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.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

I think it makes plenty of sense for all the fully armor suited xenos (fire warriors, guardians, kabalites) to have a 4+ save, now that we've cleared Astartes out of the 1W 3+sv design space into their new W2 3+ space.

Guardsmen are wearing a flak vest, shoulderpads and helmet, nothing on their arms, nothing on their legs, nothing over their stomachs. Fully armor suited eldar guardians should absolutely have the equivalent of carapace armor.

Just normalize on Aspect warriors and equivalents having 3+ armor rather than some having 4+ and some having 3+ for no adequately explained reason (their armor suits look basically the same)

Or just keep lighter aspects at 4+ and also have Guardians at 4+. A guardian and a dire avenger do not look like they're wearing significantly different armor.

 vipoid wrote:
Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.

Except worse against vehicles.

And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.

It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.

I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.

It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness (when over half range and is still more effective when under half due to AP).

Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.

Except worse against vehicles.

And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.

It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.

I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.

It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness.

Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?

the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.

Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.

With all the marines, the change to damage 2 is pretty nice, but it does restrict the usage vs other targets, and is substantially worse vs death guard.

Less a buff or a nerf, but a total change in the roll of the weapon. We'll have to wait and see them on the table to see what folks think of it.

Makes there more of a case for the twin-shuriken rifle on the venom for anti-horde shooting, which is nice for that weapon to have a role on that platform besides just being the cheaper choice.

the_scotsman wrote:


the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.

Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.

Right, but GEQ wasn't giving more heartburn than marines though, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jaredb wrote:
and is substantially worse vs death guard.

Fair point.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6.

Compared to the Heavy Bolter, which wounds on 5s (4s against T5 vehicles). And also wounds most infantry on 3s.

But sure, obviously advanced, alien technology should just be objectively worse than anything Marines, and even IG, have.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.

What?

No it doesn't. it gives you the equivalent of always being *out* of rapid-fire range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness.

Wow! A whole third of a wound. That means three venoms all shooting at a 3+ save vehicle can do a massive 2 wounds to it. Two whole wounds!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?

You mean aside from now having half the shots (making D2 a downgrade) halved and getting a -1 to hit if the infantry in a mobile army have the gall to move?

To put it a different way, what is the target for this weapon? It's clearly not vehicles, but if it's meant to be shooting infantry then why did they give it D2 instead of leaving it at a potential 6 shots?

Hell, this is the problem with poison in general - it's already an unbelievably niche weapon. A relic from the days when Monsters had 6 wounds at most and when infantry were basically all 1-wound.

But now wounds have doubled or even tripled, yet Poison remains the same. Even this change is basically just treading water, exchanging shots for damage. AP-1 is something, at least, but the real question will be whether it makes it onto other poison weapons.

I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.

I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?

 vipoid wrote:
Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.

Except worse against vehicles.

And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.

It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

you can complain as much as you want about the codex. But yes, gaining bonus AP and damage IS an upgrade...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.

That's not quite true.

At 18", the new version will suffer against:
- single-wound models
- multi-wound models with an odd number of wounds
- 2-wound models with FNP
- Death Guard (and anything else with a -1 damage ability)

Given that Splinter Cannons weren't exactly oversold on good targets to begin with, you'll forgive me if I'm not overly impressed by this "upgrade".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?

I mean, this has been a problem with our codex for the last few editions. Poison was a neat idea in 5th, but the game has moved on since then and it's just become a lead weight, dangling around the codex's feet. It's an outdated mechanic and I'd like to see it removed altogether, rather than them trying to "differentiate" Poison weapons in the least-helpful way possible.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

you can complain as much as you want about the codex. But yes, gaining bonus AP and damage IS an upgrade...

Gaining AP is an upgrade.

Gaining +1D in exchange for halving shots is a downgrade.

 vipoid wrote:

Gaining AP is an upgrade.

Gaining +1D in exchange for halving shots is a downgrade.

as daedalus pointed out, it deals more damage to vehicles than before, its an upgrade.
Its not like our army has a hard time dealing with Geq's anyway.

I'm guessing no leaks on the new dissy cannon stats then as a splinter cannons sounds like a worse dissy cannon right now

My big question is..

Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.

Are they going to have to pay for that?


Shame there aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...

With all the marines, the change to damage 2 is pretty nice, but it does restrict the usage vs other targets, and is substantially worse vs death guard.

It's classic GW at this point. The game is too lethal! Update to two wounds! But ... also, now those units are too survivable ... UPDATE THE GINS TO D2! Perfect. We've solved it ...

I'm REALLY hoping there are some special rules we haven't seen yet, or even better, some new weapons they're going to unveil, that will cause this to make more sense and be less ... irritating.

Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...

Sadly, with the investment of production capacity they've sunk into marines, and with 'Crons getting a (much needed) massive upgrade, I don't think we'll see too many additional unit releases for most armies for a while. A unit here, a unit there ... that's probably about it.

