# scorpions or banshees?



## Caliban (Nov 27, 2010)

whilst they have there similarities, they fulfill very different duties, but whom do you think does theres best?


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I dont know all that much about the Eldar (Other than that they are Xeno heretics), but I kind of like the look of the Striking Scorpions, so my vote goes for the...


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

They both have their place. And they both have their advantages and disadvantages. You cant really compare the two in general terms but in an all comers list I would go with the Banshees due to how many power armoured armies there are out there. If you are making a list for a specific opponent then it will be obvious.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Banshees outperform Scorpions against everything except T3 5+ troops, and even there the kill difference is only about 1-2 models. I would take Banshees against everything unless I *knew* they were fielding Green Tide.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

scorpions are better, but harlequins are bestest


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

They're both good, but scorpions are more resilient, especially if 'fortuned', while harlequins are better against MEQ. 

However, Eldar are already good at shooting MEQ to death, so I think they benefit better from an incredibly resilient unit of scorpions, than they do from banshees.


----------



## Gothic (May 12, 2008)

IMO striking scorpions if you read path of the warrior it proves it aswell.


----------



## Lord Rahl (Mar 13, 2010)

in my experience scorps cannot outperform the Girls, yea sure they have their uses vs green tide and Guard, but are otherwise just not as good. Remeember the banshhhes realy excell when the unit they assault are doomed and the banshees are fortuned.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I do have a love for Banshees with a Doomseer. What Scorpions do bring is the ability to Infiltrate or Outflank. Karandras with some Scorps in a Serpent is a cheeky little Outflanking unit, or just infiltrating them without the serpent. 

Banshee's are generally more killy though.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

If you know your opponent, then the choice is obvious.

If you are going into (for example) a tournament, then i would be taking the Banshees.
Their MEQ killing ability is very nice.
Just be VERY careful against high toughness enemies. Always remember that you are wounding T4 on 5+, and really struggling against T5+.
Although Doom can really help in situations like that. 
(Assuming Doom works in combat, been a while since i played against Eldar)


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Oy, Lord Rahl youse astole my profile picture! Also, Sword of Truth?

I prefer Banshees because of all the SM/CSM players in my area.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Actually you stole Lord Rahls since he has been a member for longer. Secondly more to the point I think that the scorpions are better thsn the banshees.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Love banshees, I10 + Power weapons, in a Wave Serpent makes them an affordable unit which is very effective.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

I honestly didn't expect this to be this close. I really thought that it was going to be far and away Banshees.

But personally, I have to go Scorpions. They have a broader range of uses in my experience. Looking at kill counts the spread isn't too far either way and Scorps are much more resilient. I like it better when I don't have to worry as much about Heavy Flamers and Heavy Bolters. The main loss with them though is Fleet. 

An added bonus to Scorps is a much nicer tank hunting ability with the Exarch. With the potential to get up to a whooping S8 with four attacks, they can be much more scary than the Banshee's three S5 attacks. Also, it doesn't hurt that standard Scorps can glance most tanks.

Another thing is the Karandras Shadow Sect or whatever its called is a pretty fun Apoc formation, definitely worth a shot. Banshees just don't have anything quite like that yet. Even if I made one up, I couldn't justify that kind of mobility for them. Maybe a large area moral check, but still isn't near as cool.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Styro-J said:


> I honestly didn't expect this to be this close. I really thought that it was going to be far and away Banshees.
> 
> But personally, I have to go Scorpions. They have a broader range of uses in my experience. Looking at kill counts the spread isn't too far either way and Scorps are much more resilient. I like it better when I don't have to worry as much about Heavy Flamers and Heavy Bolters. The main loss with them though is Fleet.
> 
> ...


Exarchs don't get Str 8. They get Str. 6 with the Claw, or Str. 7 if they charge and get enough hits with a Biting Blade. Don't worry, you're not the first person who's ever made that mistake. They should put it in a FAQ, but I suppose GW thought it was plain enough...


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> They should put it in a FAQ, but I suppose GW thought it was plain enough...


WHY should they put it in an FAQ? It IS plain enough.
A Power Fist doubles the user's Strength value, and you can't benefit from two different Special weapons at once.


I say Scorpions; while maybe they aren't as good when metagame is taken into account, they do their job better.
Banshees kill Marines, it's their thing, they also provide a moderately mobile assault unit; however, when you charge the enemy (having Fleet is nice), each Banshee will kill 0.66 MEQ models.
Not bad, but not excellent.

