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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
How does the Command Point farming-nerf affect farming during deployment (e.g. outside a battle round)? Not at all?

Correct, not at all. The limit is within a battle round.

Which means that if you really, really, really, really, really, really, really wanna be TFG, you could still do the CP charge-up before the 1st battle round in deployment using Grand Strategist and Veritas Vitae.

Use a random 1-2 CP garbage strat during deployment and roll 2 dice for GS/VV, re-rolling all results lower than 5 with the re-roll strat, netting you an average 1.11 CP for each CP spend.

Roll 2 dice again for every use of the re-roll stratagem you just did, again re-rolling all non-5s/6s with the re-roll stratagem.

Keep up the chain rolling 2 dice for all the re-roll strats, again re-rolling all non 5s/6s again netting you 1.11 CP average for every CP spend.

Rinse & repeat until you’re at 40-50 CP or so.

Start the game.

You can't command re-roll before the first Battle Round.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
That's why I love my DKK, nothing better than killing your enemy with a shovel.

To be fair, shovels can be quite deadly (see Shovel Knight).

 SHUPPET wrote:
You're right, I'm afraid I wasn't really paying attention to the context of this one, but I just wanted to be clear that I think the top list right now is much more than a static gunline if anyone is trying to describe it as such

100%. A static gunline army has not been seen much competitively as far as I'm aware since the early days of the Guard codex release. Even then it was short lived? A mobile aspect to any army is key, which is one of the reasons for the brief dominance of flyers (as in actual flyers, not keyword <FLY> units ).

 Stux wrote:


You can't command re-roll before the first Battle Round.

Where does it say that? I must have missed that. CA only states you cannot use the re-rolls for Mission Dice sich as deployment sides, seizing initiatives, etc..

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Stux wrote:


You can't command re-roll before the first Battle Round.

Where does it say that? I must have missed that. CA only states you cannot use the re-rolls for Mission Dice sich as deployment sides, seizing initiatives, etc..

Mission dice rolls include any dice rolls that are made before the battle begins

Though I will concede, we don't have a clear definition of when the beginning of the battle is... :/

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Stux wrote:


You can't command re-roll before the first Battle Round.

Where does it say that? I must have missed that. CA only states you cannot use the re-rolls for Mission Dice sich as deployment sides, seizing initiatives, etc..

Mission dice rolls include any dice rolls that are made before the battle begins

Though I will concede, we don't have a clear definition of when the beginning of the battle is... :/

Fair enough. If it's at least somewhat ambiguous, I'd hope most TOs/judges would rule against it, as it's obviously not the intent.

I've just definitely seen people use re-rolls on the super IG/BA command-farm during Deployment on the back of Victor of the Blood Games, Deep Strike strats, etc.., if not usually to super-excess (as it wasn't necessary before the FAQ 2 if you had that kinda farm to start with).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The previews faq had point chances.

Marin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The previews faq had point chances.

The previous faq was in March (ish). I didn't have a CA coming out 'shortly' after.

 Ordana wrote:

Marin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The previews faq had point chances.

The previous faq was in March (ish). I didn't have a CA coming out 'shortly' after.

Ok, so it's understandable that they didn't do any point changes. But at the same time it was also totally reasonable to think they might have.

We can probably on from having this discussion every few pages.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lol @ thinking you're a competitive player but not having BCP. It's like $5 a month in a hobby where you spend 20x that on a single unit. It is THE way to keep your finger on the pulse of the meta, and for the exact reason as you said, seeing as without it you are incapable of checking and crossreferencing things like placings beyond the top 16. For the exact reason you said, when people source lists it's generally only the very top placings that get listed, often not even that. This IS where you find your top 30's and further. Like hell I'm hand typing out 30 lists crossreferenced from screenshots on a phone app, from every single tournament going back god knows how long, to prove a point against a person incapable of admitting their mistaken statements anyway, just because they won't do it for themselves. You do not need to check every top 30 ever to say that TSons did well in THIS tournament. It's absurdity, you're definitively trying to deflect the conversation with illogical requests. Just because you personally choose not to get the app to check the results of the top 30's, does not mean other people who do know the results can't reference them lol.

Saying Thousand Sons did well in this tournament may be true, but it's largely meaningless overall and wasn't part of the conversation you jumped into. You can keep adding your own caveats in to your heart's content, but the basic fact is that you did the equivalent of barging into a room where people were talking about high end sports cars and started loudly proclaiming your Ford Pickup as the best.

And you're welcome to reference them if you can share them, but you shouldn't be surprised if no one believes you when you can't. Speaking of which...