This article is made because they reboxed some units and the new statlines are going to be leaked. Those are not major changes, but they prefer to reveal it themselves that someone uploads photos of the new booklets online.

I like all the changes, as long as the prices are the same as we have now.

Warriors are quite better with an extra attack and +1 to the Sv.

The Cannon is just different, and I like changes. Old one was just a boring version of a rifle that everyone played because they are stock on Venoms.

Ice_can wrote:
I'm guessing no leaks on the new dissy cannon stats then as a splinter cannons sounds like a worse dissy cannon right now

I can see dissy going to D3.

We already have all the points for the DE, so yes, those kabalites are 8 points each, and honestly they don't look that bad.

Voss wrote:
My big question is..

Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.

Are they going to have to pay for that?

Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess? It is the underlying basis to sweep the whole army with an additional attack. Primaris are a shooting unit, but they don't mind the extra attack. Doubling the attack for a unit won't hurt - presuming cost doesn't go up ( doubtfully ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I'm guessing no leaks on the new dissy cannon stats then as a splinter cannons sounds like a worse dissy cannon right now

I can see dissy going to D3.

Possible, but Darklight would need a massive improvement. What’s even the point of a Dark Lance compared to D3 dissies...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.

I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?

Well, given that GW has decreed that all three thirds of the already fairly small drukhari model range must be self-contained, separated factions with no overlap between their rules except for having to share the same pool of Stratagems, no, losing a an anti-GEQ option in Kabal in favor of a redundant anti-MEQ option right next to Disintegrators is a bad thing.

Like I said: The only unit for which this change is interesting potentially is the Talos, because now the Talos has the stinger pod for anti-geq, the double splinter for anti-meq, the haywire for anti vehicle and the heat lance for picking your teeth as you pop out the rest of the sprue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
My big question is..

Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.

Are they going to have to pay for that?

Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess? It is the underlying basis to sweep the whole army with an additional attack. Primaris are a shooting unit, but they don't mind the extra attack. Doubling the attack for a unit won't hurt - presuming cost doesn't go up ( doubtfully ).

Yeah, I'm actually pretty pleased with the new kabalite profile. It'll be nice to have occasions where closing to melee and butchering a hapless GEQ squad or fire warrior squad or something purely for the sick pleasure of it rather than any kind of mechanical advantage won't result in an even slapfight between the terrifying hideous alien pirates and the tau fire warrior cadre.

the_scotsman wrote:
the haywire for anti vehicle and the heat lance for picking your teeth as you pop out the rest of the sprue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Possible, but Darklight would need a massive improvement. What’s even the point of a Dark Lance compared to D3 dissies...

Fair point. The Dark Lance has been in need of something to make it interesting for a long time as well especially given its status in 6th/7th.

Now that all vehicles move and shoot heavies w/o penalty that ability is even more bleh.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
the haywire for anti vehicle and the heat lance for picking your teeth as you pop out the rest of the sprue.

This was overly cruel, i'm sorry. The heat lances are for getting some plasticard and converting extra haywire blasters for your scourges.

Dark Lances are almost surely going to d3+3 damage.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.

That's not quite true.

At 18", the new version will suffer against:
- single-wound models
- multi-wound models with an odd number of wounds
- 2-wound models with FNP
- Death Guard (and anything else with a -1 damage ability)

Given that Splinter Cannons weren't exactly oversold on good targets to begin with, you'll forgive me if I'm not overly impressed by this "upgrade".

Isn't that just a list of things that it's better to point either D1 or AT weapons at? If this encourages running a greater mix of weapon profiles in a Dark Eldar army instead of just spamming a couple I'd say it's a good thing. If Splinter Rifles get similar rules they'll be considerably better against Death Guard than bolters and lasguns. I think we need to see what changes, if any, we'll be seeing for other Dark Eldar weapons before we can fully evaluate the changes to Splinter Cannons.

Spoletta wrote:
Dark Lances are almost surely going to d3+3 damage.

That would be great.

Lass cannons didn't.

Pessimism aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Heat Lances ended up a winner.

They could get a power buff in line with other 'meltas', and do well on smaller battlefields with fast moving units; Heat Lance Scourge, Reavers, and Taloi might see some action.

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

Presumably in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

D3+3 puts them on par with railguns, not that, this is an issue per say but I'm not sure GW would be able to balance out the advantage of becoming assualt on vehicals. Vrs how bad they'd be on infantry.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

D3+3 puts them on par with railguns, not that, this is an issue per say but I'm not sure GW would be able to balance out the advantage of becoming assualt on vehicals. Vrs how bad they'd be on infantry.

The same way they balance heavy weapons that can be taken for both infantry and vehicles in other codexes? Make them more expensive for vehicles.