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.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
They've been a bully unit, not a CC unit, for as long as I've played. As in, you don't charge Tacs or better with ASM. You charge backfield Heavy Weapons Teams or vehicles or Rangers or Broadsides with them.

That said, VV do everything they do better for only a couple more points.

And jetpack VV aren't exactly stellar as is...

They were pretty legit in 3rd ed as CC threats.

Marines in general and especially BA were legit CC threats in 3rd - so much so that BA really didn't need assault marines; rhinos and tacticals did nicely.

In 5 blood angel assault marines were very good.
In 6 and 7 assault marines could be used more or less effectively as a cheapish chaff-clearing unit in a droppod with flamers.
Now they are there to kinda be there. Can still be used with good results to hop around, score points, eat overwatch, tie up units, disallow fallback moves. But like usual, don't expect them to kill much of anything that's at least meq level of toughness. Keep it in mind and use accordingly qnd they'll be ok.

Assault Marines have a whole host of problems, all of them mentioned somewhere in this thread. They're expensive, not actually good in melee (like almost all SM units) and the only advantage they have over VV is occupying a different slot, which is made irrelevant by 40k's army selection restrictions basically being non-existent. If you're just wanting to hold up enemy units either of the two bike units are better. Inceptors are better at actually killing things because they have an effective shooting attack.

At the very least an Assault Marine with a jump pack should cost the same as a Tactical Marine. You're trading range for movement in a game system with such high lethality that extra speed without extra durability is of dubious use.

 koooaei wrote:
In 5 blood angel assault marines were very good.

They weren't really assault marines though - they were deep striking melta carriers. Once they'd done that then they were back to mopping up weak things.

After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off

40k army restrictions non existent? Well it seems I just need a gak-load of Vanguard Veterans then

 fraser1191 wrote:
After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off

I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.

I think there are 3 camps here:

1. ASM are bad. VV are better, but not great. There is no use whatsoever for ASM.
2. ASM are bad. VV are better, but not great. There are some cases in which there might be limited reasons to use ASM instead of VV.
3. ASM are bad. You're bad for saying they might have some use. Your arguments are dumb. Screw WYSIWYG, if you don't proxy you're a terrible person.

ShaunyP,
There are restrictions, but the Detatchments are so flexible you can usually take whatever slots you want - just need to figure out how to fit it together.

I would *not* suggest lots of VV either. Same caveats apply to VV as ASM, except that they're marginally better. Still a bully unit not a CC unit. Still costly for a distraction. If you're just chain-charging vehicles or mopping up minor threats or whatnot, you'll see very little improvement, but for very few points. If you want a heavy hitting skirmisher, VV can be kitted to do that, but for quite a bit more points. But they aren't Berzerkers or Shining Spears. They won't perform as the backbone of your army.

I would suggest at least one VV or ASM squad. SM are more fun to play (with or against) when you have a little of each. So having 1 of those squads (or a Biker squad or Intercessors) would be a worthwhile addition.

Most of the CC threat in vanilla Marine lists are HQs or Sarges. SM HQs make decent beatsicks, and Sarges hide behind their squads. In either case, expect them to only work when fronted with PA doods (squaddies for the Sarge, or other squads for the HQs). HQs more for the aggressive threat, and sarges more for the countercharge/deterrence threat.

SM do have some actual CC units, but they're generally considered garbage (for good reason) currently:
-Termies (both flavors)
-Assault Cents (lol @ their points)
-Dreads (not so much bad, but can't get where they need to be)
-Crusader Squads (see: Tac Marines)

If you want to do CC as SM, you're going to need to do a combined arms style. Which means use your shooting to force matchups you can win, and use your mobile skirmishers/bullies to tip the scales where and when the CC will be.

If you do get ASM, keep them cheap. I usually give Sarge a weapon, but a fully kitted ASM squad does very little an unkitted ASM squad doesn't do.

If you get VV, how much you kit them comes down to what you use them for. If they'll be exposed, you need ablaitive doods, with few weapon upgrades. If they're just a distraction, you want minimal upgrades on them because they're going to die anyways. If you have bigger threats and believe you can get them into CC before they get shot at, you can kit them with more and they can do decent damage - but that last strategy is hard for Marines.

Back to the side-conversation I seem to be having with a couple posters here:
Nowhere am I saying "You can't/shouldn't run your ASM as VV". I'm saying *I* shouldn't run *MY* ASM as VV. Those are very different claims.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They look neat and VV take an elites slot that competes with a bunch of other useful stuff. ASMs are a pretty cheap fast attack option and function as a harassment unit. In prior editions their flamers were worth a lot more, which is what I used them for traditionally. Fix flamers and you help Assault Marines a ton.

It's not like a cheap VV squad is writing home about how much damage it does anyways.

However what vanguard vets do is unlock a relic elite unit which can in itself ve useful.

Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?

"incorrect. Shinning spears have highest damage per point in the game and are really survivable and mobile. They are good against everything. "

Higher damage per point? A MG on an SM Biker does more damage (same number of Boltguns as Catapaults, but the MG has twice the range, S8 vs S6, and about twice the average damage). The Spear is better in many other ways, but that's got better firepower/pt.
Spears have great dakka for their point, but claiming they're the best dakka for their point is factually incorrect.