Oh, so you mean like how I already said this was a bad change, and also that TSon's didn't need a nerf, and weren't OP? You mean that?

Uh, no, actually. The part of my post you quoted to make this remark has absolutely nothing to do with that. That part of my post is talking about imperfect systems of analysis being all that's available to us. This is part of what I mean when I say it seems like you don't actually read what I write.

Stop shifting the goalposts, nobody said they were OP.

The request was for examples of them doing well, not for examples of top 16's, not for HARD STATISTICS COMPILED ACROSS MULTIPLE TOURNAMENTS, and such examples were given.

Actually, there WASN'T an original request. Let's take a trip down memory lane, yeah?

Danny slag Said

Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.

Sunny Side Up Said

Alpha Legion. Raven Guard. Alpha Legion. Electro Priests. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion.

Clockwork Zion Said

Also Thousand Sons and the Tzaangor bomb.

Audustum Said

Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.

Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.

We were talking about what alpha striking, deep strike, melee armies did good that were not Blood Angels. I was saying Tzaangoer Bombs weren't the critical component of the Thousand Sons army. You're the one who jumped in to just start ranting and raving about the (perceived) slight. Even the posts that weren't yours were specifically discussing the NOVA Finals Only as Sunny Side Up said:

Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb.

To which I posted the NOVA lists to show the first Tzaangoer bomb at all doesn't show up until fifth, not the finals.

If you wanted such hard statistics, all you had to do was ask - and this isn't what was asked for initially - because great news for you, someone recorded statistics for EVERY placing going back a matter of months, and compiled it into a crapton of information extrapolation filters and categories. This data is from a few weeks ago.

I literally posted that you or someone else would have to provide the statistics three to four times over the course of a half-day before you randomly decided to acknowledge it in this post and act like this was the first time I mentioned it. You need to really slow down and read what people write carefully I think.

What will the excuse be this time? I'm very interested in seeing how you are going to spin this data to somehow not be the proof you have demanded of TSons performing just fine at competitive level.

Snip! I addressed this above. You seem to be conflating Tzaangoer Bomb and Thousand Sons as synonyms when they're not. To finally get back to something akin to the original point before you jumped in, the Tzaangoer bomb is an ancillary element to the success of Thousand Sons.

Also, that link is not what you think it is. Three tabs, two with nothing on them and the third just having 19 Death Guard entries (that don't show their actual lists).

 Xenomancers wrote:
It certainly helps all armies but it helps armies with 3+ saves the most. Plus - marines don't have anything else to spend command points on so - that is another reason. Orks are in the same boat there. All around great for orks.

The cover stratagem doesn't help Harlequins in the slightest. In fact, it feths them pretty hard if they go first and the opponent gets more armor. On top of the neutered fly/flip belts. I don't know why they did this. Harlequins were not strong in the meta.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It certainly helps all armies but it helps armies with 3+ saves the most. Plus - marines don't have anything else to spend command points on so - that is another reason. Orks are in the same boat there. All around great for orks.

The cover stratagem doesn't help Harlequins in the slightest. In fact, it feths them pretty hard if they go first and the opponent gets more armor. On top of the neutered fly/flip belts. I don't know why they did this. Harlequins were not strong in the meta.

harlequins going second can still use it. All their vehicles and skyweavrers will get a 3+ save, 4+ invuln with the usual -1 to hit. It does hurt a few things if going first, but at least haywire currently ignores it for the most part as it's mostly mortal wounds you are fishing for.

Yeah. Harlequins do reasonably well against shooty alpha strike (as far as you can in the current meta).

Not having 40 double shooting Prescience-VotLW-Slaanesh Cultists in your face turn one does IMO a lot more for Harlequins than having to worry about +1 armour or not against lascannons and volcano lances from the other side of the table.

Main problem with Harlequins (not shooty bikes) IMO is the inability to get around the combat-interrupt stratagem, something like the Vexator Mask, etc..

As Harlequin melee rests on the idea of getting multiple small units and buffing characters into combat, rather than just one ball-of-death like a large unit of Custodes Bikes or Grotesques or or even a Gallant, the 2 CP interrupt by a potent melee-opponent can really neuter your assault, even if you charged.

 Xenomancers wrote:

To many people - a gun line is a list that has mostly shooting units in it. To attack the wordage they are using is a sign of a weak argument.

Yea, I mean that's intellectually dishonest, because almost every model in the game has some form of gun.

Lets be real here. Pretty much the only weapon in the game this'll help Harlequins with is the bolter.

I don't think I'd ever even consider burning 2CP to give my vehicles a little more resistance vs bolters turn 1.

