Two speeders with multimeltas will
cost within 10%
move 4x as fast
have 33% more wounds
fly over obstacles
slow down chargers with antigrav upwash
fall back and shoot
4 shots all the time instead of 6 most of the time
2 Attack bikes will
cost 10% less
move almost 3X as fast
have 1 less wound but also climb out of the 1 shot 2-3D model deletion sweet spot
have some Twin Bolters
etc etc.
Edit to Add: Both of those are from less contention FA slot, than the more utilized HS slot.
The fire twice at same target is hardly a limitation, given its intended usage; maybe mathhammer can prove me wrong? This means that, in general, eradicators provide more shots per point.
The durability is potentially superior given the chance to get in cover.
I'd say that eradicators are curently so hot because they are very aggressively point priced, they are infantry (benefit more from new cover rules), they ride the melta sweet changes, and relatively durable (t5, 3W).
Also, note that having wounds spread out across models is also a hidden defensive buff, since it can often result in wounds being wasted.
For example, it takes 6 plasma shots to destroy 2 speeders (12 wounds), but also 6 plasma shots to kill the 9W of the eradicators. This only gets better if you are being targetted by AT (say a demolisher cannon).
AdmiralHalsey wrote: You're missing that when the Eradicator outrage was ongoing people had no idea GW were going to balence it by making other marine units EVEN BETTER.
Silly us, we should have seen that coming.
I don't mean then, I mean now. I see people still raving over them, and wondered if I was missing something like Eradicator Melta getting 2 shots per action, and able to shoot twice twice or something.
Grey40k wrote: The fire twice at same target is hardly a limitation, given its intended usage; maybe mathhammer can prove me wrong? This means that, in general, eradicators provide more shots per point.
The durability is potentially superior given the chance to get in cover.
I'd say that eradicators are curently so hot because they are very aggressively point priced, they are infantry (benefit more from new cover rules), they ride the melta sweet changes, and relatively durable (t5, 3W).
Also, note that having wounds spread out across models is also a hidden defensive buff, since it can often result in wounds being wasted.
For example, it takes 6 plasma shots to destroy 2 speeders (12 wounds), but also 6 plasma shots to kill the 9W of the eradicators. This only gets better if you are being targetted by AT (say a demolisher cannon).
What melta changes are they riding?
I was taking the wasted wounds into account as well. The Flat 3D or D6 damage (which averages to 3.5) is going to put wasted wounds on the speeders/bikers too while they'll outright e- no, I'm not going to make that pun- but it'll average one shot one kill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: We dont know how many points attack bikes or speeders will be. ABs and speeders dont get light or heavy cover from terrain.
With 3X the move do they need it? They're small enough to obscure, and fast enough to take their shot. The new board sizes are 44" player edge to player edge. 20" move plus 24" range is exactly the whole board. Add 12" of the 24" deployment (6" on each side) and their turn 1 even 1" move you're within half range for full effect. This makes me wonder what the movement rates will be as much as the points costs.
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: You're missing that when the Eradicator outrage was ongoing people had no idea GW were going to balence it by making other marine units EVEN BETTER.
Silly us, we should have seen that coming.
I don't mean then, I mean now. I see people still raving over them, and wondered if I was missing something like Eradicator Melta getting 2 shots per action, and able to shoot twice twice or something.
they can indeed fire twice at a target if they all shoot the same target.
that said people are over reacting. because "Marine Envy" is real. At this rate I expect people to claim reivers are OP
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
What melta changes are they riding?
I was taking the wasted wounds into account as well. The Flat 3D or D6 damage (which averages to 3.5) is going to put wasted wounds on the speeders/bikers too while they'll outright e- no, I'm not going to make that pun- but it'll average one shot one kill.
The double tapping change (already baked in for the eradicators, but for others melta will be heavy 2).
I am not going to go in a long winded explanation, and perhaps I am wrong (I'd love to see mathhammer for this). EDIT - It was long, I couldn't resist.
Typical profiles for weapons are: 1/2/3/1d3/1d6/1d6+X.
Against 1D and 3D (less common), without accounting for cover, landspeeders are more durable per point. However, for 1d3, 1d6, 1d6+X, at first glance I'd say eradicators are more durable.
As an example, take lascannons (1d6) against both. To give some more mathhammer, assume 1 landspeeder and 2 eradicators are being shot at by 2 lascannons that always hit (to simplify a bit)
Possible outcomes: 36
2 {(1,1)} - 1/36 - non die
3 {(1,2),(2,1)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead
4 {(1,3),(3,1),(2,2)} - 3/36 - 1 eraditor dead
5 {(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead
6 {(1,5),(5,1),(2,4),(4,2),(3,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
7 {(1,6),(6,1),(2,5),(5,2),(3,4),(4,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 6/36 - 1 land speeder dead
8 {(2,6),(6,2),(3,5),(5,3),(4,4)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
9 {(3,6),(6,3),(4,5),(5,4)} - 4/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 4/36 - 1 land speeder dead
10 {(4,6),(6,4),(5,5)} - 3/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 1 land speeder dead
11 {(5,6),(6,5)} - 2/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 1 land speeder dead
12 {(6,6)} - 1/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 1 land speeder dead
So, summarizing:
(2+3+4+4+4+2)/36= 0.52 1 eradicator die
(1+2+3+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.44 2 eradicators die
1/36 = .02 no eradicators die
(5+6+5+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.72 1 land speeder dies
That is, while the landspeeder dies 72% of the times, the two eradicators far better, with only 44% of the times the squad being destroyed, and about half the times 1 eradicator surviving. And note that one eradicator puts out the same number of shots that 1 land speeder.
Its been covered but I don't think its surprising that people talk about things you can use right now rather than what might be available in 6 weeks time.
If Multi Melta Landspeeders etc are the new hotness, expect much salt. But if Multimeltas are say 50 points each, its not the same.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
I think that's kind of the point. Fire dragons fill exactly the same role as eradicators and are.apparently fundamentally flawed.so they aren't used competitively.
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
I don't generally keep up with Eldar lists, so I'm probably not the person to ask when it comes to how competitive Fire Dragons are or how many people are using them.
I'd compare them to DE Trueborn but those have been relegated to Legends because they lacked an official model and GW is too busy vomiting Primaris nonsense from every orifice to give them one.
However, let's just go ahead and assume that Fire Dragons are presently uncompetitive. Do you think it makes Eldar players happy that GW has basically said "Hey, we realise that Fire Dragons aren't very good at the moment. Hence, we're committed to fixing this . . . but only for this new Marine unit."?
Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.
So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.
Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Firedragons aren't in the same codex. I'm not necessarily talking about why do other armies dislike them so much as the drooling over them as opposed to other choices etc. Just wondering if I missed a FAQ to make them Assault 2 or something.
We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.
Super Ready wrote: We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.
Or the fix might be a brand new unit for Eldar with more efficient anti armour, putting the final nail in the coffin of Fire Dragons.
Super Ready wrote: We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.
Sure we do, we just don't know if the fix will accomplish anything They're going to do something with 9th codexes. Barring a major staff upheaval, the leaks and rumors imply they're in the middle of a moderate revamp of the major upheaval that came out of the Indexes. It probably hasn't been long enough for someone else to get put in charge and reboot the rules from scratch with the 8th and 9th BRB being so similar.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
BECAUSE IT COULD BE MONTHS OR YEARS BEFORE XENOS FACTIONS GET THOSE BONUSES? Because the marine eqiuvalents are still better? Because it seems like they've buffed melta WAY too much and brought multimeltas from useless to "...whelp, guess we can leave any no-invul vehicle home now.
When attack bikes are suddenly comparing favorably to arguably the best anti-tank unit in the game currently...we may be in for some bad times. At least for mechanized/monster lists.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Nah, eradicators are better than landspeeders given current table sizes. They are more durable in many scenarios and they put out more damage per point.
There is a reason why everyone is complaining about them:
They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).
They are very good at tanking small arms fire.
They are infantry to benefit from cover, while having almost light vehicle durability (compare them to mortifers in that regard).
They are very cheap for what they provide.
Other factions may benefit from meltas too, but what other faction has comparable packages for the unit using them? Custodes have super short range meltas, guard get blown to bits, maybe sisters? I'd be interested in comparing retributors in VH to eradicators.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
They did before insane power creeps and they didn't get the same power creep. But now they are trash, so why take a unit that needs help doing its only role its meant to do..
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
You're so close to grasping the issue at hand, yet still manage to be entirely snippy about the whole thing. Its actually rather impressive.
Fire Dragons are abjectly terrible. That is not in dispute. The reason people, especially Craftworlds players, are upset over Eradicators is that they do literally everything that Fire Dragons do (who by the way are supposed to be an exemplar of the tank busters to such an absurd degree that a handful on a battlefield will slag entire armored columns) while being cheaper, tougher and with better rules synergy.
Speaking as someone who was on the receiving end of the "just wait for your rules update" for the entirety of 8th (Hey there Deathwatch!), I can tell you for a fact that argument is exceptionally condescending and frankly detached from the reality of how GW rolls out said updates. They routinely leave entire factions out in the cold, and its not an enjoyable nor a mechanically functional place to be. Especially when others are getting literally the things that one would hope to get with rules updates.
Super Ready wrote: We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.
We've seen the Necrons stats as well and their twin-multi-melta is not becoming heavy 4.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
Fire dragons are one of my favourite, and the first unit I ever buy with my own money. I would like to use them.
Seriously this comes of as quite a toxic attitude and really makes me sad seeing it.
Eradicators are too cheap, period. Gravis aren't that hard to kill and they have drawbacks like lack of transport options, but their price doesn't match their stats and damage potential. Another issue is compared to multi-meltas, which are heavy weapons, their guns are assault, which means they'll be getting the benefits of doctrines twice as many turns and in the turns when they will most likely be able to make use of that bonus AP. AP-5 renders anything without an invul without an armor save. That's pretty nasty for 40 PPM infantry.
Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.
So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.
Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'
I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
That's the point...marine envy as if. When rest have to deal with having fire dragon level stuff and marines go "eradicators are bad, we have better stuff" there's a problem.
Pretty much nothing outside marine codex is as efficient as eradicators. Yet you call it marine envy...
Well easy to hold highground and diss complains as marine envy when you are holding the broken stuff eh.
Karol wrote: So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.
Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.
This is extra rich considering historically Eldar have been the most overpowered tournament faction for the vast majority of the games history.
I understand it is a bit of a downturn now but these things come and go for all factions, even Space Marines (who were in fact bottom tier just a year ago).
Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.
So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.
Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'
I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.
Seriously ,can you just stop with your eldar hate? Plenty of non-eldar players are complaining. Fire dragons are being used because theyre the closest equivalent to eradicators
Malkyr wrote: This is extra rich considering historically Eldar have been the most overpowered tournament faction for the vast majority of the games history.
You know I just used Eldar as an example, right? Because they had one of the most comparable units to eradicators.
But sure, I guess the fact that Eldar has been good in the past means that every Xeno army should just suck forever.
Ah yes, because it's only Eldar players complaining about Marines.
Let's just ignore how Marines invalidate GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Guard and Necrons as armies.
And as needs to be restated again and again and again, Marines being overpowered is far more oppressive and an issue for the game than Eldar. Even if you take Ynnari as the problem, raise your hands how many times you actually faced Ynnari in an ordinary game, or even in a tournament environment. Unless you're a hardcore competitive player I doubt you can even count the number of times on one hand. Plus, as is the case with many overpowered armies throughout the history of the game, it's usually specific army builds that are problems, not the factions as a whole. In fact you usually have to try very hard to make tough, unbalanced lists in most Codexes and that was certainly the case in 8th. Drukhari were strong on their Codex release, but you could still easily make horrendously terrible lists with them because plenty of units and choices were very suboptimal or had easily exploitable weaknesses.
The exception is Marines, where you actively have to try hard in order to make a bad list*. And to make this more on-topic, Eradicators are a perfect microcosm for the army as a whole because you have a unit that is cost-efficient as all hell and has straight forward incredibly powerful rules which require little thought or nuance to use. But on top of that, they have access to 50+ stratagems, auras and psychic powers that only amplify this efficient unit even further. Compare this to Dark Reapers which are, on their own, a good unit but one which has a few glaring weaknesses and are also not incredibly efficient for what they do. However, through stratagem and psychic power use, you push them up into being a very scary unit that is worth the relatively steep points you pay for a T3 1W model. 3x3 Eradicators on the other hand, with absolutely no extra buffs or auras or really anything is actually nightmarish to deal with... but they can actually get any of those at any time. Marines get the best of all worlds in having straight forward powerful units that can also benefit from proper execution and buffs to a degree that is far above and beyond other armies, with so many stacked bonuses that it makes stuff you can do a unit like Shining Spears look bland in comparison.
Like, you either have straightforward, "solid" units that can be reliably good but have limiters in how far you can buff or push them in terms of skill and bonuses. Or you can have units that can only be strong and effective through proper use and finesse. Having both in one is just nuts and yet that describes a load of Marine units, Eradicators included.
*And part of the problem is that they just have 3-4x the units as everyone else, so your chances of picking good units is dramatically increased. An Eldar army with 12 different model types has a high chance of including some real stinkers in it because there really aren't 12 excellent units in the Craftworld Codex. But there are easily 12 excellent units within the Marine Codex so it's much easier to pick a varied army that has no liabilities.
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
It's like you've never read most of the posts about it.
They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).
What new melta rule do they benefit from?
Already answered in a previous post PS - Along with why landspeeders are far worse than eradicators in a lot of situations.
They went from heavy 1 to heavy 2 (at least it looks like that is the intention), except for marines that got this pseudo assault 2.
I think no one will disagree with the statement that eradicators are the best infantry AT, point per point, in the entire game.
A very close equivalent: retributors. You are paying 120 points (same as primaris) for 3 meltas on 4 t3/1W/3+ body. Even if sisters get heavy 2, how is that balanced?
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
Karol wrote: I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.
Karol, point to me on this Dire Avenger where the nasty Aeldari players touched you
They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).
What new melta rule do they benefit from?
Already answered in a previous post PS - Along with why landspeeders are far worse than eradicators in a lot of situations.
They went from heavy 1 to heavy 2 (at least it looks like that is the intention), except for marines that got this pseudo assault 2.
I think no one will disagree with the statement that eradicators are the best infantry AT, point per point, in the entire game.
A very close equivalent: retributors. You are paying 120 points (same as primaris) for 3 meltas on 4 t3/1W/3+ body. Even if sisters get heavy 2, how is that balanced?
The other aspect is that, even if GW were to try and bring other races up to this standard, it seems like there's just not enough design space.
For example, Eldar Aspect Warriors are supposed to be highly elite, yet the constant buffs to Marines mean that most of them have been left in the dirt. You could potentially buff their damage output, but where do you go with their durability?
And then you've got races like Dark Eldar, which are supposed to be glass cannons. What do you do for them? Because it seems like Scourges, Trueborn etc. really need to be carrying the equivalent of 5-6 Blasters per model in order to keep up with the ever-escalating damage output of Marines.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
Oh, so many factions could have used upgrades to their infantry AT instead of primaris.
How about the custodes, which have crappy vehicles (thanks, calladius nerfs...) and some 50 points per devastators with weird heavy bolters (saggitarum)? Let's be clear, against the uber prevalent primaris, eradicators are both better AT and better anti personnel than saggitarum (same wounds, same toughness, worse saves but cheaper and far better damage put).
Karol wrote: So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.
Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.
This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.
The other aspect is that, even if GW were to try and bring other races up to this standard, it seems like there's just not enough design space.
For example, Eldar Aspect Warriors are supposed to be highly elite, yet the constant buffs to Marines mean that most of them have been left in the dirt. You could potentially buff their damage output, but where do you go with their durability?
And then you've got races like Dark Eldar, which are supposed to be glass cannons. What do you do for them? Because it seems like Scourges, Trueborn etc. really need to be carrying the equivalent of 5-6 Blasters per model in order to keep up with the ever-escalating damage output of Marines.
So far the answer has been to lower points and turn every other army into some horde, but even then most aspect warriors cannot compete.
Or maybe they will reincarnate into some Ynnari primarized eldars, with 2 wounds and larger sculpts.
Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.
So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.
Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'
I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.
Karol, remember the entirety of 8th where your precious Grey Knights were utter garbage?
When you spent literally two and a half years detailing every thread about how your army deserved better?
How most of the people here spent the same time telling you that the state of the GK Codex was terrible, and that you did in fact deserve better?
We remember. You pivoting to a “I got mine so feth you giys” isn’t a good look, nor a sustainable philosophy for the game as a whole. You know better.
Karol wrote: So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.
Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.
This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.
