles are basically equivalent.

Against everything else? Not so much.

Bolters are actually a fair bit stronger as they can actually damage lightly armoured vehicles (only needing 3 6s to kill most vehicles like it)

You can't really compare the six 6's that a splinter rifle needs to kill a wraithknight, or the one 4 that a splinter rifle needs to kill a wraithguard, to the three 6's a boltgun needs to kill a rhino at rear AV or a venom at any AV.

Practically speaking, it's just not comparable. It makes tactical sense to use dark eldar warriors to take out a unit of wraithguard. It makes no sense to try to bolter a venom to death.

Not to mention the fact that warriors cost far fewer points per model than a space marine.

Bolters and Splinter weapons are both good weapons, with each having strengths over the other - and besides - you don't use bolters in the SM 'dex to kill MCs. You use grav or similar tools.

Do pray tell, Sgt. Smudge, with what weapon are tyrranic war veterans armed?

Tone it down in here, folks. It's getting way too snarky for a discussion of toy soldiers.

 Traditio wrote:

Do pray tell, Sgt. Smudge, with what weapon are tyrranic war veterans armed?

Tyranid war veterans are traditionally armed with Boltguns and Heavy Bolters with Hellfire shells (which were invented for killing tyranid MCs).

How is this relevant to a discussion about Boltguns not being suitable for killing MCs? They aren't.

 Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Whilst your point may be true, read what Peregrine says.

"If you exclude the big units..."

Sure. Against marines, bolters and splinter rifles are basically equivalent.

Against everything else? Not so much.

Bolters are actually a fair bit stronger as they can actually damage lightly armoured vehicles (only needing 3 6s to kill most vehicles like it)

You can't really compare the six 6's that a splinter rifle needs to kill a wraithknight, or the one 4 that a splinter rifle needs to kill a wraithguard, to the three 6's a boltgun needs to kill a rhino at rear AV or a venom at any AV.

Practically speaking, it's just not comparable. It makes tactical sense to use dark eldar warriors to take out a unit of wraithguard. It makes no sense to try to bolter a venom to death.

Not to mention the fact that warriors cost far fewer points per model than a space marine.

quote]
You're right for once. Against many armies splinter rifles are actually worse than Bolters.

You can really. A tactical Marine can (currently at least) take down most vehicles at close range with grenades and can do a lot against AV10 by just rapid firing. Which does make sense in a lot of situations e.g. The Venom is at close range but you don't want to waste anti tank? Lot of bolter fire can try and kill it or get it to Jink.

Do you know why a Warrior costs so much less? It has T3 5+. A marine will actually survive being shot at. A warrior will not.