new player, why the splinter cannon over the dark lance ?

just getting in to the army and iam wanting to build a kabal themed list. i noticed everyone takes the splinter cannon over the dark lance in units of kabal warriors. why? wouldnt you want as many dark lances as possible ?

Clearly the Lance is a better weapon for what it does, and yes, our lists need a lot of long-range tank busting shots (typically 1 per 100 points); the issue in a squad of Warriors is that as a unit can only shoot at one target, if yourf lance targets a vehicle, your splinter fire is wasted; if you shoot splinters, you're paying for an expensive single bullet.

Stack anti-tank in some units, anti-infantry in the others.

In addition to what Commandersasha said if you have warriors in a vehicle then the lance can only snap shot if the vehicle moved. Generally I hardly ever put my warriors actually in their raider so it doesn't matter, but it's important to remember.

That's really it right there, the dark lance is a heavy weapon, and while the splinter cannon is also a heavy weapon, it has an assault profile. The Dark Eldar are a very mobile army. To fire a heavy weapon at a full ballistic skill requires you not to move. Not to move as a dark eldar is generally inviting a painful fiery death.

This is why you'll also notice most people will advocate three dark lances on a ravager, even though a ravager with disintegrator cannons is really nasty (this applies to raiders as well), nasty as it is, you can't give up a mobile anti-tank platform, because it can move 12" and still fire all it's lances at full BS.

It's the yin to the kabalite warrior's yang.

just to underline what everyone has said, the generally accepted principle with troops and their transports is to have AI on one and AT on the other, hence the proliferation of Kabalites with splinter cannon (AI) on Raiders with Dark Lances (AT), and the opposite version Trueborn with blasters (AT) on Venoms with Splinter Cannon(AI).

Ok, makes sense. like I said I am new to the DE, been out of 40k for a while and I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification.
Trystis- If I may ask another question- Why not put the warriors in the raiders? Do a lot of people do this?

Raiders explode easily (open topped) and you could end up easily with 2/3 of your kabalites dead (S4 vs T3 and 5+ save).

What Vasara said.

Raiders filled with warriors are very tempting targets for your opponents. They die easy and the frequent explosion will kill many of the warriors. When you deploy the warriors in cover near their raider your opponent has to choose what to shoot, and they frequently ignore the raider leaving your anti-tank intact. When they shoot at the warriors it's often a good idea to go to ground to get the better cover save, especially in area terrain. This makes them surprisingly durable allowing them to survive to board the raider late game and zoom off to claim an objective or get line breaker.

There are a couple of guides who suggest this on this forum. I picked it up from Mushkilla's battle reports. If you're a new dark eldar player reading some battle reports can be invaluable. Personally I like Mushkilla play style, and have watched a lot Skaredcast's dark eldar YouTube videos. They are short and well narrated. Plastikente has a well thought guide stickied in the tactics section you may want to check out.

sunspear wrote:

Why not put the warriors in the raiders? Do a lot of people do this?

I do this.

As others have said, it carries a heavy risk (though, in my experience, placing the warriors in cover rarely improves their lifespan much, unless they're completely out of LoS).

However, I didn't start DE for the privilege of sitting around in cover, so my guys generally stay in their vehicles for as long as possible. Also, I like Splinter Racks.

Great, thanks eveyone for the explainations and the references. I will defienately check them out.