...yes? And that relates to the point you're quoting how?
Super Ready is talking the entire span of 40k where the Codex form is in effect, not just 8th.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
It's amazing how often this argument is repeated over and over again.
A new Marine unit is compared with another unit that is supposed to fill the same role and is vastly better. But that is discarded because " this unit is garbage". And if it is compared to a unit that is not garbage but does not fill the same role it is discarded because "that's a whole other unit".
Karol wrote: So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.
Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.
This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.
...yes? And that relates to the point you're quoting how?
Super Ready is talking the entire span of 40k where the Codex form is in effect, not just 8th.
Exactly. They were great in 8th for a while - that's great! ...not so great for the literal years they had to put up with the Codex before that. And not so great in the years after, which at this point is a timespan nobody knows, but it's at least another few months. With those taken into perspective, the Tyranids' time in the sun was brief indeed.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
So your saying all units that are remotely equivalent to Eradicators are bad, and yet Eridcators are not priced like all these other bad units.
Do you see why people complain about Eradicators being broken?
If you don't think Eradicators are broken, then how about you bring up a better comparison that proves they are not broken.
And I dare you to chose a unit that isn't space marines.
A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.
Ditch the melta comparisons and do anti-tank in general.
You don't usually get 6 24" S8 AP-4 D6 damage shots for 120 points.
A Ravager with 3 dark lances (...) sets me back 145 points.
Now you can say "36" range omg" or "Run Dissies you nerd" - but the reality is this unit costs considerably more and has half the fire power. Yes its flying, yes it has an invul bla bla bla - but sub 50% output is ludicrous.
This is going to get worse then the new MM rolls out - when a landspeeder does about the same damage a dark lance Ravager in 12" but pays about 40% as much - but that's the case right now.
Cornishman wrote: A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.
Does this actually happen, though? If you need two units dead then you take two units of Eradicators. It's like saying if an unclaimed objective is 9" away from either Eradicators or Fire Dragons, then the Fire Dragons have a massive advantage. Sure, I guess.
Cornishman wrote: A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) I'd actually argue that split-firing the same type of weapon isn't something that's typically done. The only exceptions tend to be stuff like Knights or Leviathan Dreadnoughts, where you have ludicrous levels of firepower on the same platform.
2) Perhaps more importantly, if other units want more shots then they generally have to pay for extra guns. In contrast, Eradicators basically get 6 multi-meltas at half the normal cost.
Cornishman wrote: A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.
Does this actually happen, though? If you need two units dead then you take two units of Eradicators. It's like saying if an unclaimed objective is 9" away from either Eradicators or Fire Dragons, then the Fire Dragons have a massive advantage. Sure, I guess.
So 2 units allows you to pump 2 targets with upto 6 shots each, it doesn't allow you to put 3 shots into each of 4 targets. I haven't had the chance to play 9E yet but based on experiences of nearly previous every edition it certianly will occur. How often is a completely different question, an is impossible to answer - The answer depends firstly on what you are up against and secondly on how the games gone (is your target of choice taken no damage or are you just after finishing them off).
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not think a single Eldar player thinks that Fire Dragons are garbage. 10 Melta shots into a tank coming out of a Waveserpent will put a huge dent in just about anything. Second, Eldar players will obviously see what GW will do with the 9th edition Eldar codex so no worries.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not think a single Eldar player thinks that Fire Dragons are garbage. 10 Melta shots into a tank coming out of a Waveserpent will put a huge dent in just about anything. Second, Eldar players will obviously see what GW will do with the 9th edition Eldar codex so no worries.
FFS stop using Fire Dragons as a comprable unit to Eradicators they aren't.
Compare Eradicators with Wraithguard and their normal weapon and you can start to see how much better they perform than just a *decent* unit in 8th and 9th.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
Kind of telling that a unit in another book with the same armament and function is "a unit nobody would dare use" while the Eradicators are either wildly broken or just all right depending on who you ask.
Kithail wrote: I have a question for the marine critics. If eradicators had just a melta gun plus a Thunder Hammer with gravis profile. Would they remain broken?
People would not take them because its an equipment combo you aren't looking for but a 15 point thunder hammer and a 10 point melta gun leaves 15 points for t5 3w 3+.
Still to cheap.
Kithail wrote: I have a question for the marine critics. If eradicators had just a melta gun plus a Thunder Hammer with gravis profile. Would they remain broken?
People would not take them because its an equipment combo you aren't looking for but a 15 point thunder hammer and a 10 point melta gun leaves 15 points for t5 3w 3+.
Still to cheap.
I am wondering because I think eradicators are a rare addition to the primaris roster. I thought the main issue with the primaris lineup was the lack of melee options, and indomitus for sure was kind of prepared to deal with that. Think about it, a melee captain, a melee lieutenant, a melee new HQ, a new melee opción for troops, a new melee elite, outriders though they have shooting it is mainly a melee fast attack threat.
And then in the middle of it you have this unwarranted unneeded shooty unit that happens to be broken, and maybe if it was a more mixed melee threat it would...be bettersuitedforthe set. And perhaps less broken.
Mr Morden wrote: Any one who is remotely objective can see Eradicators were and remain an overpowered and underpointed unit.
The only reason to be happy with them is if you like to use that kind of unit.
Funny thing is, I think they would have been relatively fine had they been a special/heavy weapon trooper for Intercessor units. Basically the new heavy weapon trooper for the primaris 'tactical' squad.
At 1 per 5 models and no double tap it wouldn't be much of an issue.
Kithail wrote: I have a question for the marine critics. If eradicators had just a melta gun plus a Thunder Hammer with gravis profile. Would they remain broken?
People would not take them because its an equipment combo you aren't looking for but a 15 point thunder hammer and a 10 point melta gun leaves 15 points for t5 3w 3+.
Still to cheap.
I am wondering because I think eradicators are a rare addition to the primaris roster. I thought the main issue with the primaris lineup was the lack of melee options, and indomitus for sure was kind of prepared to deal with that. Think about it, a melee captain, a melee lieutenant, a melee new HQ, a new melee opción for troops, a new melee elite, outriders though they have shooting it is mainly a melee fast attack threat.
And then in the middle of it you have this unwarranted unneeded shooty unit that happens to be broken, and maybe if it was a more mixed melee threat it would...be bettersuitedforthe set. And perhaps less broken.
It's inclusion in the set has no bearing on its effectiveness.
But if you want to stay on that topic, BGV and Outriders are also aggressively undercosted.
If not much else changes about Marine rules and all 3 of these units go to 3-6 in terms of squad sizes then hoooo boy. It's gonna be rough. For everyone else.
Mr Morden wrote: Any one who is remotely objective can see Eradicators were and remain an overpowered and underpointed unit.
The only reason to be happy with them is if you like to use that kind of unit.
Funny thing is, I think they would have been relatively fine had they been a special/heavy weapon trooper for Intercessor units. Basically the new heavy weapon trooper for the primaris 'tactical' squad.
At 1 per 5 models and no double tap it wouldn't be much of an issue.
Yeah that might have worked.
The double tap should be a stratagem at the very least - its def the sort of rule that it would be.
Unless there is a further strat boost in the Codex.
Cornishman wrote: A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping. A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Spoiler:
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets. This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts). However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet. Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.
Does this actually happen, though? If you need two units dead then you take two units of Eradicators. It's like saying if an unclaimed objective is 9" away from either Eradicators or Fire Dragons, then the Fire Dragons have a massive advantage. Sure, I guess.
So 2 units allows you to pump 2 targets with upto 6 shots each, it doesn't allow you to put 3 shots into each of 4 targets. I haven't had the chance to play 9E yet but based on experiences of nearly previous every edition it certianly will occur. How often is a completely different question, an is impossible to answer - The answer depends firstly on what you are up against and secondly on how the games gone (is your target of choice taken no damage or are you just after finishing them off).
In practice, it just isn't the case that you split fire with the Eradicators. A squad of 3 has just enough average damage that they'll kill most vehicles in one volley. Because you take them in such small increments, it's rare to the point of contrivance that you'd want to split one squad's damage across multiple targets. Instead, like Oaka says, you just have multiple squads of Eradicators. Most competitive lists are running 3 or 4 minimum sized squads of Eradicators.
The problem is that their role isn't a specialization, it's a cornerstone of list requirements: kill tanks (and monsters). They're extremely efficient at a very general role; there's no opportunity cost to taking them, you'd take something like them anyway. In fact they're so efficient they free up space to bring other stuff.
To the original post, there's a lot of issues that keep the comparison from being apples to apples. Landspeeders give up victory points in Bring It Down, for example. The big important point is that Eradicators have good enough threat range and durability, while grossly more damage than other platforms. You say 4 versus 6 shots as if it isn't much, but it's a 50% damage increase. Two Landspeeders with Multimeltas deal an average 8 or 9 damage to a T7 vehicle, which won't kill it. A squad of Eradicators deals 12+ (up to 15.5 with buffs), which does kill it. That is a game changing difference.
The reason Eradicators are so reviled is simple. No other unit is as efficient and effective at such a common role. It simply breaks all the pricing conventions that balance the game.
Kithail wrote: I have a question for the marine critics. If eradicators had just a melta gun plus a Thunder Hammer with gravis profile. Would they remain broken?
People would not take them because its an equipment combo you aren't looking for but a 15 point thunder hammer and a 10 point melta gun leaves 15 points for t5 3w 3+.
Still to cheap.
I am wondering because I think eradicators are a rare addition to the primaris roster. I thought the main issue with the primaris lineup was the lack of melee options, and indomitus for sure was kind of prepared to deal with that. Think about it, a melee captain, a melee lieutenant, a melee new HQ, a new melee opción for troops, a new melee elite, outriders though they have shooting it is mainly a melee fast attack threat.
And then in the middle of it you have this unwarranted unneeded shooty unit that happens to be broken, and maybe if it was a more mixed melee threat it would...be bettersuitedforthe set. And perhaps less broken.
Primaris had a huge lack of AT shooting. The only unit was the Hellblasters. They 'needed' a Devastator type unit if you look at the Primaris roster in isolation.
Also a set with nothing but melee units is not great.
Ordana wrote: Primaris had a huge lack of AT shooting. The only unit was the Hellblasters. They 'needed' a Devastator type unit if you look at the Primaris roster in isolation. Also a set with nothing but melee units is not great.
Oh great, you made me realize GW is going to release a different Primaris Heavy Support for each kind of gun. Hellblasters have plasma, Eradicators have melta. My money is on 'Annihilators' with rapid fire Lascannons next. Then maybe 'Demolishers' with Grav Cannons. Finally, in a few years, they'll merge them all into one entry with options to switch all the guns.
Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not think a single Eldar player thinks that Fire Dragons are garbage. 10 Melta shots into a tank coming out of a Waveserpent will put a huge dent in just about anything. Second, Eldar players will obviously see what GW will do with the 9th edition Eldar codex so no worries.
Eldar player here. Dragons aren't "garbage," but they're also not "good;" at least not in a competitive sense. 10 melta shots will, in fact, average a lot of damage against most monsters and vehicles out there. Coming out of a wave serpent, it will also cost a little over 400 points iirc. So you have a 230 point unit with the same durability as a 10 wound sisters of battle squad that needs you to dedicate a ~200 point transport or a deepstrike stratagem to get them in position.
Serpents are a good unit well worth their points. However, by putting 10 dragons in there, you're not using them to deliver your better units or to protect your squishy semi-mandatory troops. Taking wave serpents is always a good idea, but spending their transport capacity on dragons is a little more iffy. Because we don't get to disembark after moving like impulsors can, you're probably not getting your dragons in position to shoot until turn 2 meaning your opponent may well have an opportunity to blow up your serpent. Normally, concentrating all that firepower at such a durable unit could potentially be a bad call, but the fact that it plus its cargo of dragons is 400+ points suddenly makes that a not so bad idea.
Deepstriking only costs you 1CP, but then you'r at the mercy of your opponent's ability to screen you out from your preferred targets. So if on turns 2 and 3 your opponent has some cheap screens standing 3.1" away from their tanks, your deepstriking dragons will not be able to shoot said tanks. And they really need to shoot a high value target because they're a 230 point unit with no real baked in defense beyond a 3+ armor save and the option to spend 2 CP for a -1 to hit. You generally get a single turn of offense with them, and then they're exposed and easy to remove with small arms fire or shutdown by tagging them in melee.
So basically, they're a high-cost high-risk medium-reward unit.
In previous editions, a min-sized squad of dragons had a pretty good chance of blowing up the first tank they looked at. In 8th, they decided to make vehicles more durable (fair enough), but that meant that a small squad of dragons couldn't reliably kill their target. So now they're in this awkward spot where they're not survivable enough to get a second round of attacks, not killy enough to do their job in a single round of attacks, and expensive enough that they quickly lose their efficiency and become too easy to shut down if you take a larger squad of them.
Sometimes I use them in friendly games and they do okay.
In fact, Eradicators have finally given a Fire Dragon solution.
Thanks to Primaris marines all running the same gear, I can finally get my eldar counts-as Marines without any trouble.
And Marines are brutally and overwhelmingly supported, so I'll never be waiting on Eldar adjustments again.
Not sure if you're joking, but honestly? I get it. I briefly tried using Blood Angels rules in 5th edition when my eldar were finally in rough enough shape. XD
Eradicators look cool, and I'm glad marine players have a new shiny to enjoy. It just chafes that every single primaris kit that comes out could have been an update to our ancient aspect warrior kits. Every primaris lieutenant could have been a phoenix lord. And when the elevator pitch for the primaris kit is, "A squad of elite specialists equipped with uniform weaponry whose advanced tech and training makes up for their small numbers," you can't help find yourself looking over at the dragons on your shelf.
But honestly gsc got their Main Design Philosophy gimped by gw and then given to sm.
Which is again less an am Problem and more a gw beeing schtoopid.
Truth. GW has a pretty long track history of such behaviour.
Most egregious which has affected me was probably the change from 7th to 8th where all the Tau battlesuits forgot how to JSJ. Runner up to that is the great wargear cull in the 5th-to-6th edition FAQ for the Tau (prior to the 6th edition codex), which included the loss of the Target Lock, meaning no split fire for any battlesuit teams. Meanwhile the Space Wolves kept their split fire abilities on their Long Fang sergeants. Funny that.
Bosskelot wrote: Let's just ignore how Marines invalidate GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Guard and Necrons as armies.
That's the best bit of Internet Hyperbole I've seen at Dakka for a while...
I mean if he thinks about Hard counter Units and availability then the am dex has a lot of that ...
But honestly gsc got their Main Design Philosophy gimped by gw and then given to sm.
Which is again less an am Problem and more a gw beeing schtoopid.
Yeah, that's also part of it. Marines have so many options and playstyles that they can sort of do most other armies' gimmicks. And when they happen to be doing those gimmicks more effectively than that army, it's quite annoying. See: GSC losing their alpha strike within a few months of turn 1 drop pods and Raven Guard splat coming out.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Please stop downplaying that your faction is a jack of all trades master of all with no serious weaknesses right now man.
I play Custodes, the other half of the two horse race of "best army in the game" that's between them and Marines. And I have no problem admitting Custodes are overbearing right now.
Oh, so many factions could have used upgrades to their infantry AT instead of primaris.
How about the custodes, which have crappy vehicles (thanks, calladius nerfs...) and some 50 points per devastators with weird heavy bolters (saggitarum)? Let's be clear, against the uber prevalent primaris, eradicators are both better AT and better anti personnel than saggitarum (same wounds, same toughness, worse saves but cheaper and far better damage put).
Balance!
Custodes are at worst probably the second strongest army in the game right now, stop whining lol.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?
Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.
Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.
In fact, Eradicators have finally given a Fire Dragon solution.
Thanks to Primaris marines all running the same gear, I can finally get my eldar counts-as Marines without any trouble.
And Marines are brutally and overwhelmingly supported, so I'll never be waiting on Eldar adjustments again.
Not sure if you're joking, but honestly? I get it. I briefly tried using Blood Angels rules in 5th edition when my eldar were finally in rough enough shape. XD
Eradicators look cool, and I'm glad marine players have a new shiny to enjoy. It just chafes that every single primaris kit that comes out could have been an update to our ancient aspect warrior kits. Every primaris lieutenant could have been a phoenix lord. And when the elevator pitch for the primaris kit is, "A squad of elite specialists equipped with uniform weaponry whose advanced tech and training makes up for their small numbers," you can't help find yourself looking over at the dragons on your shelf.
Not a joke. They've finally given me my 2nd edition eldar army back. Using a different codex is a small price to pay.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?
Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?
Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?
