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.

Of course they're always crunch arguments though, that's the only debate worth having!

If someone wants to run a model for personal reasons, more power to them! Can't argue with that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?

The Reiver thing really bugs me, as they're such a cool unit. And gimping them is so needless; even if they didn't want to give the knives AP (they're just knives after all) there was zero reason to not let the sergeant take a power sword. Sure, there is not one in the sprues, but neither there is one in the Intercessor sprues, yet their sergeant can have one. The sword bits from UM and DA Primaris upgrade sprues fit the Reivers just as well as they fit the Intercessors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?

Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....

This is an endless list that has been talked about here before: not everyone like running stuff as other stuff. Points limits might keep VV from being viable in your army due to wanting to squeeze in a Lascannon Predator, or maybe you don't have the extra HQs needed to run another detachment for Elites and you already loaded up on other stuff.

Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People have been running less than optimal units for dozens of reasons for decades now, and just because ASM aren't as optimal as VV (who are less optimal that a better melee unit like Berserkers) doesn't mean they don't see table time basically everyday somewhere.

Wouldn't giving Chainswords AP-1 just make Tacs and Termies even worse? Do we really need even more AP in this game?

"I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm."
This is about whether Spears are the highest damage model per point in the game. Counting CC, where exactly do things like Zerkers fit in again? Spears are OP, and one of the best units in the game, and are glass-cannon-ish (twice the durability of a Tac, 3x the price, but with really good firepower), but there certainly are units that do more damage.

Also, Spears are about even with Guardsmen when they charge Guardsmen. They lose on any subsequent CC round. They lose worse if Guardsmen charge. And they lose in a shooting war. Spears outplay Guardsmen in a number of ways, but they don't actually beat Guardsmen by fighting them.

I don't really think that AP is the problem as much as the game not being adjust to allow for better saves to be purchased to mitigate AP.

That's why AP was better in WFB where you could set up a unit to have a 1+ (or better save) so they AP would drag them down to a 3+ and still give you a chance of saving.

Then again it was also a system set up to handle rolls of 7+ as well, something that 40k needs to bring in as well.

Assault marines are:

Fluffy
Good looking models
A pain in the ass for oppoents if you keep them in reserve cause they can come down anywhere..

Assault marines are not:

Tough
Shooty
Fighty (No they aren't. not compared to other armies)

I think ASM being Troops woud be cool, but would be yet another thing that makes Tacs crappy.

-

With the Reivers (and all Primaris) this whole "Not on sprue" thing is really killing it for me. What makes Tacs/ASM/Devs/etc so great is the customization.

Primaris feel like they're the DOWIII edition of Marines compared to PA Marines being the DOWII version. They're bigger! Better graphics! Moar gud! But they take away all that made it fun. "Streamlining" cover because it "engendered passive gameplay" basically just reduced the whole thing to meh.

Bringing Tac-style options to Primaris might go a long way to make Primaris more interesting.

But as for ASM's niche, the problem is the Tac doesn't do enough currently. And ASM pay too many points to be "Tacs, but with jetpacks and swords". So, of course they don't do enough either. However, there should be a clear difference between a skirmish ASM unit and a well-kitted vet unit that VV can be.

Hopefully, in the future of the game, they can make ASM useful again without just making them a strong CC unit or giving them a different role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clockwork,
There are units that have 7+ armor saves, actually. Harlequins, for example.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't giving Chainswords AP-1 just make Tacs and Termies even worse? Do we really need even more AP in this game?

I would combine -1 AP on Chainswords and Bolters with a general Marines Infantry rule to reduce incoming AP by 1. Except scouts.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't giving Chainswords AP-1 just make Tacs and Termies even worse? Do we really need even more AP in this game?

"I am also including the close combat attacks in the calculation. 3x str 6 ap-4 d2 and 4x str 4 bladestorm."
This is about whether Spears are the highest damage model per point in the game. Counting CC, where exactly do things like Zerkers fit in again? Spears are OP, and one of the best units in the game, and are glass-cannon-ish (twice the durability of a Tac, 3x the price, but with really good firepower), but there certainly are units that do more damage.

Also, Spears are about even with Guardsmen when they charge Guardsmen. They lose on any subsequent CC round. They lose worse if Guardsmen charge. And they lose in a shooting war. Spears outplay Guardsmen in a number of ways, but they don't actually beat Guardsmen by fighting them.