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Lol @ thinking you're a competitive player but not having BCP. It's like $5 a month in a hobby where you spend 20x that on a single unit. It is THE way to keep your finger on the pulse of the meta, and for the exact reason as you said, seeing as without it you are incapable of checking and crossreferencing things like placings beyond the top 16. For the exact reason you said, when people source lists it's generally only the very top placings that get listed, often not even that. This IS where you find your top 30's and further. Like hell I'm hand typing out 30 lists crossreferenced from screenshots on a phone app, from every single tournament going back god knows how long, to prove a point against a person incapable of admitting their mistaken statements anyway, just because they won't do it for themselves. You do not need to check every top 30 ever to say that TSons did well in THIS tournament. It's absurdity, you're definitively trying to deflect the conversation with illogical requests. Just because you personally choose not to get the app to check the results of the top 30's, does not mean other people who do know the results can't reference them lol.

Saying Thousand Sons did well in this tournament may be true, but it's largely meaningless overall and wasn't part of the conversation you jumped into. You can keep adding your own caveats in to your heart's content, but the basic fact is that you did the equivalent of barging into a room where people were talking about high end sports cars and started loudly proclaiming your Ford Pickup as the best.

And you're welcome to reference them if you can share them, but you shouldn't be surprised if no one believes you when you can't. Speaking of which...

Oh, so you mean like how I already said this was a bad change, and also that TSon's didn't need a nerf, and weren't OP? You mean that?

Uh, no, actually. The part of my post you quoted to make this remark has absolutely nothing to do with that. That part of my post is talking about imperfect systems of analysis being all that's available to us. This is part of what I mean when I say it seems like you don't actually read what I write.

Stop shifting the goalposts, nobody said they were OP.

The request was for examples of them doing well, not for examples of top 16's, not for HARD STATISTICS COMPILED ACROSS MULTIPLE TOURNAMENTS, and such examples were given.

Actually, there WASN'T an original request. Let's take a trip down memory lane, yeah?

Danny slag Said

Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.

Sunny Side Up Said

Alpha Legion. Raven Guard. Alpha Legion. Electro Priests. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion. Alpha Legion.

Clockwork Zion Said

Also Thousand Sons and the Tzaangor bomb.

Audustum Said

Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.

Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.

We were talking about what alpha striking, deep strike, melee armies did good that were not Blood Angels. I was saying Tzaangoer Bombs weren't the critical component of the Thousand Sons army. You're the one who jumped in to just start ranting and raving about the (perceived) slight. Even the posts that weren't yours were specifically discussing the NOVA Finals Only as Sunny Side Up said:

Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb.

To which I posted the NOVA lists to show the first Tzaangoer bomb at all doesn't show up until fifth, not the finals.

If you wanted such hard statistics, all you had to do was ask - and this isn't what was asked for initially - because great news for you, someone recorded statistics for EVERY placing going back a matter of months, and compiled it into a crapton of information extrapolation filters and categories. This data is from a few weeks ago.

I literally posted that you or someone else would have to provide the statistics three to four times over the course of a half-day before you randomly decided to acknowledge it in this post and act like this was the first time I mentioned it. You need to really slow down and read what people write carefully I think.

What will the excuse be this time? I'm very interested in seeing how you are going to spin this data to somehow not be the proof you have demanded of TSons performing just fine at competitive level.

Snip! I addressed this above. You seem to be conflating Tzaangoer Bomb and Thousand Sons as synonyms when they're not. To finally get back to something akin to the original point before you jumped in, the Tzaangoer bomb is an ancillary element to the success of Thousand Sons.

Also, that link is not what you think it is. Three tabs, two with nothing on them and the third just having 19 Death Guard entries (that don't show their actual lists).

Holy gak there is so many subquotes in this that I think I would have preferred if you just presented a wall of text with no paragraphs or punctuations. What a formatting nightmare.

I'm just going to respond in rough order of your nonsense, or at least what can be responded to.

I'm not the one adding caveats here - yet that's literally all you are doing. I'm not sure how you can lack this much self awareness.

We can reference people's placings in the tournament scene, especially since most of us who play this game competitively, and choose to talk about competitive placings, also have the app that tells us competitive placings... because you know, it just makes sense... But you're right, you don't have to believe anything OR check for yourself, and you can continue on living in willful ignorance. But TSons did get the placings that was stated. Telling us you don't believe it while refusing to check for yourself is beyond immature.

The TSons list did make it to the finals. It was neck and neck with the winning list until the final round, and after losing that final round, dropped down to 5th on points. So once again, you're factually and objectively wrong.