I assure you that when the day comes that I dig my Eldar cases out of storage that I will be fielding my Fire Dragons. They're my favorite aspect. I love the models. And I spent a good bit of effort painting them up. So whatever their rules at that time? I WILL use them. And they will work for me.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?
Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.
Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.
I'm actually a fan of Primaris Marines, one of my two Marine armies is a Ultima Founding chapter (I comitted to using only primaris Marines back when intercessors sucked) so I feel reasonably confidant in replying to this myself. I don't really see anything wrong with making classic marines a bit more compeitive, intercessors vs tactical marines are now very much a "intreasting choice" (personally I think intercessors definatly have the edge but not to the point of being auto take good)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Hmm, yeah. . . That's why a bunch of their new units have such limited choices in weapons. Very flexible.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?
Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.
Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.
Primaris have had years of being crazy powerful? Try 11 months.
Eradicators was a stupid move that gave ammo to those claiming that rules are being used to sell primaris kits. You can compare eradicators to any other equivalent role unit in any other army and they come ahead. Not only they have an enviable profile, they are also massively under priced.
So far we have compared them to other melta units and we see they are vastly better for similar or cheaper points (hilarious to compare them to retributors, fire dragons, or chosen), but I’ll insist in comparing them to Saggitarum. They gave a similar profile, weaker defensively and in melee, but brutally more point efficient at virtually any offensive role besides chaff clearing (and saggies are not good at that).
I can build a primaries army using exclusively units that feel under costed. Aggressors, blade guard veterans, eradicators, infiltrators, intercessors, impulsors, outriders and whatever left overs depend on the chapter. All of those options are at the top of their roles point per point. I cannot imagine any faction that wouldn’t take any of those units happily in their roster; that’s a bad thing in my book.
That's the point...marine envy as if. When rest have to deal with having fire dragon level stuff and marines go "eradicators are bad, we have better stuff" there's a problem.
There's a difference between "They aren't good enough for this much hype" and "They're bad".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: What the OP is missing is that Eradicators are 50-60 ppm models, not 40. They'd still be good at that price.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?
Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.
Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.
Primaris have had years of being crazy powerful? Try 11 months.
Think about the poor animals that were born in, and died during this marine meta, think about how they feel.
Tell them "Your life was only 11 months". To them it was years.
Grey40k wrote: I cannot imagine any faction that wouldn’t take any of those units happily in their roster; that’s a bad thing in my book.
Hi, I'm the OP who didn't think much of the Eradicators. Its nice to imaginary meet you. Eradicators feel like they're going to be like Eliminators, and Suppresors once they hit the codex. So many of these 3 and only 3 units lose their luster once they hit the codex. Point for point I'll take sniper scouts over Eliminators with sniper rfles, tho the lasfusils are interesting (probably left over/expectations of a return to - armor facings). I'll take MM speeders before Attack Bikes before Eradicators. Maybe that's some left over bias from armor facings but it's also getting in range faster, and out of dodge even faster. 20+ points per shot is a lot of points for something that didn't get in firing range.
Grey40k wrote: I cannot imagine any faction that wouldn’t take any of those units happily in their roster; that’s a bad thing in my book.
Hi, I'm the OP who didn't think much of the Eradicators. Its nice to imaginary meet you. Eradicators feel like they're going to be like Eliminators, and Suppresors once they hit the codex. So many of these 3 and only 3 units lose their luster once they hit the codex. Point for point I'll take sniper scouts over Eliminators with sniper rfles, tho the lasfusils are interesting (probably left over/expectations of a return to - armor facings). I'll take MM speeders before Attack Bikes before Eradicators. Maybe that's some left over bias from armor facings but it's also getting in range faster, and out of dodge even faster. 20+ points per shot is a lot of points for something that didn't get in firing range.
Wait until you get a bunch of games in the smaller tables properly loaded with terrain; range is far less of an issue nowadays (also, assault 2 weapons baby!).
Obviously things might change if they alter their points in the codex, but as of now they are oppressively underpriced (I already did some mathhammer for you on how they are tougher than speeders against AT, you can easily do mathhammer for how they outshoot them or bikes point per point).
Grey40k wrote: I cannot imagine any faction that wouldn’t take any of those units happily in their roster; that’s a bad thing in my book.
Hi, I'm the OP who didn't think much of the Eradicators. Its nice to imaginary meet you. Eradicators feel like they're going to be like Eliminators, and Suppresors once they hit the codex. So many of these 3 and only 3 units lose their luster once they hit the codex. Point for point I'll take sniper scouts over Eliminators with sniper rfles, tho the lasfusils are interesting (probably left over/expectations of a return to - armor facings). I'll take MM speeders before Attack Bikes before Eradicators. Maybe that's some left over bias from armor facings but it's also getting in range faster, and out of dodge even faster. 20+ points per shot is a lot of points for something that didn't get in firing range.
Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?
@ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.
And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.
Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?
Actually I did. And I really don't get 3x3 Eliminators. They aren't bad, but they aren't your entire HS choices good. Originally I thought the Assault Intercessors were the least appealing of the group, but they're rising fast for me as they'll fit in an Impulsor with a Something Else. I'm on the fence on the Outriders, if they stay a 3 and only 3 too ... If they go 3+3 or more
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
The very fact, that supposed strengths (cue t1 deepstrike) get curbed for one (which thematically is core of their theme and supposed strengths) and then handed over to another faction.
Good scouts, better infiltrators. Eradicators> Fire dragons /Obliterators/ etc.
Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?
Actually I did. And I really don't get 3x3 Eliminators. They aren't bad, but they aren't your entire HS choices good. Originally I thought the Assault Intercessors were the least appealing of the group, but they're rising fast for me as they'll fit in an Impulsor with a Something Else. I'm on the fence on the Outriders, if they stay a 3 and only 3 too ... If they go 3+3 or more
Then don't make statements about units being bad when the Codex comes out when in at least one of your examples the exact opposite happened.
Eliminators were insane on Codex release and it's only points increases and detachment changes that have made them manageable. (because like the Eradicators, they were far too cheap and cost efficient )
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.
And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.
He's also frankly just wrong. 195 points for 4 melta shots versus 120 points for 6 melta shots. "Within 10% cost" lol.
They're single models though. Big difference when multiwound weapons target those units, a single lascannon can actually delete a speeder but only 33% of an eradicator unit. And MM speeder and bikes don't fire twice with an inner ability.
MM attack bike is 50 points? Without firing twice ability, but +1W and better movement than eradicators. I'd take a cheaper double tapping eradicator anytime.
Land speeder with melta and other weapon is 85? With also the downside of being vehicle, as Bring It Down is one of the most common end easiest secondary to achieve.
Eradicators should definitely be 50-60 points, and they'd still be worthy, or they could be ok at 40ppm if they get their shooting twice ability removed. A devastator with multimelta is 35 points but only T4 and 1W (jumping to 2W will also make it cost higher), no double tapping of course.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.
And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.
What makes you think I'm looking at a points efficient model? Everyone keeps assuming that but I'm looking at slower than even normal foot sloggers that can't Deep Strike, can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole, can't deep strike, and can't infiltrate. Shooty Models that can't shoot because they didn't get in range are not efficient. 1-2 shot Gravis 5" footsloggers that need to be within 24 and really want to be within 12"? To be fair it's 5+ D6" but that's still slower than most of what they want to shoot at. If they weren't Gravis, or even better if they were Inceptor Jump Gravis I'd be reaching for kleenex and lotion too.
If they made a model for an Exterminatus Bomb. Costs 1 Point, and on a 2+ deals 80 mortal wounds to every opposition unit on the table. That's pretty efficient. But it only goes off on turn 7 of a 5 turn game... so? People pointed at Firedragons. Firedragons aren't bad because they're expensive. They're bad because they spend a lot of time not shooting and definitely not shooting at their best potential.
Mr Morden wrote: I think at this point he is either trolling or trying to justify broken units to himself.
i don't think so, internally there are massive options around and some can be concieved as just as valid or better.
THat said, i feel that eradicators are just the straw that broke the camels back moreseo than the nr1 issue with the SM dex.
But gw beeing gw and hiring ruleswirters and designers more on attitude and not actual skill, or artificially stretching rules releases will lead to issues.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.
And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.
What makes you think I'm looking at a points efficient model? Everyone keeps assuming that but I'm looking at slower than even normal foot sloggers that can't Deep Strike, can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole, can't deep strike, and can't infiltrate. Shooty Models that can't shoot because they didn't get in range are not efficient. 1-2 shot Gravis 5" footsloggers that need to be within 24 and really want to be within 12"? To be fair it's 5+ D6" but that's still slower than most of what they want to shoot at. If they weren't Gravis, or even better if they were Inceptor Jump Gravis I'd be reaching for kleenex and lotion too.
If they made a model for an Exterminatus Bomb. Costs 1 Point, and on a 2+ deals 80 mortal wounds to every opposition unit on the table. That's pretty efficient. But it only goes off on turn 7 of a 5 turn game... so? People pointed at Firedragons. Firedragons aren't bad because they're expensive. They're bad because they spend a lot of time not shooting and definitely not shooting at their best potential.
erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.
Mr Morden wrote: I think at this point he is either trolling or trying to justify broken units to himself.
Your Logical Fallacy is "Poisoning The Well"
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Oblits are Assault 6, the full 24" and deep strike. If I were complaining about Oblits being overcosted - and they probably are - I'd look at Boltstorm Aggressors for the comparison. They should be more than the Aggressors due to a slightly better weapon profile, slightly better save and Deepstrike but not nearly triple.
Not Online!!! wrote:
erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.
Now THIS is something I hadn't considered. With the CP changes giving everyone enough CP to play with, not just the Loyal 32 I need to look more/again/better at pre-battle CP usage.
Oooh man.. I really need to, I forgot about Vigilus/CodexCarryover too for those strats and whatnot too. Thank you, you've finally found a reason I understand that doesn't start with assuming they're good proving they're good.
@ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.
And also
before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole
120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.
And also
before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole
120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?
Sisters Retibutors are pretty good with Multi meltas - when the new version arrives.
yeah alot of the obvious reasons "Eradcators are broken" seem to be just ignored for some reason.
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Oblits are Assault 6, the full 24" and deep strike. If I were complaining about Oblits being overcosted - and they probably are - I'd look at Boltstorm Aggressors for the comparison. They should be more than the Aggressors due to a slightly better weapon profile, slightly better save and Deepstrike but not nearly triple.
Not Online!!! wrote:
erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.
Now THIS is something I hadn't considered. With the CP changes giving everyone enough CP to play with, not just the Loyal 32 I need to look more/again/better at pre-battle CP usage.
Oooh man.. I really need to, I forgot about Vigilus/CodexCarryover too for those strats and whatnot too. Thank you, you've finally found a reason I understand that doesn't start with assuming they're good proving they're good.
Obliterators suffer from obliterator syndrome, a thing such units for SM should also suffer, but don't, hence why "spike tax" is a real thing not just a figment for imagination.
As for the later, you can make even less flattering comparisons to chosen, which for 1 CP you get 1 Squad in reserves for deepstriking, cost 30 pts more, with 1 shot less in melta, half the range and if you want actually more output another 2 CP, in a faction that relies on CP for more then just some meltas.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.
And also
before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole
120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?
The Repulsor they were riding in was the it exploding in a smoking crater of a points sinkhole. They only fit in Repulsors. The part you cut was pointing out their transport options.
can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole
1 transport that won't get them very far before it
If you cannot find ways to shot your eradicators at least turn 2 with a 24'' range and the new smaller takes it means your opponent heavily outplayed you.
Eradicators are now massively OP, in part because no one got their heavy 2 meltas yet.
But even then, you are paying 120 points for a squad of 5 retributors (3 meltas) and those are t3/1w; heavy 2 won't diminish the imbalance.
Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.
Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey40k wrote: If you cannot find ways to shot your eradicators at least turn 2 with a 24'' range and the new smaller takes it means your opponent heavily outplayed you.
Eradicators are now massively OP, in part because no one got their heavy 2 meltas yet.
But even then, you are paying 120 points for a squad of 5 retributors (3 meltas) and those are t3/1w; heavy 2 won't diminish the imbalance.
Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.
What competitive play? Is this in Europe? Are people still ignoring the virus? My state is so heavily locked down that the only way to get a game in is to play at home, in the basement.
Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.
Yeah about your math...
Possible outcomes: 36
2 {(1,1)} - 1/36 - non die
3 {(1,2),(2,1)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead
4 {(1,3),(3,1),(2,2)} - 3/36 - 1 eraditor dead
5 {(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead
6 {(1,5),(5,1),(2,4),(4,2),(3,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
7 {(1,6),(6,1),(2,5),(5,2),(3,4),(4,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 6/36 - 1 land speeder dead
8 {(2,6),(6,2),(3,5),(5,3),(4,4)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
9 {(3,6),(6,3),(4,5),(5,4)} - 4/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 4/36 - 1 land speeder dead
10 {(4,6),(6,4),(5,5)} - 3/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 1 land speeder dead
11 {(5,6),(6,5)} - 2/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 1 land speeder dead
12 {(6,6)} - 1/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 1 land speeder dead
So, summarizing:
(2+3+4+4+4+2)/36= 0.52 1 eradicator die
(1+2+3+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.44 2 eradicators die
1/36 = .02 no eradicators die
(5+6+5+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.72 1 land speeder dies
That is, while the landspeeder dies 72% of the times, the two eradicators far better, with only 44% of the times the squad being destroyed, and about half the times 1 eradicator surviving. And note that one eradicator puts out the same number of shots that 1 land speeder.
If the hit and wound are both the same - but 67% of damage rolls 1shot kills an aggressor and only 50% of damage rolls kills a speeder....when you put two speeders against 3 Eradicators hit by 3 or 4 Lascannon (your choice) I suspect it gets closer. And the numbers get even better when its a flat 1D or 3D weapons like bolters, most melee, (not-overcharged) plasma and lasfusils and their non-SM counterparts
He's also frankly just wrong. 195 points for 4 melta shots versus 120 points for 6 melta shots. "Within 10% cost" lol.
Last I checked two MM speeders were 140 points Did you not see the original premise was "assuming Heavy 2 MM goes live"? Were you creating three speeders? Four Speeders? Were you adding the second weapon option? Not sure how you're getting to 195.
I did misread the Eradicators as 130 instead of 120 so it's not within 10% They're 85.7% of cost instead of 90%
If the hit and wound are both the same - but 67% of damage rolls 1shot kills an aggressor and only 50% of damage rolls kills a speeder....when you put two speeders against 3 Eradicators hit by 3 or 4 Lascannon (your choice) I suspect it gets closer. And the numbers get even better when its a flat 1D or 3D weapons like bolters, most melee, (not-overcharged) plasma and lasfusils and their non-SM counterparts
It just gets more cumbersome to show you the full distribution of outcomes; 2d6 dice have 36 possible damage outcomes, 3d6 have 216 outcomes. I picked 2 because it is manageable.
It is a bit pointless to do endless examples with 2,3,4 lascannons and this or this many other landspeeders. The point here being whether it is better to have multiple units with smaller wounds than a single unit with more wounds, and when that is the case (everything else equal).
If the shooting output degrades faster per wound on one or the other, that's a possible reason (e.g. brackets in vehicles).
Another reason is to which extent we can face overspilling of weapons, given the relative prevalence of different profiles and how suitable they are against the targets we evaluate (e.g. good luck killing eradicators with lasguns).
I picked the simplest example (splitting 6 wounds in 2 vs 1 units and 2 shots) to show you how the wound splitting advantage is pretty powerful, enough to compensate for the wound advantage of the speeder over eradicators (without getting into the fact that you can cover / hide better infantry). Now, if you only had 1 lascannon show and only 1, it would be better to shoot at the eradicators. See how one can tailor examples to fit whatever you want as the outcome? Hence why I think it is more valuable to illustrate properties.
Since I can already see that you will insist, I will give you your example nonetheless, but I will take shortcuts for ease of computation.
Take 4 eradicators vs 2 landspeeders (you did 140 points of speeders vs 120 of eradicators, I do 160 points of eradicators vs 140 of speeders, so hopefully it is fair?), shoot them with 4 lascannons.
The odds that 2 lascannon shots that hit and wound eliminate a landspeeder are 72%, and 44% that they kill 2 eradicators. Since those are independent events, the odds that this happens twice (that the second barrage also succeeds) are:
.72*.72=51% for the speeder vs and similarly 19% for the eradicators.
Please, at least acknowledge the results (or challenge them!), it takes time for me to calculate things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...
Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.
Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?
Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.
Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.
Primaris have had years of being crazy powerful? Try 11 months.
Think about the poor animals that were born in, and died during this marine meta, think about how they feel.