Scorpions have multiple jobs, one is being tough (making a pretty good bullet shield, or unit to tie things up with), the other is slaughtering hordes.
Obviously they do the first job well, a 3+ Armour save is substantial.
When a unit of Scorpions charges, say, Orks, although they won't always get the charge, not having Fleet, they do quite well.
First their Shuriken Pistols, not having Fleeted to get into combat; these will kill 0.33 Ork Boys each.
Next their 4 attacks on the charge, killing 1.0185 Boys.
When they don't charge, each will kill 0.6738 Boys, with their 3 attacks.

In subsequent rounds of combat Scorpions become better and better off, they have more attacks per model, and fewer of them will die.


You asked who was better at their job, that's part of the answer.
Banshees can have serious trouble when their enemy evolves to, say, Terminators.
Suddenly they have 2/3 the kills; whereas Scorpions never really have their job made any harder, and perform decently against anything short of a 2+ Armour save.

Scorpions are better at their job, in general.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I much prefer the Scorpions, if the Banshees diminish the target unit enough then they are fine, but Scorpions have the survivability and weight of dice which I prefer to take.

As already said its quite situational and personal preference, but I find the slightly hardier Scorpions with their tank killing exarch to be wholley more useful, trouble is that there are too many high T units which will make short work of either and shorter work of the banshees.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

banshees great against marine and similar armies
scorpions are great against swarms because lots of hits... 

both fullfit their roles great, but i think scorpios should have fleet also.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Luisjoey said:


> both fullfit their roles great, but i think scorpios should have fleet also.


It may seem that way, due to the new Incubi having fleet; but not necessarily.
When you think about it, Aspect Warriors do not devote their life to war like Space Marines do, or spend their whole life in raiding and combat like Dark Eldar do.
They're just regular people (Eldar) who've joined the military for their inevitable period of service.

They deserve to be good, but not _really_ good.
It may seem odd, because Eldar are one of the most skilled races around, but natural ability only goes so far; Striking Scorpions, I think, should never be given Fleet.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Exarchs don't get Str 8. They get Str. 6 with the Claw, or Str. 7 if they charge and get enough hits with a Biting Blade. Don't worry, you're not the first person who's ever made that mistake. They should put it in a FAQ, but I suppose GW thought it was plain enough...


A Biting Blade can get up to Str 8 on the charge. (Starts at S4 [basically], +1 for every hit, 4 attacks on charge [can't forget the mandiblasters) The example provided in its entry simply says that if an Exarch hits with 3 of those attacks then they would be resolved at S 7.


Also, its only Guardians that can be considered the regular people of Eldar, but heck even they are Fleet. I can gladly accept the old heavier armor excuse that was used for them and the old Incubi, though. It just hurts to see "slow" Eldar.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Styro-J said:


> Also, its only Guardians that can be considered the regular people of Eldar, but heck even they are Fleet. I can gladly accept the old heavier armor excuse that was used for them and the old Incubi, though. It just hurts to see "slow" Eldar.


They're the responsible adults, or 'young children'.
Aspect Warriors are more like the angsty teenagers of Eldar society.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> They're the responsible adults, or 'young children'.
> Aspect Warriors are more like the angsty teenagers of Eldar society.


Strange, I thought they were the ones who devoted their lives to an Aspect of ther Eldar Paths... some of whom let their passions lead them to become Exarchs.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Strange, I thought they were the ones who devoted their lives to an Aspect of ther Eldar Paths... some of whom let their passions lead them to become Exarchs.


Nope, most Eldar fall into what is basically a deep-ingrained rage at some point in their life, and that leads them to learn the ways of war.
Aspect Warriors serve as soldiers for a while, and when they grow out of the rage, they retire into normal society.
An Exarch is a warrior who cannot give up the ways of war, so they devote their life to teaching it.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Winterous said:


> Nope, most Eldar fall into what is basically a deep-ingrained rage at some point in their life, and that leads them to learn the ways of war.
> Aspect Warriors serve as soldiers for a while, and when they grow out of the rage, they retire into normal society.
> An Exarch is a warrior who cannot give up the ways of war, so they devote their life to teaching it.