You asked what Shining Spears would be bad against. As I showed, Shining Spears actually *LOSE* to straight Guardsmen if that's all they could fight. Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.

Bharring wrote:
....Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.

Just a point of clarity, Spears are not OP by themselves. It does take a very specific combinations of Traits (Ynnari) and several Characters casting powers for a unit of Spears to be OP. Said Characters (Warlocks) are often only in the list for the Spears (unlike a Farseer that is useful all around and likely in the list anyway) and are rather expensive, essentially doubling the cost of the Spears.
While I agree that 8E buffs can be assumed when discussing most unit combos, there is far more going on for Spears that other units. It also takes many Strats to make them work and CPs are not easy to come by in the "OP" lists that are focused on Spears. And you can't always rely on all the powers you need going off, even with Eldar trickery. The best powers for Spears are cast by Warlocks, which don't have inherent rerolls like a Farseer.

As for ASM vs VV, I agree with Martel. At the end of the day, both models are just Marines with jump packs. It doesn't matter how fancy they look. The kits are basically interchangeable. The important thing is to make it 100% clear what rules you are using each game. This is most easily shown by their loadout, although the "fancier" VV being more decorative helps.
But even without all the fancy bling, if I saw a unit of jump Marines with shields or several melee weapon, I'd know they were VV. If they unit have the basic loadout of pistols/chainswords with no more than 2 Special weapons and maybe a Sgt with a melee weapon, it would be obvious those were ASM.

-

The problem isn't the bling. Some chapters' ASM are certainly more blinged than certain other chapters' VV.

The problem is that *my* models were built as certain models. Those certain models were ASM not VV. Sure, in some other chapters, perhaps the right shoulder designation marking for VV is the traditional ASM mark. Perhaps in some, the black shoulderpad borders doesn't mean Battle Brother. Perhaps in some, the number on the left shoulderpad doesn't refer to Copmany. But not in Wings of Dawn.

"You" can play "your" models the way "you" want to, sure. I don't have a problem if my opponent needs to run their ASM as VV. But I do have a problem with being told *I* have no valid reason to run *my* ASM as ASM.

Bharring wrote:
The problem isn't the bling. Some chapters' ASM are certainly more blinged than certain other chapters' VV.

The problem is that *my* models were built as certain models. Those certain models were ASM not VV. Sure, in some other chapters, perhaps the right shoulder designation marking for VV is the traditional ASM mark. Perhaps in some, the black shoulderpad borders doesn't mean Battle Brother. Perhaps in some, the number on the left shoulderpad doesn't refer to Copmany. But not in Wings of Dawn.

"You" can play "your" models the way "you" want to, sure. I don't have a problem if my opponent needs to run their ASM as VV. But I do have a problem with being told *I* have no valid reason to run *my* ASM as ASM.

Ok, so I think I get it now. Your jump Marines are built with loadout X, which isn't something VVs can do (or are optimized for). That make sense. I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to cut up your existing models just to fit a loadout that VVs are optimized for.

It sucks when an edition makes your models "non-competitive". That's why I've started making 2 "core" lists. 1 with all the optimized competitive units for the edition and another with the units I want to play for fun. Sometimes the lists share several units, sometimes that are completely different.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Well, previously, ASM weren't great but were mostly a better version of VV because of points. That got reversed, which leads to now. Which I find funny. But the Shining spears that were trash for 3+ books are now ... not bad ....

Things change. Build what you want. Who knows what'll be OP next year.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.

So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.

Bharring wrote:
Things change. Build what you want. Who knows what'll be OP next year.

This is why I have a health stock of magnets and NEVER buy more than 3 of any unit. Not even Troops or Transports.
I also always try to build my units with dual possible models:
Eldar tanks that can be whatever I need, Windriders that can also be Spears, Characters that can be Farseers or Autarchs with a simple head swap, etc.
It's even easier to do this with Marines since everything is basically just "Power Armour dude with X wargear"

But I can certainly sympathize with you wanting to run your ASMs as ASMs. I want to run my Windriders as Windriders, but I basically gimp myself by doing so instead of just using them as Spears.

-

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

For a unit to function as a distraction/harassment unit it actually has to be able to do something useful. The problem with AM is they are simply terrible at doing any job, and too expensive to be considered a throwaway unit. If you invest around 200 points in a full unit of them they're too expensive to be a cheap distraction and if you take a small squad in the hope your opponent shoots them even though they're not actually threatening then you'll find that fails against any semi-decent opponent. Your AM can have al the freedom they want if they can't achieve anything.

Stux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.

So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.

See, that's the problem: I'm always points limited because I want to take a wide variety of toys into an army that tend to run some points. Heck, I'm looking at converting a Lascannon defiler for my TS army and am trying to figure out how to replace the little skull head with a combi-bolter.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?

He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?