Tell them "Your life was only 11 months". To them it was years.
... I doubt Mayflies care much about 40k one way or another
My own thoughts for what it's worth - there are plenty of other low cost units with decent guns, it is that eradicators are also so durable that makes them over the top.
T5, 3W, 2+ save (stealthy or in cover). There are very few weapons that have a flat 3 damage, and a D6 damage weapon is frankly unreliable, even a bs 3+ lascannon has less than a 20% chance of one shotting a single eradicator (4/6 to hit x 4/6 to wound x 4/6 to bypass armour x 4/6 to roll enough wounds to kill).
This is all exaggerated even further by how many durability enhancing abilities marines have between psychic powers, stratagems, relic banners, apothecaries etc. They will live long enough to get the job done, or soak enough attacks to allow the rest of your force to.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.
Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.
.
You think 12" is as far as models see? Also, 120 points of Eradicators also just get more shots than 120 points of Fire Dragons, let alone doing it at 2.5x the range. If you think there's a debate on which is better, you're opinion doesn't matter since you're either willfully ignorant or completely misinformed.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.
Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.
.
You think 12" is as far as models see? Also, 120 points of Eradicators also just get more shots than 120 points of Fire Dragons, let alone doing it at 2.5x the range. If you think there's a debate on which is better, you're opinion doesn't matter since you're either willfully ignorant or completely misinformed.
Nah...there are situations were firedragons are better. Like when you want to split fire (actually occurs a lot in the game) or if you want to hyperbuff or fire and fade. Dragans also move farther and with battle focus don't suffer the penalty for advance and firing assault weapons. Can also take a heavy flamer in the unit and still throw a melta bomb with the Exarch. Eldar can doom the target and support the first dragons from 24" away with guide from a farseer. Plus dragons can fit in reasonably cost transports...gravis might as well have no transport options because repulsors and executioners are between 50 and 100 points overcosted. Really the only issue with eradicators is they are a little undercosted. at 50 points they aren't exciting at all and probably wont ever be used. Its gonna be devestators in drop pods and land speeders with quad melta all day if the cost leaks have been accurate up till now.
Bringing up character support and psychic powers for FD's isn't exactly helping the point though. Eradicators can also benefit from amazing character support, amazing stratagems, amazing doctrines, amazing litanies and amazing psychic powers.
That's kind of the point. Fire Dragons need the extra support in order to approach anything remotely effective. Eradicators are already incredibly effective and efficient on their own... but also get access to incredible buffs that are far above any other army too.
Xenomancers wrote: Something you people are missing is this. A MM can not be 20 points. A lastalon is 35/40...A MM is better so should probably cost even more.
. . .
Nah...there are situations were firedragons are better. Like when you want to split fire (actually occurs a lot in the game) or if you want to hyperbuff or fire and fade. Dragans also move farther and with battle focus don't suffer the penalty for advance and firing assault weapons. Can also take a heavy flamer in the unit and still throw a melta bomb with the Exarch. Eldar can doom the target and support the first dragons from 24" away with guide from a farseer. Plus dragons can fit in reasonably cost transports...gravis might as well have no transport options because repulsors and executioners are between 50 and 100 points overcosted. Really the only issue with eradicators is they are a little undercosted. at 50 points they aren't exciting at all and probably wont ever be used. Its gonna be devestators in drop pods and land speeders with quad melta all day if the cost leaks have been accurate up till now.
At the moment it's still 38 points for a Devastator with a Multimelta that has fewer wounds, lower toughness, can't move and fire without penalty, and can't Advance and shoot at all. . . Vs. 40 points for an Eradicator. +2 points for +1 T, +1 W, No movement penalty and can advance and still fire. That's a little awkward, and that's with the Multimelta at 20 pts.
I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?
Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.
Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.
DarkHound wrote: I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?
Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.
Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.
Well since 4x3 isn't a legal army that raises questions.
DarkHound wrote: I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?
Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.
Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.
Well since 4x3 isn't a legal army that raises questions.
Sigh - thats the only thing you took from that post?....
DarkHound wrote: Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3.
Oh dear, is this because in the app a Dark Angels Eradicator Squad is a different datasheet from a Space Marine Eradicator Squad, and the rules only state currently that Daemon Princes and GSC/AM units are considered to be the same datasheet? That's disgusting.
Like most things in life, you follow the money trail to determine value. When I parsed out my Indomitus marines to sell individually, the Eradicators and Judiciar were bought immediately at inflated costs while the rest hasn't (Assault Intercessors are basically given away). I do think a lot of the outrage towards Eradicators has to do with 8th edition mindset where if you kill everything you win, but as people learn that is no longer the case and Eradicators can't offer much in terms of claiming objectives, perhaps they won't be so auto-include?
More likely, though, it's just 360 points of brutal killing efficiency that leaves you lots of points leftover to deal with objectives...
DarkHound wrote: I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?
Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.
Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.
Well since 4x3 isn't a legal army that raises questions.
Sigh - thats the only thing you took from that post?....
No, but it was the most interesting point to me personally. Every other point on how effective the unit is has been covered in here.
2x Land Speeder w/ Multi Melta vs. 1x Eradicator Section
Cost:
Land Speeders are 20 points more.
Resiliency:
2x T5 Sv3+ W6 in 1-2 units versus 3x T5 Sv3+ W3 in 1 unit.
This gets into the realm of weapon profileration, but the Land Speeders have a advantage against D1, and D3-5. The Eradicators are equal against D2, D1d3, and D1d6 and have an advantage against D6+.This is a pretty marginal benefit to the Land Speeders
Mobility:
Land Speeders are faster and Fly, but Eradicators are INFANTRY. The Land Speeders have a distinct advantage base, and mitigation for the Eradicators puts them off board T1.
Firepower:
Eradicators have a massive advantage here though, 50% more firepower in all cases. Most importantly, at >12", a Land Speeder Squadron only kills even a Rhino about half the time, and hardly ever kills a Leman Russ, while an Eradicator Section almost never fails to kill a Rhino, and kills a Leman Russ about half the time. Up close, a Land Speeder Squadron improves to about a 40% chance of killing a Leman Russ tank versus a Eradicator section that improves to virtually never failing. That's a sizable practical improvement.
So all in all, I would say that Eradicators are definitely better than a pair of Land Speeders. For their cost, they basically outclass everything [in a codex where basically everything already outclasses other codecies], and are very resilient to boot. Other units [in the same codex] with similar firepower are either much more fragile or cost much more for resilience and still provide less firepower.
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Not a ton though.
Let's pretend Eradicators didn't have double tap.
3 24" melta shots for 120 vs 6 S8 AP2 D2 (on average, yes, I know it can be worse) for 105. (14% more points)
And for durability? 3 melta wounds will on average kill 3 Eradicators where that would kill one obliterator. Additionally, the Eradicators have no agency and the Obliterator can get a lucky set of 5s. 163 lasgun shots to kill Eradicators and 142 to kill 1 Obliterator (80ish to 50is vs Intercessors).
So....they're really not that much more durable when it comes to bigger guns (and not remarkably worse against small arms where I'd be upset of a score of Intercessors were used to take out a single model - smoothed a bit by the point disparity) and their damage without double tap doesn't really stir up any emotion does it? Add in they're paying 15 points more and have no deepstrike and as such have to pay CP to be safe (but don't always).
In a world where multimeltas on attack bikes are super fast you're forced to hide in case you go second coupled with the fact that most marine lists are loaded with gravis armor and that melta will absolutely murder them... it makes it seem like Eradicators won't see as much table time even with double tap - points permitting.
So they need double tap, but it creates a difficult position when 9 of them are on the table.
Bosskelot wrote: Bringing up character support and psychic powers for FD's isn't exactly helping the point though. Eradicators can also benefit from amazing character support, amazing stratagems, amazing doctrines, amazing litanies and amazing psychic powers.
That's kind of the point. Fire Dragons need the extra support in order to approach anything remotely effective. Eradicators are already incredibly effective and efficient on their own... but also get access to incredible buffs that are far above any other army too.
The point I was making was ability to support. Eradicators need to be within 6 inches to get support typically where firedragons can get it at 24". It is pretty significant for suicide anti tank units (which both of these units are). Suicide units typically are not going to be in your 6 inch auras.
That being said. Eradicators are very good. Too good for their cost. They should be 50 points - not 40.
Bosskelot wrote: Bringing up character support and psychic powers for FD's isn't exactly helping the point though. Eradicators can also benefit from amazing character support, amazing stratagems, amazing doctrines, amazing litanies and amazing psychic powers.
That's kind of the point. Fire Dragons need the extra support in order to approach anything remotely effective. Eradicators are already incredibly effective and efficient on their own... but also get access to incredible buffs that are far above any other army too.
The point I was making was ability to support. Eradicators need to be within 6 inches to get support typically where firedragons can get it at 24". It is pretty significant for suicide anti tank units (which both of these units are). Suicide units typically are not going to be in your 6 inch auras.
That being said. Eradicators are very good. Too good for their cost. They should be 50 points - not 40.
You're right, every competitive list I've seen is taking the maximum number of Eradicators allowed.
Many marines are not taking 3x3 and have still done well. Fling Monkey #1 was 6, 9 BGV, lots of Aggressors, 6 Outriders, Grav Devs & Pod. 9 Eradicators also only really features in Salamander lists. While you'll usually see 3 in WS lists they don't revolve around them at all.
Bosskelot wrote: Bringing up character support and psychic powers for FD's isn't exactly helping the point though. Eradicators can also benefit from amazing character support, amazing stratagems, amazing doctrines, amazing litanies and amazing psychic powers.
That's kind of the point. Fire Dragons need the extra support in order to approach anything remotely effective. Eradicators are already incredibly effective and efficient on their own... but also get access to incredible buffs that are far above any other army too.
The point I was making was ability to support. Eradicators need to be within 6 inches to get support typically where firedragons can get it at 24". It is pretty significant for suicide anti tank units (which both of these units are). Suicide units typically are not going to be in your 6 inch auras.
That being said. Eradicators are very good. Too good for their cost. They should be 50 points - not 40.
T5 3+ W3 with 24" guns are a suicide unit?
Suicide units break cover and attack their priority target. They are short ranged and deal more damage than they can take. at 150 points (at 50 points per model like they should be) they aren't durable at all for that cost. My doom scythe would love to shoot at them. Wound on 2's - you get no save - and flat 3 damage for 1 shots. Easy money. My 130 point vindicator wouldn't mind shooting at them ether it's a lot more durable than eradicators too.
The issue right now is they are 120 points. They are way less suicide and much more front line battle troops at those prices. Knew they instant I saw they they cost to little.
On the subject I much prefer vindicators over eradicators.
DarkHound wrote: You're right, every competitive list I've seen is taking the maximum number of Eradicators allowed.
Many marines are not taking 3x3 and have still done well. Fling Monkey #1 was 6, 9 BGV, lots of Aggressors, 6 Outriders, Grav Devs & Pod. 9 Eradicators also only really features in Salamander lists. While you'll usually see 3 in WS lists they don't revolve around them at all.
(This doesn't mean they're not really good)
Sure, but we're splitting hairs a bit. The top two lists at Flying Monkey were both Salamanders featuring multiple units of Eradicators as their primary anti-tank. It could be argued that they took fewer specifically because their faction synergy improved them and rendered more redundant.
It's not quite fair to say 9 Eradicators only feature in Salamander lists. The Iron Hands that took second at the Vanguard Grand Series ran 9. The fact that other Chapters take them as their primary anti-tank despite not having any extra synergies is further evidence that they're too efficient. White Scars should really be incentivized to take Attack Bikes or Landspeeders over Eradicators, but they aren't.
You're right, every competitive list I've seen is taking the maximum number of Eradicators allowed.
Many marines are not taking 3x3 and have still done well.
Because the Marine book + Supplements are really strong. Eradicators are a really, really strong unit in an already really good codex. To top it off the book already has a bunch of capable "Melta-delivery" units. Command Squads, Sternguard, Devastators, Land Speeders, Bikes and Attack Bikes.
DarkHound wrote: You're right, every competitive list I've seen is taking the maximum number of Eradicators allowed.
Many marines are not taking 3x3 and have still done well. Fling Monkey #1 was 6, 9 BGV, lots of Aggressors, 6 Outriders, Grav Devs & Pod. 9 Eradicators also only really features in Salamander lists. While you'll usually see 3 in WS lists they don't revolve around them at all.
(This doesn't mean they're not really good)
Sure, but we're splitting hairs a bit. The top two lists at Flying Monkey were both Salamanders featuring multiple units of Eradicators as their primary anti-tank. It could be argued that they took fewer specifically because their faction synergy improved them and rendered more redundant.
It's not quite fair to say 9 Eradicators only feature in Salamander lists. The Iron Hands that took second at the Vanguard Grand Series ran 9. The fact that other Chapters take them as their primary anti-tank despite not having any extra synergies is further evidence that they're too efficient. White Scars should really be incentivized to take Attack Bikes or Landspeeders over Eradicators, but they aren't.
We'll likely see the WS bit change when the weapon changes are official. There's no doubt that cheap Eradicators lead to an over abundance of Aggressors and other units though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: To top it off the book already has a bunch of capable "Melta-delivery" units. Command Squads, Sternguard, Devastators, Land Speeders, Bikes and Attack Bikes.
Well, yea, I think that's the premise of the OP. In context of what's coming Eradicators seem like they have less of an edge in comparison. Whether the speed, delivery, or other trade-offs are worthwhile remains to be seen. I'm not holding out for a points hit to most units - traits, strats, and other tweaks will be more likely.
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Not a ton though.
Let's pretend Eradicators didn't have double tap.
and this is were your whole theory just kinda yeets itself out a window into the car of the non existent editor for GW
3 24" melta shots for 120 vs 6 S8 AP2 D2 (on average, yes, I know it can be worse) for 105. (14% more points)
And for durability? 3 melta wounds will on average kill 3 Eradicators where that would kill one obliterator. Additionally, the Eradicators have no agency and the Obliterator can get a lucky set of 5s. 163 lasgun shots to kill Eradicators and 142 to kill 1 Obliterator (80ish to 50is vs Intercessors).
So....they're really not that much more durable when it comes to bigger guns (and not remarkably worse against small arms where I'd be upset of a score of Intercessors were used to take out a single model - smoothed a bit by the point disparity) and their damage without double tap doesn't really stir up any emotion does it? Add in they're paying 15 points more and have no deepstrike and as such have to pay CP to be safe (but don't always).
In a world where multimeltas on attack bikes are super fast you're forced to hide in case you go second coupled with the fact that most marine lists are loaded with gravis armor and that melta will absolutely murder them... it makes it seem like Eradicators won't see as much table time even with double tap - points permitting.
So they need double tap, but it creates a difficult position when 9 of them are on the table.
The simple fact, that you can spend 1 CP just to DS 2, makes this entirely redundant. The fact that this is also the average taken, ignoring the slew of worse results, like D1 or Ap-1 or s 7, or the simple fact that you ignore an innate Ability that will be triggerd 99% of the time because it basically has NO condition, since this is a specialist ANTI tank unit makes this honestly an excercise for nothing.
DarkHound wrote: You're right, every competitive list I've seen is taking the maximum number of Eradicators allowed.
Many marines are not taking 3x3 and have still done well.
Because the Marine book + Supplements are really strong. Eradicators are a really, really strong unit in an already really good codex. To top it off the book already has a bunch of capable "Melta-delivery" units. Command Squads, Sternguard, Devastators, Land Speeders, Bikes and Attack Bikes.
No man, he means those other Marines take 2x3 instead of 3x3. The only winning lists I've seen that didn't field multiple Eradicators are one Space Wolf list before GW fixed their global ObSec that took second at the Adelaide GT, and an Ultramarines list that took 4th at the same GT. The Space Wolf list went all-in on ObSec Wulfen, so we can just ignore it because it doesn't exist anymore. The Ultramarine list is interesting; it opted for Contemptor and Leviathan Dreadnoughts with a horde of Primaris infantry.
So basically there's been 1 tournament placing (4th place) Space Marine list that didn't use Eradicators, but it opted for the other underpriced firepower. I'm sure if the Ultramarines needed melta, they'd have taken Eradicators because no other melta options are seeing any play.
Not Online!!! wrote: and this is were your whole theory just kinda yeets itself out a window into the car of the non existent editor for GW
Would you or would you not take Eradicators if they did not have double tap? Place this thought in context of known upcoming changes.
Double tap is definitely too much. No benefit is likely too little. I have absolutely no idea what GW intends to do out of the gate with the new book that would make them seem palatable to the rest of the game.
Not Online!!! wrote: and this is were your whole theory just kinda yeets itself out a window into the car of the non existent editor for GW
Would you or would you not take Eradicators if they did not have double tap? Place this thought in context of known upcoming changes.