Don't know where you're getting that from. As I understand it:

As an Eldar lives, he chooses an aspect of life that he is interested in and studies it to the exclusion of almost everything else. He becomes as skilled in that aspect as he can possibly get (or feels as though he has advanced as far down the path as he is willing) and then chooses another aspect of life to study. If he needs to, he can later call upon the skills he learnt in a past aspect with near-perfect recall, and quickly become just as skilled as he used to be in a given aspect, whether he left that path 2 months or 200 years ago.

Aspects and paths are as numerous as in our society. There are just as many "hobbies" or "jobs" as there are in our world. There is no imperative for any eldar to take up a warlike profession (although many will, because being able to defend yourself and your home is a pretty useful skill in the 41st Millenium) any more than there is an imperative to take up pottery, or gardening.

Exarchs (and there will be other terms for equivalent people on non-warlike paths) are people who have become so focused and so locked into one path or aspect that they can no longer choose another path, or live any other kind of life. They devote all of an Eldar's superior mental and physical abilities to mastering that path. They can no longer function in wider society or even outside their own shrines and are feared and shunned just as much as they are respected by other Eldar. There are exarchs for paths other than the warrior, we just never hear about them, because Warhammer is about armies, not artists or mechanics.

I've never seen any mention of a "rage" that emo teenage Eldar go through.


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

The book Path of the warrior is very enlightening on the paths of the Eldar, and if I remember correctly the main character does get into this kind of rage. He lashes out and things and the Serpent of rage or whatever it is frequently needs to be put down inside him. Also I remember several times him thinking how his past self of a sculpter was as good as dead. When he changed paths he totally wiped the slate clean. So i believe an Eldar who changes from being a warrior would then become a guardian in a time of war as they have forgotten their past training. Tho the theoy they can just go back to it does seem believable. 

Also I dont thing going into the path of the warrior really is a choice, more a neccesity for some Eldar. 

Thats how I see it anway.

Sorry this is getting a bit off topic. Im starting to be swayed by some of the arguments here. And yeah Kanandras' shadow sect really is rather epic. Even if it is impossible to actually fit them all in one terrain peice.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I avoided the Black Library works on Eldar because 1. They're written by Gav Thorpe, who's an unskilled author at best, and a complete waste of paper at worst and 2. I don't think anyone could ever write a convincing novel from the perspective of an Eldar; the way they think and feel is just too alien.


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

Yeah I agree with you there but its the best we have. And the way he does it does seem very Alien.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Don't know where you're getting that from.


Page 10 of the Eldar codex, first paragraph 
I recalled a bit wrong, but I had it about right; almost all Eldar feel a calling to the ways of war, at some point in their life.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Page 10 of the Eldar codex, first paragraph
> I recalled a bit wrong, but I had it about right; almost all Eldar feel a calling to the ways of war, at some point in their life.


Which codex? I have 3, plus the extension Craftworld Eldar for 3rd...


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Which codex? I have 3, plus the extension Craftworld Eldar for 3rd...


I have all of those as well, curiously.
The present one, is the one I meant


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

He's right, it does say that due to the dark part of the Eldar psyche, that most Eldar will feel the call of the Path of the Warrior at some point in their lives, though what draws them there is unknown. However, I don't see his point with the statement. Scorpions arent fleet because they don't spend their whole lives as soldiers? Neither do Banshees or anything else and they have Fleet, Guardians are the more like standard citizens than anyone and they have Fleet. Scorps have one reason only for being slower, the heavy armor.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Styro-J said:


> Scorpions arent fleet because they don't spend their whole lives as soldiers? Neither do Banshees or anything else and they have Fleet, Guardians are the more like standard citizens than anyone and they have Fleet. Scorps have one reason only for being slower, the heavy armor.


The reason I said that was as a comparison with Incubi.
Incubi are the same race, the armour they wear is probably of similar construction / encumbrance, yet they have Fleet and Scorpions don't.
The big difference being, Incubi don't spend a period of their life fighting, it is their life, they have a LOT more experience than Scorpions, so naturally they will be better skilled at moving around.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't think it's a matter of experience, I think it's a matter of fighting styles.

Scorpions are trained to stalk their prey over desert and through steaming jungle, edging ever closer before finally striking. The armour they wear is also heavier than other Eldar and is a factor.

Incubi fight in lightning quick raids and are used to riding around in a screaming Raider before hopping off to kill something and hopping back on again before disappearing back into the webway.

It's not so much a physical restriction as much as a different ethos - Incubi move fast, Scorpions less so (but still faster than humans, it has to be said).


