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.

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.