Double tap is definitely too much. No benefit is likely too little. I have absolutely no idea what GW intends to do out of the gate with the new book that would make them seem palatable to the rest of the game.
Given that they already have a inbuilt strat in double tap - what do we think the strat they will undoubtably get will do?
Triple Tap.
Double Damage
Deepstrike and shoot before shooting phase.
Not Online!!! wrote: and this is were your whole theory just kinda yeets itself out a window into the car of the non existent editor for GW
Would you or would you not take Eradicators if they did not have double tap? Place this thought in context of known upcoming changes.
Double tap is definitely too much. No benefit is likely too little. I have absolutely no idea what GW intends to do out of the gate with the new book that would make them seem palatable to the rest of the game.
Honest answer , i dislike their look, so never, however, if only one shot then i'd assume their pts would drop to about 30 ppm. Then yes, which would Make them somewhat comparable to combimelta terminators. In another slot.
Granted and you have a point, they will get changed , if gw will insist in keeping the doubletapping then at least i expect atleast 5-10 PPM more .
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.
You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?
So your saying all units that are remotely equivalent to Eradicators are bad, and yet Eridcators are not priced like all these other bad units.
Do you see why people complain about Eradicators being broken?
If you don't think Eradicators are broken, then how about you bring up a better comparison that proves they are not broken.
And I dare you to chose a unit that isn't space marines.
Uh I wouldn't compare them to any Melta unit basically because Melta has basically been THAT bad for the whole of 8th. I suppose for the points two Scion command squads pack 8 shots compared to six. The range is shorter but they have built in Deep Strike, so that's kinda moot. Plus I'd rather just Plasma at that point. The weight of fire of 16 Plasma shots fares better against most targets I wanna go after (elite infantry) and can semi-function targeting something bigger.
argonak wrote: When eradicators were previewed I was assuming they’d be at least 60 points each, and still excited to run them.
40 points each is just silly. They’re cheaper than aggressors for crying out loud.
At 60 points they are straight bad though...Just take a look at what you can get for 180 points or less...
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
At 150 the choice is more interesting. But still not really...Ill take the contemptor all day for 30 more points. 6 d6 damage shots for 170 on a better platform compared to 150 for 6 all melta shots (likely hitting on 4's due to having advanced) compared to contemptor hitting on 2's.
At 120 the choice is obvious...Eradicators have much more upside with 50 points saved and still 6 d6 damage shots.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
Eradicators are better than regular dreads at anti tank (contemptor or otherwise), and I’d have to think carefully about the relic one.
Also, in a world of multi wound high save elite infantry, they are not bad at anti personnel either.
Honestly, a list of aggressors, eradicators, an infiltrator, intercessors, a couple impulsors, captain and lieutenant sounds extremely bland but very effective. Add minimal flavor depending on chapter and i
That’s it?
Grey40k wrote: Eradicators are better than regular dreads at anti tank (contemptor or otherwise), and I’d have to think carefully about the relic one.
Also, in a world of multi wound high save elite infantry, they are not bad at anti personnel either.
Honestly, a list of aggressors, eradicators, an infiltrator, intercessors, a couple impulsors, captain and lieutenant sounds extremely bland but very effective. Add minimal flavor depending on chapter and i
That’s it?
How much does currently cost a double TL lascannon dread? I would assume those would at least work ok...
Grey40k wrote: Eradicators are better than regular dreads at anti tank (contemptor or otherwise), and I’d have to think carefully about the relic one.
Also, in a world of multi wound high save elite infantry, they are not bad at anti personnel either.
Honestly, a list of aggressors, eradicators, an infiltrator, intercessors, a couple impulsors, captain and lieutenant sounds extremely bland but very effective. Add minimal flavor depending on chapter and i That’s it?
You have just described every almost every flavour of competitive Space Marines. The only thing you're missing is the Drop Pod full of Grav Amp Devastators that's in literally every army list.
You either go Eradicators and Aggressors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Or you go Contemptors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Sometimes you take a couple Repulsors with Infiltrators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod, though this list hasn't won anything yet).
The biggest exception is Alex Harrison’s Salamanders that won Vanguard Tactics Grand Series. It uses two Scouts with Landspeeder Storms instead of a flood of Primaris infantry. But the core of the army is still 9 Aggressors and 9 Eradicators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Grey40k wrote: Eradicators are better than regular dreads at anti tank (contemptor or otherwise), and I’d have to think carefully about the relic one.
Also, in a world of multi wound high save elite infantry, they are not bad at anti personnel either.
Honestly, a list of aggressors, eradicators, an infiltrator, intercessors, a couple impulsors, captain and lieutenant sounds extremely bland but very effective. Add minimal flavor depending on chapter and i
That’s it?
You have just described every almost every flavour of competitive Space Marines. The only thing you're missing is the Drop Pod full of Grav Amp Devastators that's in literally every army list.
You either go Eradicators and Aggressors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Or you go Contemptors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Sometimes you take a couple Repulsors with Infiltrators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod, though this list hasn't won anything yet).
The biggest exception is Alex Harrison’s Salamanders that won Vanguard Tactics Grand Series. It uses two Scouts with Landspeeder Storms instead of a flood of Primaris infantry. But the core of the army is still 9 Aggressors and 9 Eradicators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Good point. I don’t see this as an ideal situation, all those units look too point efficient.
argonak wrote: When eradicators were previewed I was assuming they’d be at least 60 points each, and still excited to run them.
40 points each is just silly. They’re cheaper than aggressors for crying out loud.
At 60 points they are straight bad though...Just take a look at what you can get for 180 points or less...
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
At 150 the choice is more interesting. But still not really...Ill take the contemptor all day for 30 more points. 6 d6 damage shots for 170 on a better platform compared to 150 for 6 all melta shots (likely hitting on 4's due to having advanced) compared to contemptor hitting on 2's.
At 120 the choice is obvious...Eradicators have much more upside with 50 points saved and still 6 d6 damage shots.
Between 45 and 50 per model seems right.
pricing Eradicators off of the Relic Contemptor that erroneously got reduced in points to make all Contemptors the same cost.
Yeah that totally isn't going to give you a bad number...
Eradicators at 60 points would still be good. The only reason Marines might leave them at home for that price is because there are so many undercosted units SM's have access to right now.
Grey40k wrote: Eradicators are better than regular dreads at anti tank (contemptor or otherwise), and I’d have to think carefully about the relic one.
Also, in a world of multi wound high save elite infantry, they are not bad at anti personnel either.
Honestly, a list of aggressors, eradicators, an infiltrator, intercessors, a couple impulsors, captain and lieutenant sounds extremely bland but very effective. Add minimal flavor depending on chapter and i That’s it?
You have just described every almost every flavour of competitive Space Marines. The only thing you're missing is the Drop Pod full of Grav Amp Devastators that's in literally every army list.
You either go Eradicators and Aggressors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Or you go Contemptors with a flood of Primaris infantry (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Sometimes you take a couple Repulsors with Infiltrators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod, though this list hasn't won anything yet).
The biggest exception is Alex Harrison’s Salamanders that won Vanguard Tactics Grand Series. It uses two Scouts with Landspeeder Storms instead of a flood of Primaris infantry. But the core of the army is still 9 Aggressors and 9 Eradicators (and a Grav Dev Drop Pod).
Thank you for your posts breaking things down.
From my point of view, its not so much eradicators, just that marines have a wealth of options. Nerfing one combo or unit pt cost doesn't really solve the dominance issue like with historical overpowered builds, because theres still several less efficient (but still better than other factions with all the rules stacks, auras and relics) choices waiting to take its place.. Eradicators are just another such unit in a long que of units and they are pointed in such a way as you don't make a list around them which further proves the point.. Other factions will have to spend 300pts on a unit and another 200-300 pts on support for somewhat similar AT unit.
Eradicators can just be there. Hang around a captain or whatever.. and if they die/get pt hike or nerf you still have multitude of other incredibly efficient choices running around so it doesn't even matter. There's just a myriad of builds and combos. But people have been trying to argue that things like T1 drop pods and infiltrating dreads are fair in the time when every factions has lost DS t1 ability and infiltration because reasons..
I wonder why people seek out this validation trying so hard to prove that unitx/codex x is not better than all other (where its clearly is)..Nobody cares. So why try to twist things? It wont last, sooner or later something even more absurd will take its place. Power creep is going to be strong in this one I think. I dread what the chaos and Eldar codexes will bring..
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
But that's Xenomancer's gameplan. If everything isn't Relic Contemptor or Squigbuggy meta-busting-powerful than it isn't worth the plastic used to print it out
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
But that's Xenomancer's gameplan. If everything isn't Relic Contemptor or Squigbuggy meta-busting-powerful than it isn't worth the plastic used to print it out
in fairness that's hardly unique to him. it seems everyone dismisses any unit that can't one shot a knight etc in round one as worthless.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
But that's Xenomancer's gameplan. If everything isn't Relic Contemptor or Squigbuggy meta-busting-powerful than it isn't worth the plastic used to print it out
in fairness that's hardly unique to him. it seems everyone dismisses any unit that can't one shot a knight etc in round one as worthless.
No Brian, now we're comparing to basic marine infantry. Oh how the times have changed.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
But that's Xenomancer's gameplan. If everything isn't Relic Contemptor or Squigbuggy meta-busting-powerful than it isn't worth the plastic used to print it out
in fairness that's hardly unique to him. it seems everyone dismisses any unit that can't one shot a knight etc in round one as worthless.
No Brian, now we're comparing to basic marine infantry. Oh how the times have changed.
well hence my "ETC" generally dakka dakka identifies a "boogy man" and insist they need to be able to wipe it out turn one for it to be any good.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
You'd have a point if anyone were willing to use a unit with 3-6 Melta shots being T5 W9 at 180 points. Here's the kicker: nobody is going to do that! At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
You'd have a point if anyone were willing to use a unit with 3-6 Melta shots being T5 W9 at 180 points. Here's the kicker: nobody is going to do that! At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
Because 6 Melta shots is better than 4 Lascannon shots.
It degrades faster, but is more resilient to d6 damage weapons, and can gain cover MUCH more easily, as well as being able to move better.
At 180 points, they'd be a lot worse than they are now (obviously), but they'd still be worth considering. Not an auto-take (which nothing really should be), but still a potent option.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
You'd have a point if anyone were willing to use a unit with 3-6 Melta shots being T5 W9 at 180 points. Here's the kicker: nobody is going to do that! At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
Deepstrikable, Rerollable, Safe 6 Melta shots on a platform with 9 wounds, taking a max of 3 damage per hit?
Orks pay as much for a 2d6 shot (possible) meltagun, lol. And that's on a 4 wound 4+ platform.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
You'd have a point if anyone were willing to use a unit with 3-6 Melta shots being T5 W9 at 180 points. Here's the kicker: nobody is going to do that! At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
Deepstrikable, Rerollable, Safe 6 Melta shots on a platform with 9 wounds, taking a max of 3 damage per hit? Orks pay as much for a 2d6 shot (possible) meltagun, lol. And that's on a 4 wound 4+ platform.
Tau pay 180 points for 6 melta shots at T5 with 9 wounds. Or at least we would if Crisis suits which didn't have a commander in it weren't hugely overcosted.
relic Contemptor with 2x MM and a cylone is 180...Way more durable - faster -hits better and it's not a heavy support ether.
Basing your entire argument on Relic Contemptors not being one of the most undercosted units on the table says a lot about your argument. There's a reason they're showing up in equal numbers with Eradicators.
I hate to sound salty but yeah, it's really telling when anytime you compare them to a middle-of-the-road, average, not super underwhelming but not meta busting unit (even when said units regularly show up in tournament lists), the response is 'that's not fair because [x] unit sucks'. Then they're instead compared to some of the best units in the entire game and the argument is 'see, they're not that much better'. Yeah, I guess when you compare to the criminally undercosted Relic Contemptor rocking two multi-meltas with the upcoming literal double effectiveness buff then significantly nerfed 60pt Eradicators wouldn't seem super powerful. Funny that.
You'd have a point if anyone were willing to use a unit with 3-6 Melta shots being T5 W9 at 180 points. Here's the kicker: nobody is going to do that! At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
Deepstrikable, Rerollable, Safe 6 Melta shots on a platform with 9 wounds, taking a max of 3 damage per hit?
Orks pay as much for a 2d6 shot (possible) meltagun, lol. And that's on a 4 wound 4+ platform.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: At that point why not just use a Lascannon Sponson Predator? Autocannon OR TL Lascannon turret?
...Because three Eradicators are outputting ~50% more damage than a quad lascannon Predator at 12-24", and nearly twice as powerful inside 12"? That seems a pretty compelling reason to me.
Could you make a comparison to something at that points level that actually has comparable or more firepower and isn't an underpriced relic dread?
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
Having run only a single CM +Lt. pair for the entirety of 8th, and having 85%+ of my army getting re-rolls all the time, I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that re-rolls can be made available to some of the most potent shooting units in the army. The main reason why they wouldn't is because you're already getting so much overkill with them that you don't need re-rolls. Firing at a Carnifex? Don't need re-rolls because you'll just cook it with your 9.3 average wounds anyways. Within 12"? 14.6 wounds without re-rolls. If there's actually a hard target the marine player wants to get rid of, re-roll support will be made available.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
How do we know that?
I think it was shown in the official announcement vid where they skipped through a few pages of the new codex.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
You still will see 2 captains easily. And that's what I see mostly anyway and yet there's rerolls everywhere.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
You still will see 2 captains easily. And that's what I see mostly anyway and yet there's rerolls everywhere.
If that rule comes to pass (and likely as it looks, it isn't certain until the Codex actually drops) it's one Captain per detachment.
You could quite easily take a second for the princely sum of 2CP.
Super Ready wrote: If that rule comes to pass (and likely as it looks, it isn't certain until the Codex actually drops) it's one Captain per detachment.
You could quite easily take a second for the princely sum of 2CP.
Well 2cp and extra troops choice, you could probably run out of 2 patrols if you didn't care about the cp cost.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Aye, once tacs get 2W it's going to be pretty tough to argue that any of loyalists troops choices are "tax" units.
I am still more concerned about other factions if that limit swaps over.
I'd wait and see, too. We've seen the 0-1 limit on Captains before. That's usually when we also see Commanders or some other Slightly worse than a Captain but still a Captain archetype show up.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
except we know that Marines are being limited to one captain per army as of the 9th edition codex. so assuming they'll have re-rolls everywhere is just silly.
You still will see 2 captains easily. And that's what I see mostly anyway and yet there's rerolls everywhere.
limited to one captain per army
does not compute with
You still will see 2 captains easily
Pretty sure "per army" is error. Pretty sure I saw "per detachment" limit like tau commander have. Not per army. So you take 2 det's, you have 2 captains.
Could be wrong though. But GW isn't flat out banning stuff generally.
Super Ready wrote: If that rule comes to pass (and likely as it looks, it isn't certain until the Codex actually drops) it's one Captain per detachment.
You could quite easily take a second for the princely sum of 2CP.
Well 2cp and extra troops choice, you could probably run out of 2 patrols if you didn't care about the cp cost.
2nd patrol isn't that uncommon anyway just for extra HS/FA/HQ slots.
yes ok my bad it is per detachment. not sure why I was thinking per army. still, an additional detachment costs CPs. I'm not sure it's worth losing 2 CPs just for a 2nd captain, guess we'll see. I'm of the opinion that with chaplain litanies etc, all of the Marine HQs are good eneugh that I'm gonna want a mix of HQs anyway.
Pretty sure "per army" is error. Pretty sure I saw "per detachment" limit like tau commander have. Not per army. So you take 2 det's, you have 2 captains.
Could be wrong though. But GW isn't flat out banning stuff generally.
I wouldn't put my eggs in either basket yet. Without writing a whole new thing for it, the closest they have is only one model per army may have this keyword mechanics. I smell a return of the two demi-companies led by a Captain and a Chaplain idea from a few editions ago myself.. what was that 6th? 7th? or a return of the Not-Captain Commanders from 2nd edition and assorted cameo appearances. Just looked it was backwards. 1 (Compulsory, no more no less) Commander 0-2 optional Captains, but the names change, you get the idea.
I think the odds are 6 to 5 and I wouldn't pick anything, but if you made me, I'd say its the Demi Company Chaplain thing. They've been trying to make Chaplains not be the last HQ picked on the playground for a while, limiting the second Det to a Chaplain or with some sort of boost for paired Cap/Chap double detachement things is in their comfort zone.
