I’ll preface this by saying that units that are not balanced right should be fixed, but how is not what I want to discuss.
Please don’t use this thread to complain about your army.
Some units; when considered in a vacuum, appear to be balanced right, but are not considered optimal because another unit in the army fills the role better.
Usually because that unit has a little more of what makes it good at the role or (more commonly) a little less of what it doesn’t need.
The most obvious example is skeletons vs zombies in the Undead list.
Zombies are considered more optimal because the extra De skeletons have is considered more than necessary (zombies having better synergy helps too).
Skeletons cost the appropriate points for what they do though and their profile fits what the models are.
Similarly (although they could use a bump)
ironwatch are outdone by other shooting options in the dwarf list.
It seems to me that the units are in the list simply to give the option to field them, rather than be a part of how the list is designed/to add a role or capability the list needs.
Mantic make models for skeletons and ironwatch. Most collections of undead have skeletons and not having rifles and/or crossbows as a option in a dwarf army seems… wrong (there are also many quarrelers and thunderers in the world).
Crossbows let one run low(er) technology dwarfs if that your thing.
The question is is that a problem?
I don’t think so. I don’t think balancing with points can solve it if it is a problem.
As long as games are fair I’m not sure it’s an issue if some units are not there for the top table at master’s, but rather to let you run your army your way.
What do you think?
Do you have an example of other units that fit this description?