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I prefer scoprions by a slight margin, and if your running Banshees against MeQ ALWAYS have a Farseer with doom around, makes them a hell of a lot more useful.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Just have to take into account that Incubi didn't used to be Fleet. Last DE dex restricted Fleet from things with better than a 4+ save. It was only this new dex that lifted that restriction. That actually gives me a little more hope that when the next Eldar dex comes out in 3 years that Scorps will gain Fleet.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> The reason I said that was as a comparison with Incubi.
> Incubi are the same race, the armour they wear is probably of similar construction / encumbrance, yet they have Fleet and Scorpions don't.
> The big difference being, Incubi don't spend a period of their life fighting, it is their life, they have a LOT more experience than Scorpions, so naturally they will be better skilled at moving around.


Incubi didn't always have Fleet, either.
I'm betting that the next iteration of the Eldar codex will give them Fleet.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I'm betting that the next iteration of the Eldar codex will give them Fleet.


I hope not.
Fleet loses its specialness when EVERYTHING has it.
Banshees deserve it, so do Swooping Hawks, but Guardians shouldn't have it, for example.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Fleet of Foot has always been a retarded rule. It was brought in when they moved from having Move characteristics to standard 6", then people wondered how Genestealers were alpha predators when even a Guardsman carrying a heavy weapon can out pace them. So they brought in Fleet, pretty much every Eldar unit was given fleet so they could run (that's all it did before). 

The whole Fleet not Fleet thing would be easily resolved by giving things move characteristics but I fear the game has gone too long without them.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> The whole Fleet not Fleet thing would be easily resolved by giving things move characteristics but I fear the game has gone too long without them.


Yet again something which requires more reference to the rules.
The less time you spend looking at the rulebook, the better.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Winterous said:


> Yet again something which requires more reference to the rules.
> The less time you spend looking at the rulebook, the better.


You think things having the ability to run as a rule, and maybe having the fleet rule is better than units simply having a move characteristic? 

Move characteristic == Less rules == better.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> You think things having the ability to run as a rule, and maybe having the fleet rule is better than units simply having a move characteristic?
> 
> Move characteristic == Less rules == better.


You won't forget what this specific unit's move characteristic is though, and have to spend 10 seconds checking.
It's easier to remember the presence of a word than a number, especially when that rule is a big part of the unit's function.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Winterous said:


> You won't forget what this specific unit's move characteristic is though, and have to spend 10 seconds checking.
> It's easier to remember the presence of a word than a number, especially when that rule is a big part of the unit's function.


No I wont, why would I? I remember to move my Jump Packers 12" and my tanks up to 18-24". 

It's no different from remembering every other characteristic, comparison table, rule in the game. I don't remember ever playing a single game of 40K as a child and think 'God dammit I wish they would get rid of this 1 number here, I just cannot remember them all'. If I could master 1 extra digit as a 10 year old I'm pretty sure I can as a 30 year old. Especially when most units in a race will all have the same movement. 

If having a move characteristic is too complicated and time consuming I can see why WHFB is regarded as the grown up, more complex game.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> If having a move characteristic is too complicated and time consuming I can see why WHFB is regarded as the grown up, more complex game.


It isn't too complicated, but I imagine they made it this way so that it's easier for new players.
Frankly I prefer it this way anyway, it's just nice and stream-lined.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I think individual move characteristics have pros and cons.

I think they would better illustrate the differences between races, as not only could infantry move at different speeds, but so could vehicles. A Leman Russ could go 8" while a Falcon goes at 14" and a "Flyer" like a Valk or Void Raven could do 30". This would allow your army to feel perceptibly "faster" or "slower" without it simply being a matter of "faster = better = everything in transports". Slower armies would be compensated in points or stats.

On the downside it's a lot more complicated - you need to know not only how fast you move, but how fast every other army moves so you can plan assaults and shooting properly. It also becomes much harder to eyeball such things, because I can generally eyeball 6"-12"-18" pretty well, but if you asked me to tell if something was 14" or 16" away then I might have issues.

I think it was a mistake to allow _everything_ to run. It was one of the major factors in breaking Tau, and more or less caused the death of the gunline. When every infantry unit can potentially be touching your deployment zone on turn two, you can't cause enough casualties before hitting combat to win. On the other hand if they only reach you on turn four, there's a major difference there.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> I hope not.
> Fleet loses its specialness when EVERYTHING has it.
> Banshees deserve it, so do Swooping Hawks, but Guardians shouldn't have it, for example.