Company Support:
If your Army has two Batallion Detachments one led by a Captain one by a Chaplain, your infantry get to take free Dedicated Transports
Tyel wrote: Most Marine lists in my experience had only one captain. BA might go for two. I'm sort of mystified why people think this is going to matter at all.
Marine players who enjoy being broken trying to pretend that this will be a nerf so people stop complaining about how broken marines are.
Your right, in 8th you rarely see multiple captains because a battalion only has 3 HQ choices, you often don't run a 2nd detachment and Marines have a multitude of good HQ's competing for slots.
If you reroll more than 2 ones for that Captain during an important shooting attack (all of them if you're picking targets correctly), you've made your CP back in CP-rerolls alone.
Tyel wrote: Most Marine lists in my experience had only one captain. BA might go for two. I'm sort of mystified why people think this is going to matter at all.
Marine players who enjoy being broken trying to pretend that this will be a nerf so people stop complaining about how broken marines are.
Your right, in 8th you rarely see multiple captains because a battalion only has 3 HQ choices, you often don't run a 2nd detachment and Marines have a multitude of good HQ's competing for slots.
Well it is a nerf, just maybe not a meaningful one. If they'd locked the captain to the chapter keyword, that might have been better.
To be honest, whatever it takes for the whining to end, let it be so now.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
Then you need to include the points in all the calculations you're talking about. Captains don't just exist out of thin air.
They exist in the army whether the Eradicators are in there or not, and they buff far more than the Eradicators. So no, you don't include the cost of the CM+Lt.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
Then you need to include the points in all the calculations you're talking about. Captains don't just exist out of thin air.
They exist in the army whether the Eradicators are in there or not, and they buff far more than the Eradicators. So no, you don't include the cost of the CM+Lt.
Their presence should be noted-Eradicators do not get to reroll all hits and wounds of 1 just for existing.
But I do agree that, given the fact that they use aura buffs, their entire cost does not have to be tacked on to the Eradicators. Whereas if we were talking Guardsmen and Orders, or Eldar and Guide, you kinda would, since those are single-target buffs.
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
Then you need to include the points in all the calculations you're talking about. Captains don't just exist out of thin air.
Let's say you have a single 105pt Captain in your 2000pt list. The Captain takes up 5.25% of your list, which can be accounted for as a 'tax' of 5.25% for your other units.
Thus the actual cost of an Eradicator squad with re-rolls is... 126pts. So yeah, we can include the Captain's points- it's just six points to give Eradicators re-roll 1s.
Maybe you need two Captains to get adequate coverage. Now the tax is 10.5%. The 'actual' cost of an Eradicator squad with re-roll 1s is now 133pts. Still absurdly good- a 17% increase in firepower for a mere 10.5% increase in cost, and you're fulfilling HQ requirements, and you get some beatsticks to take and dish out damage to boot.
Does that really make Eradicators seem less attractive?
In the marine army because you're playing marines and you're gonna have rerolls.
Then you need to include the points in all the calculations you're talking about. Captains don't just exist out of thin air.
Let's say you have a single 105pt Captain in your 2000pt list. The Captain takes up 5.25% of your list, which can be accounted for as a 'tax' of 5.25% for your other units.
Thus the actual cost of an Eradicator squad with re-rolls is... 126pts. So yeah, we can include the Captain's points- it's just six points to give Eradicators re-roll 1s.
Maybe you need two Captains to get adequate coverage. Now the tax is 10.5%. The 'actual' cost of an Eradicator squad with re-roll 1s is now 133pts. Still absurdly good- a 17% increase in firepower for a mere 10.5% increase in cost, and you're fulfilling HQ requirements, and you get some beatsticks to take and dish out damage to boot.
Does that really make Eradicators seem less attractive?
Keep going, add the chapter master upgrade onto one since all marine armies re-roll everything all the time, 2 lieutenants to cover the same area for the wound re-rolls since apparently they come as standard as well.
I get (using firstborn to save points) captain with bolt pistol and chainsword (he's there for rerolls after all), lieutenant with bolt pistol and chainsword =145 for the pair, need a 2nd patrol for that one per detachment captain if we're future proofing. So we're at -4cp and 290 or 14.5% points increase across the board. Probably still worth ir but you need them in those bubbles all the time to get the value or you're literally throwing points away since we're factoring a tax onto every unit in the army evenly.
Dudeface wrote: I get (using firstborn to save points) captain with bolt pistol and chainsword (he's there for rerolls after all), lieutenant with bolt pistol and chainsword =145 for the pair, need a 2nd patrol for that one per detachment captain if we're future proofing. So we're at -4cp and 290 or 14.5% points increase across the board. Probably still worth ir but you need them in those bubbles all the time to get the value or you're literally throwing points away since we're factoring a tax onto every unit in the army evenly.
A 14.5% increase and a third of your CP for a flat 56% increase in firepower (75% if the enemy has a -1 to hit) every turn seems like a no-brainer to me. At that point Eradicators have no trouble recouping even their increased cost in one volley- zap a bare-bones 175pt Leman Russ and you get 160pts back on your adjusted 137pt unit.
Even if you assume only half the army will benefit from rerolls, 29% increase in cost for that 56/75% higher output is a good deal, and you're still in the black with just one shot.
Theres no space marine army that works without a captain. And most have also a lieutenaunt. Only some of the broken iron hand ones that spammed heavy weapons played without captains because when you are BS+2 and rerolling 1's you don't need a captain or chapter master.
So basically , you can't assume that every space marine unit is gonna be rerolling 1's. That depends in the unit: If its some kind of unit that is gonna be fast and alone like land speeders and bikers then yeah, maybe being in rerroll auras is more difficult, but the units that go in your typical shooting castle? Those surely are getting those auras.
That said, I don't think tue captain is astoundingly relevant, because he also could buff the predator or the land speeders. Now, of course, he may just leave the Pred behind or not be able to keep up with the speeders while he'll probably easily be able to hang out with Eradicators, but that question is getting a little specific.
However,
The Eradicators are still better than a Predator. In fact, for 180 points, the Pred doesn't even compete at all with either the Speeders or the Eradicators.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
Now, if contemptors are the model for underpriced and overcapable, predators are pretty much the opposite
Galas wrote: Theres no space marine army that works without a captain. And most have also a lieutenaunt. Only some of the broken iron hand ones that spammed heavy weapons played without captains because when you are BS+2 and rerolling 1's you don't need a captain or chapter master.
So basically , you can't assume that every space marine unit is gonna be rerolling 1's. That depends in the unit: If its some kind of unit that is gonna be fast and alone like land speeders and bikers then yeah, maybe being in rerroll auras is more difficult, but the units that go in your typical shooting castle? Those surely are getting those auras.
My issue with this is that it's ignoring possibly the main argument for the eradicators - walking them up the middle in a shooting caslte allows them to be shot. If they're off the board from reserves then they're not contributing and they're harder to get into aura range when they do appear.
So the question is - which is it? In the middle of a castle to be shot at from t1 before they can get into melta range, or out of reserves but we can assume they're not getting that bubble if they're coming in deep up the board.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That said, I don't think tue captain is astoundingly relevant, because he also could buff the predator or the land speeders. Now, of course, he may just leave the Pred behind or not be able to keep up with the speeders while he'll probably easily be able to hang out with Eradicators, but that question is getting a little specific.
However,
The Eradicators are still better than a Predator. In fact, for 180 points, the Pred doesn't even compete at all with either the Speeders or the Eradicators.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
Now, if contemptors are the model for underpriced and overcapable, predators are pretty much the opposite
This is twofold, the predator needs some help but at the same time it's harder to hurt than the eradicators.
Dudeface wrote: So the question is - which is it? In the middle of a castle to be shot at from t1 before they can get into melta range, or out of reserves but we can assume they're not getting that bubble if they're coming in deep up the board.
In my experience: Standing behind a building or other piece of LOS-blocking cover during deployment, then stepping out T1 for a shot. They have a 29" threat range by default and can Advance and shoot, so getting a shot T1 is only out of the question if they get the first turn and the enemy deploys far back.
They're also durable enough at 40ppm that they're neither an easy kill nor free points. D2 weapons are no more efficient against them than they are against basic Intercessors, and they're tougher against S4 weapons too.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
With my SW I tipycally bring a unit of long fangs (and other SM have devastators). 6 dudes with 5 missile launchers/lascannons cost 171 points. For 5 shots, heavy instead of assault, and 6W T4. And the unit is universally considered to be good or ok at least. When they get their 2nd wound they'll also likely to be +3ppm so 189ish points. For 12W T4 which can compete with 9W T5.
So yeah, 60ppm eradicators will still be competitive. Not just simply good, definitely competitive.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That said, I don't think tue captain is astoundingly relevant, because he also could buff the predator or the land speeders. Now, of course, he may just leave the Pred behind or not be able to keep up with the speeders while he'll probably easily be able to hang out with Eradicators, but that question is getting a little specific.
However,
The Eradicators are still better than a Predator. In fact, for 180 points, the Pred doesn't even compete at all with either the Speeders or the Eradicators.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
Now, if contemptors are the model for underpriced and overcapable, predators are pretty much the opposite
This is twofold, the predator needs some help but at the same time it's harder to hurt than the eradicators.
It's... actually not really. The Eradicators are three discrete bodies at T5 Sv3+ with 9 total wounds. Predators are a single body of T7 Sv3+ W11. Damage wise, Eradicators are actually more resilient against D3, D6, 2, and 4+ damage weapons. And this isn't like the Land Speeder Squadron where it's mostly a wash, the Eradictors take more missile, lascannon, battle cannon, and plasmagun shots to kill than a Predator.
And as for toughness, because of the vagarities of the wound chart and the fact that for some reason the mark of a heavy tank is it's improve resilience against small arms, they're also pretty similar in that respect at the end of the day, unless your meta is saturated with S6 D3 weapons.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That said, I don't think tue captain is astoundingly relevant, because he also could buff the predator or the land speeders. Now, of course, he may just leave the Pred behind or not be able to keep up with the speeders while he'll probably easily be able to hang out with Eradicators, but that question is getting a little specific.
However,
The Eradicators are still better than a Predator. In fact, for 180 points, the Pred doesn't even compete at all with either the Speeders or the Eradicators.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
Now, if contemptors are the model for underpriced and overcapable, predators are pretty much the opposite
This is twofold, the predator needs some help but at the same time it's harder to hurt than the eradicators.
It's... actually not really. The Eradicators are three discrete bodies at T5 Sv3+ with 9 total wounds. Predators are a single body of T7 Sv3+ W11. Damage wise, Eradicators are actually more resilient against D3, D6, 2, and 4+ damage weapons. And this isn't like the Land Speeder Squadron where it's mostly a wash, the Eradictors take more missile, lascannon, battle cannon, and plasmagun shots to kill than a Predator.
And as for toughness, because of the vagarities of the wound chart and the fact that for some reason the mark of a heavy tank is it's improve resilience against small arms, they're also pretty similar in that respect at the end of the day, unless your meta is saturated with S6 D3 weapons.
Also, Apothecaries (and the Chief variant) can be used to make Eradicators more durable against even flat 3 damage weapons.
It takes...
4 unsaved wounds
8 successful wounds
16 hits
24 shots from a Helverin Autocannon to kill a Predator.
Normally, that would kill five and some change Eradicators. But with a 5+ FNP from a Chief Apothecary, you're looking at needing two failed saves to kill an Eradicator 70% of the time, meaning that it'd take...
5 unsaved wounds (assuming one gets unlucky and gets bodied in one shot)
10 successful wounds
15 hits
22.5 shots
Which, given that their Autocannons are 2d3 apiece, basically means you need 3 Helverins (6 Autocannons) shooting to wipe a Predator or a squad of Eradicators. If the Eradicators get lucky and need 2 failed saves for ALL of them, that raises to 27 shots, or 3.5 Helverins (7 Autocannons).
And don't forget about cover. Many competitive lists run the custom trait that makes them count as being in cover (alongside +3" range on their guns). More realistically, they're T5 2+.
Have we reached the point yet where it is more efficient to shoot infantry with antitank weapons and to shoot tanks with anti-infantry weapons yet?
Remember, you need 99 bolter hits to kill a predator and 120 to kill a tactical squad.
Now it sounds like all those antitank weapons you used to aim at the predator would be better off shooting infantry (Eradicators) if you are doing target priority right.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Have we reached the point yet where it is more efficient to shoot infantry with antitank weapons and to shoot tanks with anti-infantry weapons yet?
Remember, you need 99 bolter hits to kill a predator and 120 to kill a tactical squad.
Now it sounds like all those antitank weapons you used to aim at the predator would be better off shooting infantry (Eradicators) if you are doing target priority right.
Yes, we are. Though specifically for heavy infantry, which at least as far as I can remember, it has generally been better to shoot heavy infantry with AT weapons than anti-infantry weapons.
The anti-infantry-weapons-at-tanks-thing has been an annoyance of mine ever since I took Devilgaunts against Custodes and found I got far better returns by shooting them at the FW hover vehicles which were T7 3+ instead of T5 2+. Wounding both targets required a 5+, and firing at 3+ armor saw double the success of successful wounds.
vipoid wrote: The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.
Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.
The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.
If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.
Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.
.
You think 12" is as far as models see? Also, 120 points of Eradicators also just get more shots than 120 points of Fire Dragons, let alone doing it at 2.5x the range. If you think there's a debate on which is better, you're opinion doesn't matter since you're either willfully ignorant or completely misinformed.
Please. You're comparing apples to oranges because you all need something to argue about until the next reveal drops.
If I'm playing my eldar, what on earth do I care about the points cost of some other unit, from some other army for? I have my own tactics and tricks for making my units work on the battlefield.
Also, I would say none of your opinions matter on any of this stuff. It's a silly game.
Ah yes, the "you shouldn't complain about other armies having better things" argument.
Let's just all play 30k then instead, shall we?
The fact is, Eradicators essentially invalidate an eldar unit. Fluff wise it makes no sense (Eldar are super high tech, marines are monkeys in armor), game design wise it makes no sense (invalidating critical design space, power creep) and gameplay wise it makes no sense (if someone's units are ALWAYS better than ANY other factions, why use those other factions)? Please, you're the one who's saying to a farmer "stop comparing apples to oranges" when the oranges sell for double the price.
My issue with this is that it's ignoring possibly the main argument for the eradicators - walking them up the middle in a shooting caslte allows them to be shot. If they're off the board from reserves then they're not contributing and they're harder to get into aura range when they do appear.
So the question is - which is it? In the middle of a castle to be shot at from t1 before they can get into melta range, or out of reserves but we can assume they're not getting that bubble if they're coming in deep up the board.
Its not that hard to deep strike a captain. It can be both.
Tyel wrote: The point surely is that you do what seems best based on the mission, terrain and your opponents army.
Then on whether you also like to live dangerously. Its not as if these are bad units without rerolling everything.
Don't forget there's also the synergy with the rest of the units you prefer, and personal preference for which abilities you value for which roles and which units. Without the Deepstrike angle I think the Eradicators are over-valued. Not over costed, or underpowered or non-capable etc but over-hyped.
I'm personally quite fond of Aggressors. They have some of the same characteristics of Eliminators - slower, durable, fire-magnet, assault (move and fire, not assault/fight phase) type units. One difference is the Aggressors are likely to have more optimal targets in optimal situations than Eradicators just because there are usually more basic troops than hardened targets.
For that reason I'm more inclined to Attack Bikes or MM Speeders (or the upcoming Marine ATV), or Plasma Inceptors (but not really) for a faster distracting unit to pair with Aggressors over two plodding foot sloggers i.e adding Eradicators.
Some days I might invert it - some dakka Inceptors and Eradicators but mostly I lean towards slower units having more targets (troops/swarms/etc) and faster units having the less common ones(Hardened/Vehicles/etc).
I think most people make the list without knowing the Mission, terrain, or opponent's army so they make their combos/strategies/etc against a generic idea. Most of the long range units like Devastators (especially if they're move-or-fire or fire-with-penalty depending on edition rules) and tanks stay in the back (though move and fire vehicles may alter this some) Jumpy/Punchy units tend to run to your side. Some exceptions based on what your army is, or what their army is will always come up, but you also kind of know what those are too, and know what those outliers are. I think most people make their list with this in mind, and make little mini-plans for how they can use Unit A with Unit B, and if Unit B has to do something else, what are some other combos with Unit C and/or Unit D they patch the holes of "losing" Unit B to a different purpose creates.
I think some people also play some What-If games. What if the army is wonky? Several Aircraft? All Ravenwing/Deathwing/Wildriders of SaimHann/Four Knights/Thematic etc etc etc.
Breton wrote: Without the Deepstrike angle I think the Eradicators are over-valued. Not over costed, or underpowered or non-capable etc but over-hyped.