I literally posted that you or someone else would have to provide the statistics three to four times over the course of a half-day before you randomly decided to acknowledge it in this post and act like this was the first time I mentioned it. You need to really slow down and read what people write carefully I think.

You did post that. But it was not the original question, that as you so blatantly spelled out was asked by a different poster, was a question to which the statistics were not a necessary answer as you have been arguing so far, and this is what we have been disagreeing about. Your request for statistics is not necessary to answer the original question as you claimed it is, so stop trying to conflate the two. The original question is answered just fine by pointing out examples of them doing well, and if the original question had have been for statistics they would have been provided, as I choose to do just now to demonstrate.

The question started off asking for examples of assaulty TSons performing well, and examples were provided. It wasn't until you started dismissing these examples because they "weren't top 16" that I stepped in with an opinion to express disagreement of this statement, and I notice you deliberately decided to leave this part out of your recap lol.

At this point you know you are wrong and all the backpedalling, post-statement quantifiers, arbitrary exclusions and whatever else are is compounding it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
also lol @ the statistics you requested of TSons win-rate still not being proof enough

examples of them placing well wasn't enough either

You're just setting ridiculous expectations towards any possible outcome that could prove you wrong, while speaking from a self-admitted place of total ignorance concerning the placings of the army you are debating the success of.


I think this is the most absurd debate I've ever had on this forum, but I guess you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 wuestenfux wrote:
It’s funny that GW has answered questions that have never been asked.

Because you haven't seen it asked doesn't mean it wasn't asked.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
It’s funny that GW has answered questions that have never been asked.

Because you haven't seen it asked doesn't mean it wasn't asked.

I guess you're right. They have been asked somewhere.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
How does the Command Point farming-nerf affect farming during deployment (e.g. outside a battle round)? Not at all?

Correct, not at all. The limit is within a battle round.

Which means that if you really, really, really, really, really, really, really wanna be TFG, you could still do the CP charge-up before the 1st battle round in deployment using Grand Strategist and Veritas Vitae.

Use a random 1-2 CP garbage strat during deployment and roll 2 dice for GS/VV, re-rolling all results lower than 5 with the re-roll strat, netting you an average 1.11 CP for each CP spend.

Roll 2 dice again for every use of the re-roll stratagem you just did, again re-rolling all non-5s/6s with the re-roll stratagem.

Keep up the chain rolling 2 dice for all the re-roll strats, again re-rolling all non 5s/6s again netting you 1.11 CP average for every CP spend.

Rinse & repeat until you’re at 40-50 CP or so.

Start the game.

That would be hilarious. I'd love to see it crash and burn with bad rolls.

When using abilities that allow you to Move As If It's The Movement phase, do you Fly normally? For example, Swarmlords Hive Commander on Gargoyles, or Warp Time or Twilight Pathways on a unit in the psychic phase?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
How does the Command Point farming-nerf affect farming during deployment (e.g. outside a battle round)? Not at all?

Correct, not at all. The limit is within a battle round.

Which means that if you really, really, really, really, really, really, really wanna be TFG, you could still do the CP charge-up before the 1st battle round in deployment using Grand Strategist and Veritas Vitae.

Use a random 1-2 CP garbage strat during deployment and roll 2 dice for GS/VV, re-rolling all results lower than 5 with the re-roll strat, netting you an average 1.11 CP for each CP spend.

Roll 2 dice again for every use of the re-roll stratagem you just did, again re-rolling all non-5s/6s with the re-roll stratagem.

Keep up the chain rolling 2 dice for all the re-roll strats, again re-rolling all non 5s/6s again netting you 1.11 CP average for every CP spend.

Rinse & repeat until you’re at 40-50 CP or so.

Start the game.

That would be hilarious. I'd love to see it crash and burn with bad rolls.

I'm not convinced on the maths either. I don't think spending a CP to re-roll even if you then get rolls to reclaim that results in a net gain.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

To many people - a gun line is a list that has mostly shooting units in it. To attack the wordage they are using is a sign of a weak argument.

Yea, I mean that's intellectually dishonest, because almost every model in the game has some form of gun.

A shooting unit is more than having a gun. I wouldn't call a striking scorpian a shooting unit though they do have pistols. It's more about the prefered method to engage. A lot of really mobile units with long guns (like dark eldar) are more than happy to not move and shoot you from max range. To a lot of people - they would just call that a gun line of dark eldar. It's the wrong word but you know what they mean. they mean an army that wants to shoot you off the table before you get to them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Lets be real here. Pretty much the only weapon in the game this'll help Harlequins with is the bolter.

