Vypers, the complete edition

From thread; http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/eldar/206711-repairing-our-codex-one-unit-time-part-viii.html

Post 1;

They gain a 3+ cover for turboboosting.
They are BS4.
They may deepstrike with no scatter. If they elect to do this, they count as having turboboosted and may not shoot this turn.
They may deepstrike normally (up to 12") and may move&shoot but must move at cruising speed and may not fire their main weapon.
They have a 6" assault phase movement.

Post 2:

The comparison of Vypers to Hornets was inevitable, and it is fair but they are very different units. Hornets have higher armour, are not opentopped and can carry more heavy weapons. They scout and have starengines in their base cost. At this exact moment in time Hornets outclass vypers.

Introduce my changes however and you gain a couple of key differences that make vypers a more valid alternative. Well first off they hit more often. Secondly they gain a higher save from turboboosting and can deepstrike whereas hornets may only scout. They can assault move back behind cover.

The net effect is that Hornets are fast warwalkers, vypers are heavy jetbikes with deepstrike.

Post 3:

Of course I'd like to remind people at this point to consider defining a role for the vyper that's independent of and complimentary to the hornet, rather than trying to make it a direct competitor. What I'm seeing here in this thread is things that would make the vyper a matter of list min-max. Certainly it's true many lists won't have a use for vypers in the future much like now, but look at spearhead. Our 5e/6e codex might incorporate some of those ideas, allowing mixed squadrons - which is why I made the heavy jetbike comparison... and I suspect why farseer mcloud thought of allowing the vyper to be taken as a 'support platform' in much the same way as a guardian squad takes a scatterlaser. Instead you're looking at guardian jetbikes getting an av10 jetbike that mounts a heavy weapon.

Post 4:

Which brings about next question.. does the idea of a vyper being a razorback type transport (low model count, 1 TL heavy weapon) differentiate it enough from the hornet to make the vyper viable?

Post 5:

The reason I'd say you keep it as a vehicle is so you can abuse wound allocation out the ass. Since it's a mixed unit, just place all <s5 shots on the vyper and laugh as they have only a 17% chance of even damaging a mediocre unit. One vyper per squad of 10 jetbikes is barely worth attacking directly, but you can mitigate assloads of damage that would otherwise be hitting your troops by aiming it at your fortuned, turboboosting vehicle.

Post 6:

Falcon transport capacity exists for no other tank... I'd prefer it if GW made the falcon an actual BS4 tank that gains titan-holofields or something. Shove the transport to vypers and make falcons better.

Post 7:

I'm not sure I see how making vyper susceptible to S2 weaponry is making them better Yes sure they require more 'hits' to go down this way.. but against every single S2+ weapon they can now be more reliably damaged.

Post 8:

Where vypers are concerned it comes down to the idea that they're heavy weaponry, which is really the next topic I should cover before I move on to other units that use heavy weapons. If we thought that making a starcannon s6 ap2 h3 again for example, and loaded it on our brand spanking new vyper, 2 in a jetbike guardian squad.. you've got flying SoBs that shoot something like 6-15 S6 shots per squad. Provided costs aren't altered.. I'm not sure it's quite balanced, possibly leaning to the OP side.