And I think you need to read the thread again to discover the math underlying why Eradicators are OP. They are definitely undercosted and definitely overpowered and supremely capable. The hype level is probably about right, maybe a tad too high. The max unit size of 3 and rule of 3 prevents them from having as big an impact on the meta as they would have had if you could take 3x5 or 5x3.
Don't forget there's also the synergy with the rest of the units you prefer, and personal preference for which abilities you value for which roles and which units. I'm personally quite fond of Aggressors. They have some of the same characteristics of Eliminators - slower, durable, fire-magnet, assault (move and fire, not assault/fight phase) type units. One difference is the Aggressors are likely to have more optimal targets in optimal situations than Eradicators just because there are usually more basic troops than hardened targets.
Eradicators and Aggressors have excellent synergy because they have the same defensive stats, meaning your opponent's optimal anti-Aggressor guns might be wasted (or at least used) on Eradicators. Neither of these units are slow, when you can advance and shoot you're not really slow anymore. Would you call a M8 BS 4 unit slow? Because in Necron land that gets called reasonably fast. It doesn't matter whether there are more infantry or tanks in your meta, you will need some anti-tank and Eradicators currently do it best out of any unit in the game pretty much. 3x3 is not going to approach breaking the bank, in fact, you probably still want more anti-tank after taking those 3x3, but those 3x3 should still be the first thing you put in your list, especially if you plan on taking Aggressors.
For that reason I'm more inclined to Attack Bikes or MM Speeders (or the upcoming Marine ATV), or Plasma Inceptors (but not really) for a faster distracting unit to pair with Aggressors over two plodding foot sloggers i.e adding Eradicators.
You're going to take 1-shot MM Attack Bikes or Speeders or are you just assuming the upgrade to Heavy 2 has already been implemented into the pts? The new codex is still several months away. There is no greater distraction than a unit of Eradicators, they are cheap, durable and cause a lot of damage. Why do you need speed, do you think your opponent will ignore them until they get in range of something important and blow it up? You can also take 3x3 Eradicators 2x5 Aggressors and still have pts left for 3x3 Primaris Bikes to act as a bonus distraction.
I think some people also play some What-If games. What if the army is wonky? Several Aircraft? All Ravenwing/Deathwing/Wildriders of SaimHann/Four Knights/Thematic etc etc etc.
That would be a really good idea if you don't just want the best possible win record over your next 10 games, but you want to win a tournament and as such cannot afford to have a terrible match-up. You could also build an anti-horde list or an anti-vehicle list if your goal was to just maximize chances of getting at least one victory. Nothing wrong with any of these approaches, just hobby goals, it is the same difference as between painting one model for 10 hours vs painting an army in 10 hours to get best painted miniature vs just getting the bonus VP for having a battle ready army, neither is more right than the other.
Breton wrote: Without the Deepstrike angle I think the Eradicators are over-valued. Not over costed, or underpowered or non-capable etc but over-hyped.
And I think you need to read the thread again to discover the math underlying why Eradicators are OP. They are definitely undercosted and definitely overpowered and supremely capable. The hype level is probably about right, maybe a tad too high. The max unit size of 3 and rule of 3 prevents them from having as big an impact on the meta as they would have had if you could take 3x5 or 5x3.
That's what I just said. I said they were over-hyped, I even specifically pointed out I was only talking about the hype not a comment on bad/good/etc.
Don't forget there's also the synergy with the rest of the units you prefer, and personal preference for which abilities you value for which roles and which units. I'm personally quite fond of Aggressors. They have some of the same characteristics of Eliminators - slower, durable, fire-magnet, assault (move and fire, not assault/fight phase) type units. One difference is the Aggressors are likely to have more optimal targets in optimal situations than Eradicators just because there are usually more basic troops than hardened targets.
Eradicators and Aggressors have excellent synergy because they have the same defensive stats, meaning your opponent's optimal anti-Aggressor guns might be wasted (or at least used) on Eradicators. Neither of these units are slow, when you can advance and shoot you're not really slow anymore. Would you call a M8 BS 4 unit slow? Because in Necron land that gets called reasonably fast. It doesn't matter whether there are more infantry or tanks in your meta, you will need some anti-tank and Eradicators currently do it best out of any unit in the game pretty much. 3x3 is not going to approach breaking the bank, in fact, you probably still want more anti-tank after taking those 3x3, but those 3x3 should still be the first thing you put in your list, especially if you plan on taking Aggressors.
The optimal guns for 3 5" T5 3+ wounds are not the same guns for 10-16" 4 T5 3+ wounds? Just about everything that synergizes between Aggressors and Eliminators also synergizes with MM Speeders or Inceptors and almost with attack bikes.
And I call just about everything that foot slogs slow.
For that reason I'm more inclined to Attack Bikes or MM Speeders (or the upcoming Marine ATV), or Plasma Inceptors (but not really) for a faster distracting unit to pair with Aggressors over two plodding foot sloggers i.e adding Eradicators.
You're going to take 1-shot MM Attack Bikes or Speeders or are you just assuming the upgrade to Heavy 2 has already been implemented into the pts? The new codex is still several months away. There is no greater distraction than a unit of Eradicators, they are cheap, durable and cause a lot of damage. Why do you need speed, do you think your opponent will ignore them until they get in range of something important and blow it up? You can also take 3x3 Eradicators 2x5 Aggressors and still have pts left for 3x3 Primaris Bikes to act as a bonus distraction.
That was part of my original premise in the original post yeah, assuming the change goes live and wide. Theorycrafting for the future. Its not like the shops are open for a whole lot of games right now.
I think some people also play some What-If games. What if the army is wonky? Several Aircraft? All Ravenwing/Deathwing/Wildriders of SaimHann/Four Knights/Thematic etc etc etc.
That would be a really good idea if you don't just want the best possible win record over your next 10 games, but you want to win a tournament and as such cannot afford to have a terrible match-up. You could also build an anti-horde list or an anti-vehicle list if your goal was to just maximize chances of getting at least one victory. Nothing wrong with any of these approaches, just hobby goals, it is the same difference as between painting one model for 10 hours vs painting an army in 10 hours to get best painted miniature vs just getting the bonus VP for having a battle ready army, neither is more right than the other.
I was talking more TAC "casual" games and the wonky army you might be playing against not necessarily "tournament" games -even tournament lists are going to play "casual" tune-up games - and a wonky list you'd be taking with you, I don't think the wonky thematic lists show up in tournaments very often. Currently I'm not even sure Pure Deathwing/Ravenwing only lists can realistically be made, and wouldn't have any ObSec units.
Ordana wrote: Marine players who enjoy being broken trying to pretend that this will be a nerf so people stop complaining about how broken marines are.
Funny, because in reality, this is exactly the excuse Tau were using for their broken for years when GW instead of properly nerfing one of the most OP units in the game just limited it. Even so, Tau spent the rest of the edition complaining that garbage is ToTeS BaLaNcEd ReMoVe LiMiT. Maybe xeno players should look in the mirror and stop projecting?
If you reroll more than 2 ones for that Captain during an important shooting attack (all of them if you're picking targets correctly), you've made your CP back in CP-rerolls alone.
So, according to you, Farsight Enclaves can generate anywhere between 20 to 50 CP per turn? I like how the anti-SM "arguments" are getting more and more disingenuous
Insectum7 wrote: They exist in the army whether the Eradicators are in there or not, and they buff far more than the Eradicators. So no, you don't include the cost of the CM+Lt.
Brilliant argument. "Every SM unit is OP because it has 300 points of buffs that are everywhere at once, can't be removed, generate 99 mortal wounds per turn, and punch babies in the face". If your local Marines are using 6000 points of units in 1500 point games, maybe you should tell them they are cheating. Or, you know, stop setting up salt-strawxenos the size of Pluto...
Ordana wrote: Marine players who enjoy being broken trying to pretend that this will be a nerf so people stop complaining about how broken marines are.
Funny, because in reality, this is exactly the excuse Tau were using for their broken for years when GW instead of properly nerfing one of the most OP units in the game just limited it. Even so, Tau spent the rest of the edition complaining that garbage is ToTeS BaLaNcEd ReMoVe LiMiT. Maybe xeno players should look in the mirror and stop projecting?
The problem with the commander limit was that it did nothing to address why commanders were being spammed in the first place. It didn't fix the issue that they were the most points efficient shooting in the whole army, that they lacked any synergy with the army that would make them an actual commander rather than a weapons platform etc.
So rather than actually address the cause, GW just slapped a band-aid on and called it fixed. Tau players would have much preferred that the issues with the army were actually fixed so that commanders weren't the go-to unit and stuff like Crisis teams would actually be viable.
For that reason I'm more inclined to Attack Bikes or MM Speeders (or the upcoming Marine ATV), or Plasma Inceptors (but not really) for a faster distracting unit to pair with Aggressors over two plodding foot sloggers i.e adding Eradicators.
You're going to take 1-shot MM Attack Bikes or Speeders or are you just assuming the upgrade to Heavy 2 has already been implemented into the pts? The new codex is still several months away. There is no greater distraction than a unit of Eradicators, they are cheap, durable and cause a lot of damage. Why do you need speed, do you think your opponent will ignore them until they get in range of something important and blow it up? You can also take 3x3 Eradicators 2x5 Aggressors and still have pts left for 3x3 Primaris Bikes to act as a bonus distraction.
The codex may be up for pre-order in a little over 4 weeks so it's hardly months away, at worst 9 weeks tops. I find it funny you criticise someones choices saying they should expect points to change but don't mention that eradicators/aggressors/outriders points might also change.
Breton wrote: Without the Deepstrike angle I think the Eradicators are over-valued. Not over costed, or underpowered or non-capable etc but over-hyped.
And I think you need to read the thread again to discover the math underlying why Eradicators are OP. They are definitely undercosted and definitely overpowered and supremely capable. The hype level is probably about right, maybe a tad too high. The max unit size of 3 and rule of 3 prevents them from having as big an impact on the meta as they would have had if you could take 3x5 or 5x3.
That's what I just said. I said they were over-hyped, I even specifically pointed out I was only talking about the hype not a comment on bad/good/etc.
No, you said you were more inclined to take other units than Eradicators and did not once say that you aknowledge that Eradicators are currently OP. Fair enough if you still think M5+D6 is slow and my bad for not understanding your intentions were going forward with the new codex given some fair assumptions (I think it is sadly unlikely that multimeltas will go up in pts given lascannon's current cost). I think GW has taken the asscannons are the best anti-vehicle critisism to heart and instead of increasing durability of vehicles, particularly against those sort of weapons, they are making anti-heavy-vehicle weapons more cost-efficient, which is silly because you already did not see anyone taking any boltguns on their Devastator Squads, meaning anti-tank was not degrees of weak, but all degrees of overpowered.
Insectum7 wrote: They exist in the army whether the Eradicators are in there or not, and they buff far more than the Eradicators. So no, you don't include the cost of the CM+Lt.
Brilliant argument. "Every SM unit is OP because it has 300 points of buffs that are everywhere at once, can't be removed, generate 99 mortal wounds per turn, and punch babies in the face". If your local Marines are using 6000 points of units in 1500 point games, maybe you should tell them they are cheating. Or, you know, stop setting up salt-strawxenos the size of Pluto...
You should not ignore the fact that SM have OP support units. There is no perfect way to represent the value of support auras, but most factions don't have Chapter Masters and it can be quite frustrating to play against, even with, that many re-rolls. The math for Eradicators is very good regardless of whether you add CM and Lieutenant anyways, it's not needed, just more fuel for the hate fire.
For that reason I'm more inclined to Attack Bikes or MM Speeders (or the upcoming Marine ATV), or Plasma Inceptors (but not really) for a faster distracting unit to pair with Aggressors over two plodding foot sloggers i.e adding Eradicators.
You're going to take 1-shot MM Attack Bikes or Speeders or are you just assuming the upgrade to Heavy 2 has already been implemented into the pts? The new codex is still several months away. There is no greater distraction than a unit of Eradicators, they are cheap, durable and cause a lot of damage. Why do you need speed, do you think your opponent will ignore them until they get in range of something important and blow it up? You can also take 3x3 Eradicators 2x5 Aggressors and still have pts left for 3x3 Primaris Bikes to act as a bonus distraction.
The codex may be up for pre-order in a little over 4 weeks so it's hardly months away, at worst 9 weeks tops. I find it funny you criticise someones choices saying they should expect points to change but don't mention that eradicators/aggressors/outriders points might also change.
9 weeks is over 2 months. By months I meant literally two months. I could be playing if I wanted to, but why would I want to play with pts I know were made intentionally bad? I'll give PL and crusade a swing in a few weeks when my legions are ready to march, but if you are playing pts right now then Eradicators are without a doubt one of the most efficient units in the game and you should be taking them if you want to win. It is not that I want you to bring Eradicators, I want you to not bring Eradicators and but I want you to give yourselves a pat on the back if you don't, good job, you didn't jump on the OP band-wagon.
Irbis wrote: Funny, because in reality, this is exactly the excuse Tau were using for their broken for years when GW instead of properly nerfing one of the most OP units in the game just limited it. Even so, Tau spent the rest of the edition complaining that garbage is ToTeS BaLaNcEd ReMoVe LiMiT. Maybe xeno players should look in the mirror and stop projecting?
1. Tau players wanted their army to be fixed, not a band-aid slapped on the fact that Commanders were viable and Crisis teams were not.
2. Most xenos players aren't playing Tau. This is like telling Marine players to stop whining about [insert OP faction here] because Imperial Knights were OP for a while.
3. 'You can't criticize Marine units for being broken because Tau players defended their broken units' is both a terrible strawman and a terrible argument.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So, according to you, Farsight Enclaves can generate anywhere between 20 to 50 CP per turn? I like how the anti-SM "arguments" are getting more and more disingenuous
The point is that if you are likely going to end up burning CP on re-rolls for important shots anyways, the CP to upgrade a Captain to a Chapter Master pays for itself. 2CP is minimal cost for what it does.
FSE does, in fact, greatly reduce Tau reliance on markerlights and re-rolls- if you get within knife-fight range of the enemy, which is an enormous trade-off for a faction with little melee capability. The only limitation on the Chapter Master aura is its radius, which with the removal of templates has no such immediate downsides.
Insectum7 wrote: Brilliant argument. "Every SM unit is OP because it has 300 points of buffs that are everywhere at once, can't be removed, generate 99 mortal wounds per turn, and punch babies in the face". If your local Marines are using 6000 points of units in 1500 point games, maybe you should tell them they are cheating. Or, you know, stop setting up salt-strawxenos the size of Pluto...
Well then, see the analyses on the previous page. Tacking an extra 5-11pts onto the cost of 3 Eradicators to represent re-rolls doesn't make them less appealing. They already overperform with no buffs at all; paying a pittance to dramatically boost their firepower makes them even better.
I would respectfully suggest you step back and have a read through this thread, because it's not all empty salt and whining, and you are not making very good arguments against the core issues people have raised.
No, you said you were more inclined to take other units than Eradicators and did not once say that you aknowledge that Eradicators are currently OP.
Its right there, I said I wasn't even talking about their points/power just the hype.
Breton wrote: Not over costed, or underpowered or non-capable etc but over-hyped.
Fair enough if you still think M5+D6 is slow and my bad for not understanding your intentions were going forward with the new codex given some fair assumptions (I think it is sadly unlikely that multimeltas will go up in pts given lascannon's current cost). I think GW has taken the asscannons are the best anti-vehicle critisism to heart and instead of increasing durability of vehicles, particularly against those sort of weapons, they are making anti-heavy-vehicle weapons more cost-efficient, which is silly because you already did not see anyone taking any boltguns on their Devastator Squads, meaning anti-tank was not degrees of weak, but all degrees of overpowered.
It was 8 pages ago or so. Easy to miss.
M5 + D6" averages 8.5". Tanks they get a ride in go 10 or so, Jumpy Boys 12 or so, Bikes 14 or so, Speeders are faster yet.
I think Melta is changing price, but not much. And not as much as it's changing potency. It seems like every edition has a flavor of the month. Grav, Flame, Las, Melta or Plas. In 2nd Flame let you light models on fire for multiple turns. So to speak. In the rules. As a game mechanic. Not literally. Don't light your or someone else's models on fire. I do think Melta is going to be next edition's FOTM. They're certainly not being shy about foreshadowing it. I'm not especially convinced there isn't a method behind the madness either. Smaller Tables don't have as much room for tanks and flyers. If they go boom too fast, players will take fewer of them, and the table will feel a lot bigger if you have to walk across it. Especially the diagonal. Get some Shield Dome Impulsors painted up.