Bezerkers are up there. Probably the only unit in power armor anyone actually fears. They get 6 attacks per turn if they fright twice with some decent quality attacks. 2 at str 6 ap-1 and 4 at str 5 ap 0. So we are talking point for point - 4 str 5 and 8 str 6 ap-1. Compared to 3 str 6 ap-4 2 damage and 4 str 4 ap-3 on 6's. It really depends what you are attacking.

Gaurdsmen really don't beat spears ether. They never will. It doesn't matter what the numbers look like on paper because the in game mechanics of (spears will always strike first) and spears will lock a unit in CC so they can't be shot at aren't factored. I've seen this happen too many times to hear it argued against. Spears move up - Probably kill 15-20 gaurds in shooting then kill 10 more in assault and are likely locked in combat with an officer that can't fall back. Even if you then charged with 40 catachan gaurds buffed by straken. You'd only kill 3 spears (IF THEY HAVE 0 BUFFS and use 0 STRATAGEMS).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

You're not wrong. But just saying "I want to run them for narrative reasons" doesn't really lend itself to any useful discussion. You can say that about any unit, whether it's good or bad. If you want to do that, that's fine. But you can't really enter into any meaningful discussion at that point because the reasons for taking them are outside the scope of any objective analysis. That's why discussion boards pretty much always revolve around what's effective.

Slipspace wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

You're not wrong. But just saying "I want to run them for narrative reasons" doesn't really lend itself to any useful discussion. You can say that about any unit, whether it's good or bad. If you want to do that, that's fine. But you can't really enter into any meaningful discussion at that point because the reasons for taking them are outside the scope of any objective analysis. That's why discussion boards pretty much always revolve around what's effective.

I disagree, there should be analysis done on how to run basically anything, even if it basically sucks, because sometimes people don't have a lot to work with or have narrative reasons for running stuff and want to get the best bang for their buck, even if they exchange rate sucks.

Sure, they don't fit into LVO style metas where you need to use every single point on only the most optimal things based on the rules and missions they run, but in less strict settings there should be a look at every unit in the game and how to use them as effectively as possible, even if there are other choices that might work better in different slots entirely.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

You don't need options if you're at least good at your job. Aspect Warriors are proof of that. They get their wargear for a specific job, and then they get special rules to make them better at those jobs.

Primaris (and Marines in general) are supposed to be relying on their raw stats for effectiveness (most people realize that, which is why there are always fixes regarding their stats instead of strictly price). For durability, you actually can't get much better than Intercessors and Reivers, as they tank D1 and the more expensive multiple damage weapons. The issue is offense, which the supposed offensive troop choice, Tactical Marines, don't make up for.

Also I'm annoyed that Intercessors and Hellblasters don't have Heavy Bolt Pistols! Whatever on that though. I'd be a fan of Intercessors at 17 points and they got Heavy Bolt Pistols standard, but this isn't the wishlist thread. I have that already going on in Proposed Rules.

You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.

But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.

It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?

Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....

None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?

Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?

Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....

None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?

Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.

They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.

Bharring wrote:
You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.

But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.

It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.

Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.

Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?

Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....

None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?

Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.

They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.

Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.

You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.

But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.

It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.

Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.

Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers

Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.

But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.

It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.

Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.

Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers

Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.

They're cheaper and actually fill a role of deployment shenanigans. Do a different CP system and it'll still be the same. Look at any non-Gladius list and you'd realize that.

That also has nothing to do with my post but okay.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.

Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.

You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:

I agree with your overall point, but that is not a lieutenant, it is a veteran sergeant...

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:

I agree with your overall point, but that is not a lieutenant, it is a veteran sergeant...

Fair point. I blame google and laziness for grabbing a poor image selection (and not actively dealing with Marine paint schemes enough. I'm too busy dusting off my paint set for Tzeentch's boys at the moment and am facing the same sort of arguments about Rubrics: basically useless in top tournament level competetive settings with no look at lower levels of play, or effective ways to use them if you want to field them anyways).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.

Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?

No, it exists in the list building stage. The reasons why people choose X over Y are as numerous as the stars and only declaring yours as valid is a verbal slap in the face for everyone who doesn't agree with you. Which is outright stupid.