For better or worse, it's just what I'm betting.
Personally, I think they need to take away the whole armies running thing.
Then bring back the ability to consolidate into a unit that was foolishly placed too close to another.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Then bring back the ability to consolidate into a unit that was foolishly placed too close to another.


And make melee too good again? No way man, no way.
Oh look I charged your unit. Oh look I wiped them out. OH LOOK I CHARGED ANOTHER UNIT IN THE SAME TURN!


----------



## theorkwarboss (Dec 6, 2010)

scorps have a better save of 3+


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> And make melee too good again? No way man, no way.
> Oh look I charged your unit. Oh look I wiped them out. OH LOOK I CHARGED ANOTHER UNIT IN THE SAME TURN!


As opposed to, "Oh, look, I killed your unit... now I get to stand here holding my dick while you shoot me."
There used to be a nice middle ground, which was, don't put units too close to eachother. Then if you shot the hell out of a cc unit, you deserved to.
Wouldn't be so bad if every army out there wasn't able to run. Maybe people who can't think tactically wouldn't gripe about cc units rolling them up in so few turns.
As far as the Banshees vs. Scorpions, though, I still think Scorpions are mildly better.


----------



## Corporal Chaos (Nov 27, 2007)

I chose Scorpions because they seem to be a bit "Harder" in a fight.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

Banshees. 
I always field at least one squad. 
I alternate between a squad of first edition Banshees with an Exarch with an Executioner and a squad of the current models featuring an Exarch with Mirrorswords. 
I never tailor them to the enemy that I'm due to face but just purely and simply as the mood takes me.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Pssyche said:


> Banshees.
> I always field at least one squad.
> I alternate between a squad of first edition Banshees with an Exarch with an Executioner and a squad of the current models featuring an Exarch with Mirrorswords.


You should never take Mirrorswords, they really are worthless.
The Triskele is far better than them, since you're getting effectively 3 bonus melee attacks on the charge which hit on 2+.
They do look cool, however.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Fuck them both.

It's not like Eldar need a CC specialist. Would one be nice? Sure. None of our specialists are particularly good (except for Jet councils, and even then it's iffy), so we can't beat other CC specialists. We have no assault transports, so we're gimped when it comes to assaulting units that don't want to fight us.

So... fuck it. Run the hell away from CC. Those points could be spent on more firepower in smaller games, and in larger games it's a criminal waste of an Elites FOC.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Wait a minute, 10 banshees vs. 10 Zerkers. Give Banshees the charge for being faster, and take point cost into account and Banshees pull away very well. The only thing (it is a big thing though) that makes the big difference is that Zerkers are scoring and dont take as precious of an Elite slot. Kind of makes me miss the Craftworld Eldar stuff...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

You're telling me.... 50 Black Guardians became expensive and shitty paperweights when 5th came out.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Oh yeah, i love how Black Guardians exist only in one Apoc formation now. Even then only the Storm Guardians get any benefit.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> You should never take Mirrorswords, they really are worthless.
> The Triskele is far better than them, since you're getting effectively 3 bonus melee attacks on the charge which hit on 2+.
> They do look cool, however.


In your opinion Mirrorswords are worthless.
Doesn't make it fact.
Sorry about the ol' ego there, but many people have found them to be quite effective. Mostly depends on what you're fighting. 

To the later posters... ya, I miss the Craftworld Eldar stuff as well.
Definately made different Craftworlds... well, different.
Which was a Good Thing.


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

Mirrorswords are more effective against most targets than the Executioner, with Doom support working for each. Without Doom, Mirrorswords are still close.

The Triskele can be very effective. However, it comes with a risk of killing off the models in assault range.


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

This really depends on what your throwing them at I would only throw banshees at stuff with good armor save and throw scorpions at stuff like orks or hormagaunts.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Styro-J said:


> Mirrorswords are more effective against most targets than the Executioner, with Doom support working for each. Without Doom, Mirrorswords are still close.


Didn't consider that, I suppose that with a Farseer supporting the unit with Doom, they're _alright._


----------



## Caliban (Nov 27, 2010)

what are black guardians?


----------



## vaul117 (Dec 8, 2010)

Striking scorpions are a stealth, medium range/melee unit. Howling Banshees are a psychic/melee unit. The striking scorpions will kill you before you even know they are there, the howling banshees will kill you by psychically screaming so loud your head explodes. Its kind of a toss-up.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

and using a big shiny power sword!


----------

