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.

 PipeAlley wrote:
Warriors are not overpriced, they're just not what they used to be: Immune to ID with in Synapse. It was a pain to play against but it was the one saving grace of Tyranids as a whole.

Now combine that with lack of mobility and you have something great all round except that it can't get around.

A Warrior in a Cage Match is great for the points, but why would anyone fight it when they can just shoot it?

Warriors are objectively overpriced when compared to good Troops choices.

Compare a Warrior to 3 Scout Marines. For the most part, same stats except the Scout Marines get a couple of extra attacks on the charge (useless), and the Warrior brings to the table WS 5 instead of WS 3 (also useless), leadership 10 instead of 8 (They're both Fearless/ATSKNF, so useless). Warriors do have Shadows in the Warp, but on a backfield unit that's useless 95% of the time.
Now, What do 3 Scout Marines have that a Warrior doesn't?
- Guns with 6" extra range, AP 5 and Rapid Fire.
- Being basically Eternal Warrior
- Frag and Krak Grenades as standard (Warriors have to pay extra for Frag grenades)
- Move Through Cover
- Infiltrate
- Scout
- Chapter Tactics
- Combat Squads
- The ability to go to ground
- Access to a much wider array of upgrades, including cheap Stealth.

What's the points difference? The Scout Marines cost 3 more points.