I don't think I'd ever even consider burning 2CP to give my vehicles a little more resistance vs bolters turn 1.

My friend did point out that the harlequin CP regen trait does still produce cost off the CP cost. They can use it only on the bigger stratagems. LOL player uses Agents of vect to cancle 3++ save. Harliquen player rolls a 4 and gets 4 CP.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
When using abilities that allow you to Move As If It's The Movement phase, do you Fly normally? For example, Swarmlords Hive Commander on Gargoyles, or Warp Time or Twilight Pathways on a unit in the psychic phase?

Yep, all the rules and restrictions. They haven't changed that.

Double moves or go home!

Ynnari will be able to game this more than others - they'll be able to make use of their full Fly movement in any phase.

A friend of mine is saying that rule of 3 got changed so that you can't take more than 3 of any unit, not just datasheet. I can't seem to find this. Also he mentioned something about CSM and CD Daemon Princes being the same for this? I've looked through the Big FAQ like 3 times, and Chaos Daemons twice and I can't see anything about this.

StarHunter25 wrote:
A friend of mine is saying that rule of 3 got changed so that you can't take more than 3 of any unit, not just datasheet. I can't seem to find this. Also he mentioned something about CSM and CD Daemon Princes being the same for this? I've looked through the Big FAQ like 3 times, and Chaos Daemons twice and I can't see anything about this.

Complete misunderstanding of the FAQ. The FAQ actually says explicitly that taking 9 Daemon Princes using the regular, Nurgle, and Tzeentch Datasheets is totally legal.

They didn't change the rule at all, they just clarified some cases.

StarHunter25 wrote:
A friend of mine is saying that rule of 3 got changed so that you can't take more than 3 of any unit, not just datasheet. I can't seem to find this. Also he mentioned something about CSM and CD Daemon Princes being the same for this? I've looked through the Big FAQ like 3 times, and Chaos Daemons twice and I can't see anything about this.

Your friend is wrong. The rule is the same as it was before - they just clarified some things.

Q1) Some units, like Carnifexes and Leman Russ Battle Tanks, can contain up to 3 models each, but after they are set up on the battlefield, they each become individual units. How many of these models can I include in my army if I’m using the Organised Events guidelines for, say, a 2,000 point game?

A1) You can include up to 3 units in a 2,000 point game, meaning you could include up to 9 of these models.

Q3) Are the Daemon Prince datasheet from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet from Codex: Death Guard, and the Daemon Prince of Tzeentch datasheet from Codex: Thousand Sons all considered different datasheets for the purposes of the Organised Events guidelines?

A3) Yes.

 Xenomancers wrote:

A shooting unit is more than having a gun. I wouldn't call a striking scorpian a shooting unit though they do have pistols. It's more about the prefered method to engage. A lot of really mobile units with long guns (like dark eldar) are more than happy to not move and shoot you from max range. To a lot of people - they would just call that a gun line of dark eldar. It's the wrong word but you know what they mean. they mean an army that wants to shoot you off the table before you get to them.

What is more suitable for a gunline?

A marine with a 24" bolter or a fire warrior with a 36" rifle?

An army that moves and shoots is not a gunline, because they've spent points on maneuverability. A gunline spends points on guns. Full stop.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It certainly helps all armies but it helps armies with 3+ saves the most. Plus - marines don't have anything else to spend command points on so - that is another reason. Orks are in the same boat there. All around great for orks.

The cover stratagem doesn't help Harlequins in the slightest. In fact, it feths them pretty hard if they go first and the opponent gets more armor. On top of the neutered fly/flip belts. I don't know why they did this. Harlequins were not strong in the meta.

Come on, Harlequin is already one of the most tough and hard hitting army in the 8th Edition. They will drop marine shooting accuracy down to Ork level. And they have 4++ on Everything. Also, if marines or CSM did not kill them all or at least cripple the majority of their supersonic transports and Jetbike in the 1st volley, the Marines or CSM are pretty much doomed facing the tons of fusion pistol shots and 4 attacks minimum per model when the Harlequins fly across the board in one turn to reach them......

 Xenomancers wrote:
To many people - a gun line is a list that has mostly shooting units in it. To attack the wordage they are using is a sign of a weak argument.

Just because they water a term down to mean basically any army in 40k since the entire game is built around armies having access to shooting doesn't make them right, it makes their arguement meaningless. "My melee only army can't compete in a game with guns because someone might bring them to my knife fight!" is not the game's fault. It's a feature, not a bug in 40k that someone might shoot your crazed axe wielding nutjob as he screams up the table.