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

The ravager would be less points and on average kills 4 MEQs a turn whereas the splinterborn with venom kills just short of 3 MEQs. The ravager is cheaper but the venom and splinterborn are better against targets behind cover and against 4+ they are equal. They are also much better vs 5+ killing 8 on average. Also the list they are competing to get into is 600pts.

... and?

Go for dark lances, they kill 2 marines, instant death them, pop there metwal bawkses and they arn't much other places to get them effectively.

Dissie ravager is to specialized, it kills Teq and Mech, if there is any cover its not even amazing at that. While the ravager is the best dark lance platform we have. And plus, once you have a DL ravager fill the rest of your army with 2 SC venoms to fit your AI needs. 5 warriors + blaster in each. Laugh at other 600pt armies.

yeah, i didnt think of the anti infantry potential lances have. my list is basicly 3 venoms, 2 with 5 warriors and 1 with 3 trueborn with 2 splinter cannons. Then 2 DL ravagers. and haemy. I was just thinking weather i should have traded the splinterborn in venom for another ravager with dissies. But i guess not.
On a side note, should i swap the blasterborn for 5 more warriors with a blaster and give the other warrior squads a blaster each. My only issue with blasters is the 18" range.