"incorrect. Shinning spears have highest damage per point in the game and are really survivable and mobile. They are good against everything. "

Higher damage per point? A MG on an SM Biker does more damage (same number of Boltguns as Catapaults, but the MG has twice the range, S8 vs S6, and about twice the average damage). The Spear is better in many other ways, but that's got better firepower/pt.
Spears have great dakka for their point, but claiming they're the best dakka for their point is factually incorrect.

You asked what Shining Spears would be bad against. As I showed, Shining Spears actually *LOSE* to straight Guardsmen if that's all they could fight. Yes, they are OP. But there *are* things they aren't good against. Such as 1W disposable grunts with poor saves. There are many other matchups I'm sure they'd do bad against. Again, this isn't an arugment claiming Spears are bad. Clearly, despite how OP they are, there *are* things they're bad against.

I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm. The point remains that they are actually one of the best units in the game at killing guardsmen. Plus - spears have a very easy time tying up units in CC because they have such a high movement stat - Siamhan ones are almost always going to have automatic charges on multiple units. Realistically - spears can shred guardsmen all game without ever getting shot at. They are pretty good at doing this against any none dedicated CC unit.

 koooaei wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?

He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.

Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.

Assault marines being troops would help them a lot. Chainsword being -1AP reroll wounds would help even more.

The should probably also have a special rule when they charge - like an additional str 4 auto hit if they charge in combat.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Except Assault Marines aren't harassing anything, and Assault Marines get ignored for good reason (freedom of movement only matters if you can do anything). 10 more points gets you a harassment unit of some kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.

So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.

If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you're factoring in a Repulsor you're looking at a -much- higher points cost to get a unit into assault that ASM would do on their own.

I find it interesting that there are basically two camps on this:
1. Feth them and run them as something else
2. I want to play my units and will use them as is and try to make them work

Personally I've always been in the second camp. During 5th I recall regularly seeing people saying to never run Repentia because they're overpriced and can't be used effectively but I'd cut a bloody path through the table with them and easily earn back 2-3x their points almost every game despite the issues that were bundled into them.

And that's always been my point: in a more casual setting subpar units can more than certainly be played at par, and sometimes move above par when played well.

Are their better options in a codex? Sure. Every codex has stuff like this (I mean I'm trying to build a list around putting Rubrics and SoT into a TS army without immediately shooting myself in the foot for not just running so many goats that my opponent wonders if I'm trying to open a farm), and while there are certainly more optimal choices, I don't feel that sub-optimal is the same thing as being completely useless.

If you like the models put them on the table and try different things for them. Maybe they'll do well, maybe they'll fall flat but at the end of the day you'll play what you want to play and the game will be more enjoyable for it.

I always take a repulsor. It's the best tank in the codex (even though it's probably about 40 points over-costed). It's hugely expensive true. Just stating that if I wanted to make a turn 2 attack with 2 str 4 attacks on the opponents front line chaff. I can already do that with a unit that shoots better and survives better and is a troop choice - they assault the same (they both are terrible in assault - lol).

Skyhammer ASM were a different story. The only reason I have 20 of these guys. They do look awesome.

 Crimson wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off

I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.

Don't even get me started on Reivers not having any AP on their blades OR their Sergeant not having access to a Power Sword. Completely stupid and makes them almost pointless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Except Assault Marines aren't harassing anything, and Assault Marines get ignored for good reason (freedom of movement only matters if you can do anything). 10 more points gets you a harassment unit of some kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.

So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.

If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.

Take 3 scout bikes. Same slot - more movement - actually have a decent stratagem - great firepower. Still gets wiped by dessie....but what doesn't?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Stux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.

Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?

Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.

So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.

If you can't decide what to do with 80 points and you can't spare 10, buy something else then. 2 Heavy Bolter Tarantula Guns are 74 points and go in the same slot. Buy another Devastator Squad with a Heavy Bolter and Cherub.

I would agree with you there actually. I can't imagine a list that feels it NEEDS to use its last 80pts on Assault Marines. Take some more scouts maybe if you want board control?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
After seeing my River squad with knives struggle to kill some fire warriors in melee I've given up on the idea of assault marines as a choppy unit, flamers are really meh too since I can't drop and get a couple auto hit S4 shots off, and plasma pistols are kind expensive in the grand scheme. Though if I HAD to run them, it'd be with 3 plasma pistols to drop and get 3 shots off

I really don't understand why GW is so afraid to give marines decent assault units. The art is full of pictures of marines hacking enemies with swords and axes, but that is discouraged in the game. It is even more bizarre in case of a new unit like Reivers. All shooty Primaris units got weapons that are improvement over their old counterparts, while the supposed melee specialist unit is stuck with useless knives. Not even the sergeant can have a proper melee weapon, while a sergeant of the shooty Intercessors can! Fun fact: five man Intercessor squad with a sergeant having a power sword kills just as many marines in melee than a five man Reiver squad does.

Don't even get me started on Reivers not having any AP on their blades OR their Sergeant not having access to a Power Sword. Completely stupid and makes them almost pointless.

The limited primaris options are just icing on the cake for an absolute trash fest that is the space marine codex.

I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.

Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.