And again, paint scheme determines the LT, Captain or Chapter Master, not where you get the bits for your models from.

Or are you pretending there aren't guidelines out there on how you're supposed to mark units properly?

And before you try to say that GW hasn't given guidelines on how to mark things, here's an example of them showing you exactly how to mark things:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.

Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?

No, it exists in the list building stage. The reasons why people choose X over Y are as numerous as the stars and only declaring yours as valid is a verbal slap in the face for everyone who doesn't agree with you. Which is outright stupid.

And again, paint scheme determines the LT, Captain or Chapter Master, not where you get the bits for your models from.

Or are you pretending there aren't guidelines out there on how you're supposed to mark units properly?

List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.

Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.

Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!

See how silly and far you can take it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.

*ahem*


Moving on, I've stated this MANY TIMES now: choices players make aren't limited to optimization based on numbers, or even what the internet claims. We've even had examples of that posted in this very thread. Just because there are better choices to put into a list doesn't mean things won't be put into a list because you want to play them, or they fit a narrative in your head.

Once again, I'm definitely this sort of player and insisted on running Repentia during 5th edition when they were considered useless due to the Rage special rule. And yet I found ways to funnel them into my enemy effectively and tear apart their toys with them. Optimization at the time would say to just replace them with a unit of melta gun Dominions for tank busting, but I intentionally choice a unit I felt was fluffy for the army I was running (as the way I view Sisters I feel they would always have some number of Repentia seeking redemption during a conflict). This is what fluff informing list building looks like. It's quite different than how you build lists, but it's no less valid in how to choose units to play.

Heck, some armies are only started because people like the look of a particular model and will go out of their way to include said model in a list, even if it basically sucks.

And list building is just as important in the game as anything else, because it is what forms the core of what your army is and how they fight on the table. It defines the narrative you craft for yourself on why things are being punched up for and what you're fighting over.

You know, the things we do outside of tournaments, like planning an army for campaigns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.

Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!

See how silly and far you can take it?

Paint scheme is what determines what is what on the table. If you choose to skimp out on the details just because you want to swap models around that's on you, but if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings, then it's understandable that they may not feel as comfortable as you regarding swapping units around willy nilly.

Your choice to play strictly from a point of optimization doesn't invalidate mine to play from one where I build based on a narrative and lore over what is the best of the best choice at every turn.

"if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings"

So I'm not allowed to not swap units around just because I'm not good enough at painting to get to a high level?

(That was a joke, it's obvious what you meant.)

Proxying an ASM for a VV is better than proxying an ASM for a Tac marine, sure. But why should I be required to proxy?

If you're dismissing options as "not even in the game" as they only have a niche potential role, where does it end?
-No ASM, because VV are better?
-No VV, because they aren't that useful competitively?
-No SM at all because they aren't top dog right now?

Granted, the meta is a lot more balanced than it was in 6e/7e, but only taking note of the top units or top books in the game sqashes it down to only a handful of entries in only a couple books. If you aren't trying to top-table a major tournament, clearly many more units can be used.

Isn't it useful to discuss what those uses may be? Isn't it useful to see what exactly the niche is instead of ignoring it as too small?

Bharring wrote:
You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.

But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.

It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.

Banshees...yeah - they suck.
Scorpions...I'd take them over ASM but not VV. The exarch is pretty good they hit on 2's provided they are in cover. Plus the mortal wounds they can deal. They are just flat out better than ASM. They deep strike too so their chance of 2 turn charge is the same. VV can take storm sheilds and a few thunderhammers - totally outclasses all of these. Though at this point they are a pretty penny to field. I do sometimes drop them into a list at 2500 points just for SNG's. They usually die to overwatch.

Scorpions are an odd duck. Their rule technically gives them +1 to hit when their target is in cover (both shooting and melee, I haven't seen this FAQ'ed). So 2+ shuriken pistols and mediocre chainswords.

They do have 3+ armour which is nice, and somewhat rare in Eldar land. The Mortal Wound option is okay if you have enough models, and it triggers every Fight Phase which is nice if they stay in combat more than one turn. Their Exarch can have an okay quasi-power fist which doesn't suffer penalties to h it.

I'd take them over my Chaos assault marines though, I think. Banshees on the other hand...prove how questionable power swords are on a Strength 3 model.