The table will also feel a lot smaller, because cramming lots of infantry models into a tiny space is harder than a few vehicles (provided they're chimera sized).
My opinion, based on mission design, board size, and the (lack of) importance of maneuver is that 40k is secretly trying to edge into the Rugby Scrum Simulation market.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The table will also feel a lot smaller, because cramming lots of infantry models into a tiny space is harder than a few vehicles (provided they're chimera sized).
My opinion, based on mission design, board size, and the (lack of) importance of maneuver is that 40k is secretly trying to edge into the Rugby Scrum Simulation market.
Points and PL prices just went up too. Plus I don't think GW wants the smaller board empty, just effectively larger. We had 48x72 boards. They're now 44 x60
48x72 is a hypotenuse of almost 87 with a 6" move, what 14? 15? turns, a 48" gun range crosses Player Edge to Player Edge. a 36inch Gun crosses Deployment Edge to Player Edge
44x60 is just over 74" and 12 turns. And a newly preferred 24" gun doesn't cross a Not-Within-24 No Man's land. The maneuver thing makes me laugh too. It seems like GW is always trying to make Maneuver a thing and the players always figure out how to not.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That said, I don't think tue captain is astoundingly relevant, because he also could buff the predator or the land speeders. Now, of course, he may just leave the Pred behind or not be able to keep up with the speeders while he'll probably easily be able to hang out with Eradicators, but that question is getting a little specific.
However,
The Eradicators are still better than a Predator. In fact, for 180 points, the Pred doesn't even compete at all with either the Speeders or the Eradicators.
Eradicators could be 180 points and still compare favorably to the Pred, almost 3 times better in close range and twice as good in long range.
Now, if contemptors are the model for underpriced and overcapable, predators are pretty much the opposite
This is twofold, the predator needs some help but at the same time it's harder to hurt than the eradicators.
Str 10 does exist with some frequency.
It's... actually not really. The Eradicators are three discrete bodies at T5 Sv3+ with 9 total wounds. Predators are a single body of T7 Sv3+ W11. Damage wise, Eradicators are actually more resilient against D3, D6, 2, and 4+ damage weapons. And this isn't like the Land Speeder Squadron where it's mostly a wash, the Eradictors take more missile, lascannon, battle cannon, and plasmagun shots to kill than a Predator.
And as for toughness, because of the vagarities of the wound chart and the fact that for some reason the mark of a heavy tank is it's improve resilience against small arms, they're also pretty similar in that respect at the end of the day, unless your meta is saturated with S6 D3 weapons.
GW could make maneuver matter if they wanted to. Deleting armor facings is an example of them /not/ wanting it to matter. They deleted gun arcs too, weird.
Anyways, I don't much care how long it takes for a model moving 6" to cross the hypotenuse. The DZs are 24" apart, or 4 turns at 6". But no model ever moves only 6".
If you need to get there quickly, you run (~10" per turn, rounding). If you are any army in the game you have a way to run further or a faster base movement or some other movement shenanigans (I can't think of an army that lacks some way to accelerate their movement). If you have a slow base move you will have some kind of deep strike tool used on you (e.g. terminators) etc. etc.
There's not a single scenario in the game I can think of now where a unit just plods 6" forwards until the game ends with no ability to go faster.
Insectum7 wrote: They exist in the army whether the Eradicators are in there or not, and they buff far more than the Eradicators. So no, you don't include the cost of the CM+Lt.
Brilliant argument. "Every SM unit is OP because it has 300 points of buffs that are everywhere at once, can't be removed, generate 99 mortal wounds per turn, and punch babies in the face". If your local Marines are using 6000 points of units in 1500 point games, maybe you should tell them they are cheating. Or, you know, stop setting up salt-strawxenos the size of Pluto...
Are you suggesting that the CM and Lt. are delicately only buffing a single unit at a time? Are you playing lots of marine armies that are spending their mandatory HQ choices on a Librarian and Chaplain? How nice that must be for you, to exist in a meta where marine players are so gentle with their application of rerolls.
Racerguy180 wrote: well, I've never taken a CM & generally take a Chaplain, Librarian with a Lt or 2.
Its gotta suck to play in a meta where the only way to play is feth YOU lists.
It must be nice being able to play a faction where you can afford to deliberately take the most sub optimal choice..
What I don't understand is, why the fact YOU personally don't do it, also seems to means YOU don't seem to appreciate how it works and refuse to accept it exists and is obviously the best optimal choice. Its almost like you could not do something, but understand how in reality it is widespread and how it works, and appreciate how it synergises with other stuff instead of being as obstuse as possibly can..
Take Eldar flyer spam and alitoic. I dont own a single one of those models.. The reason was because they were simply broken OP. Plain and simple I knew that.. everyone else knew that. But at no point did I say "Well... I think you are all picking on the CHE and alitoic.. I don't take fliers clearly theres no problem because I don't take them I don't understand why they work" that would make me seem ill informed at best and deliberately disingenuous at worse.
Umm, Chaplains and Librarians are very optimal for my Salamanders.
I dont play competitively & have zero interest in doing so. In my opinion competitive play is the worst thing to happen to 40k since...ever. If you don't agree, fine. If you do, fine. It's an opinion and no more/less valid than anyone else's.
I play for fun, not to crush my enemies(Conan said it better). If I take a capt it's because my list calls for it(i.e. I'm playing something actually company scale 3-4k pts). Cuz why would a Capt(and to a greater extent, Chapter Masters) be on the field otherwise, when there are other commanders that are more lore appropriate. nothing in a 2k game is worth a CM's time.
First of all I never said it wasnt a problem for those players who play feth you style. it just makes zero sense to me why would you WANT to play that way.
y'all are focusing on fething over the person you're playing WITH way, waaaayyyyy too much.
how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
That is the weirdest, most competetive sounding post I've seen from someone who so forcefully espouses the merits of their own casual gaming.
So. . . Question: Do you duck from playing against so called "f*** you lists"?
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
I think you fail to see a lot of things.. irony, being chief amongst them.
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
That is the weirdest, most competetive sounding post I've seen from someone who so forcefully espouses the merits of their own casual gaming.
So. . . Question: Do you duck from playing against so called "f*** you lists"?
dont need to, luckily we are chill and dont really care about spamming x or y so it doesnt really come up. if something is too powerful, a 5min convo before the game fixes the problem. see that's what grownups call compromise. you should try it sometime.
but if someone is insistent, I ain't no punk bitch and have zero problem writing a feth you list. It just interests me less than having explosive gaks syndrome. I probably wont have any fun spamming bs, since the units I tend to take are "uncompetitive". Why would I want to change my playstyle just to fit someone elses idea of what that playstyle is, sounds lame.
Also, how was anything I said competitive? if competitive is your mindset, then why are you complaining about how competitive something is.
I could care less how "good" something is and i sure as gak dont care about tourneys.
still didnt answer my question about (not)playing against Taudar, gman razor spam, castellans? what would you do in a tourney, play them or not?
Are we in acknowledgment that that CM plus Lt is a common competitive thing? And that Space Marine re-rolls are a competitive thing? And that a CM and Lt bubble can affect a LOT more than the single unit in question here?
Are we in acknowledgment that that CM plus Lt is a common competitive thing? And that Space Marine re-rolls are a competitive thing? And that a CM and Lt bubble can affect a LOT more than the single unit in question here?
Ffs.
I'd say if you expand it to Capt/CM+ LT its common to practically ubiquitous. Rerolls are a thing, yes. Definte "a LOT", also CAN or USUALLY does X to whatever "a LOT" means. I'm on pretty much on board right until that last sentence.
Racerguy180 wrote: Umm, Chaplains and Librarians are very optimal for my Salamanders.
Why didn't you mention the Eradicator math was too low since you play Salamanders, only that it is too high because you get free re-rolls and don't need a CM and Lieutenant? 6 shots + re-roll is 4,67 hits, with a re-roll against a Leman Russ is 3,78 wounds, 13,22 damage and 220 pts dead, no CM, no LT 120 pts.
Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
Racerguy180 wrote: Umm, Chaplains and Librarians are very optimal for my Salamanders.
Why didn't you mention the Eradicator math was too low since you play Salamanders, only that it is too high because you get free re-rolls and don't need a CM and Lieutenant? 6 shots + re-roll is 4,67 hits, with a re-roll against a Leman Russ is 3,78 wounds, 13,22 damage and 220 pts dead, no CM, no LT 120 pts.
wow those 3 models are gamebreakingly powerful & will auto win ALL THE GAMES! why even build them since they just auto kill superheavies, prob better to just throw them out so as not to upset anyone.
Tu'shan not having a model is the reason I've never run one and wont until he does(and then only in big games). I'll run eradicators since they're a melta unit and I could give 2 gaks how good they are, just like I've done w my flamestorm aggressors(cuz they look great). for me they fit in with my overall theme of the army and I like how the models look.
if they work better in a Salamanders list, good. kinda expect the army known for burning & melting stuff to be good at it. just like how assault intercessors would do better in a white Scars list & bolt aggressors to be better for Fists.
Anyone thinking GW is interested in balance really needs to take a long look in the mirror.
Grey40k wrote: Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.
Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.
Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.
Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)
Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.
I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.
As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.
Just gonna chip in on the MTG comparison since it's so very wrong: competitive modern decks cost more than most 40k armies do. competitive standard decks aren't as bad, but still expensive.
MtG is only cheap if you specifically explode the expensive cards or if you just play kitchen table MTG
Edit: I like what my phone did to the word "exclude",so I'm going to keep it.
So what the heck are you doing in a thread talking about balance?
He's tired of people not thanking him for playing the most overpowered unit in the game, I was wrong, you're right Racerguy go ahead and use some of the most OP units in the game with one of the best 8th edition sub-factions even if your opponent is using trash units with a trash faction, why should you care? How dare I or anyone else complain, we should just forge a narrative around how we are NPCs and don't deserve to use our Monoliths or Canoptek Reanimators. Given that he doesn't mind Eradicators being OP I am sure he would be okay playing against a 120 pt Monolith, who cares what's the cost is? Is it really going to win any games if I bring three 120 pt Monoliths?
Tyel wrote: Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)
Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.
I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.
As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.
The TTS meta is slowed down by not having the new models right away sometimes, that means proxying (which you think is kind of lame), it's not really that different from RL. It's easy to band-wagon on TTS if the models are available and people are not constrained at all by price of FW models, but people on TTS are often very attached to their factions and own them in real life as well. If you play in RL exclusively your opponents will still have to build and paint their armies. If you play on TTS you can just require all your opponents to make a custom paint scheme they need to follow so that the they will be unable to test different units.
TTS is, from a consumer perspective, much better suited for the competitive setting.
GW milks competitive players hard via rule changes and other shenanigans. Probably not those at the very top, who either get sponsorhips or have developed ways to get cheap minis (active in 2nd hand, 3d printing, recasts, mini sharing in teams). Instead, they milk the "average" competitive player. I guess GW aspires to turn the game into MtG, which is a dream come true from the perspective of the company.
The issue I see is that if GW keeps pushing hard the gamey competitive element, often at the expense of the hobby, they might hurt sales overall it out in favor of TTS or videogames. As I said, for top competitive players the hobby side is not that important very frequently (just look at the tons of 3 colors airbrushed of competitive armies out there).
Although MtG does it, so maybe it is actually possible. It won't be good of us players, though.
TTS is hindered from a competitive standpoint in that, frankly, 40K is not nearly as good of a competitive game/e-sport as something like Starcraft, Wargame, or Company of Heroes. Having the game designed to play out on a physical tabletop with physical models imposes a number of constraints which, once you're in a wholly digital space, no longer apply.
Even for players who don't care at all about the social or hobby sides, part of the appeal of miniatures gaming is the use of miniatures- or more abstractly, the physical component to the gamespace. I own TTS and find it a fun way to play 40K with distant friends, but it's a borderline-irredeemably clunky experience and I can't see it catching on with players who have no investment in the tabletop.
Same deal with MTG, really. There are plenty of ways to play it online. They haven't appreciably displaced physical cards, from what I've seen.
Tyel wrote: Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)
Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.
I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.
As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.
I'm assuming from context TTS is some sort of computer program that runs 9999 Warhammer 40K simulations like you see them doing with John Madden on Sunday Night Football to predict scores and results? That could be painful for people who like to see variety.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey40k wrote: TTS is, from a consumer perspective, much better suited for the competitive setting.
GW milks competitive players hard via rule changes and other shenanigans. Probably not those at the very top, who either get sponsorhips or have developed ways to get cheap minis (active in 2nd hand, 3d printing, recasts, mini sharing in teams). Instead, they milk the "average" competitive player. I guess GW aspires to turn the game into MtG, which is a dream come true from the perspective of the company.
The issue I see is that if GW keeps pushing hard the gamey competitive element, often at the expense of the hobby, they might hurt sales overall it out in favor of TTS or videogames. As I said, for top competitive players the hobby side is not that important very frequently (just look at the tons of 3 colors airbrushed of competitive armies out there).
Although MtG does it, so maybe it is actually possible. It won't be good of us players, though.
I'd just be glad we didn't see 40K online, where you play a SM captain (or Hive Tyrant, etc) and team up with your buddy the libby, your guildie the Devastator, and his buddy the Vanguard Vet to go adventuring on a Necron Tomb World.
Grey40k wrote: Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.
Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.
Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.
So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?
Are we in acknowledgment that that CM plus Lt is a common competitive thing? And that Space Marine re-rolls are a competitive thing? And that a CM and Lt bubble can affect a LOT more than the single unit in question here?
Ffs.
I don't agree in the broad application. If you have only one CM on foot there are only so many places he can be. If I can get the Eradicators to pop up on the other side of him there won't be any rerolls. The game doesn't play as simply as before where things that wanted rerolls always got to be next to the CM and you suffered no scoring consequences for doing so.
Otoh it isn't like earlier editions where there's uncertainty in executing an outflank wombo-combo. If the enemy has a critical asset vulnerable to Eradicators, the CM will be there to meet them because the player has planned to kill that asset.
I agree he may not be if the player hasn't planned around it, but the SM player is in total control of the situation.
You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.
Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.
Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.
Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.
They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).
Honestly, Eradicators are too efficient when compared to their cost. Not very efficient when compared to their slot in the detachment. That's more because SM have too many quality units fighting for those slots.
I mean, they're REALLY good. REALLY REALLY good. There's a reason they're taken in many lists, not just competitive ones. And slagging tanks was the realm where Primaris was barely passable in. Well, can't have the blue boys being shown up in any phase or situation, thus Eradicators were born.
The best defense against Eradicators is "pray your opponent isn't a jerk with them". Probably not the best indicator of a balanced and fair unit, lol.
Purifying Tempest wrote: You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.
Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.
Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.
Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.
They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).
Honestly, Eradicators are too efficient when compared to their cost. Not very efficient when compared to their slot in the detachment. That's more because SM have too many quality units fighting for those slots.
I mean, they're REALLY good. REALLY REALLY good. There's a reason they're taken in many lists, not just competitive ones. And slagging tanks was the realm where Primaris was barely passable in. Well, can't have the blue boys being shown up in any phase or situation, thus Eradicators were born.
The best defense against Eradicators is "pray your opponent isn't a jerk with them". Probably not the best indicator of a balanced and fair unit, lol.
Out of curiosity, what is competing with eradicators in heavy support at a competitive level, in your opinion?
Grey40k wrote: Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.
Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.
Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.
So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?
There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.
Purifying Tempest wrote: At a competitive level? Nothing. They're too underpriced (or just have incompatible rules with balancing) that everything else just gets laughed at.
Previously? Eliminators and Repulsors were pretty popular.
In the future? Devastator squads are probably going to make a bit of a comeback.
But right now? We live in the age of the Eradicator.
Grey40k wrote: Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.
Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.
Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.
So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?
There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.
Then maybe I should rephrase the question: Should any unit comprised of T5 3+ 3W infantry whose weapons are assault instead of heavy be able to do that for 120 points? Do you think eradicators are too cheap?
Grey40k wrote: Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.
At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.
Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.
If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.
At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.
Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.
Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.
So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?
There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.
Then maybe I should rephrase the question: Should any unit comprised of T5 3+ 3W infantry whose weapons are assault instead of heavy be able to do that for 120 points? Do you think eradicators are too cheap?
Eradicators are too cheap, but the configuration theyre used in for competitive play is a head and shoulders above the standard unit even. Long range marksmen, master artisans or w/e the name is salamanders take a too cheap unit and make them especially obnoxious.
Other set ups for erdicators can probably be tweaked/massaged with points but that 1 combo can't imo. But then we know the salamanders chapter tactic is changing as is therefore master artisans.
Honestly 150-160 for them without those combo of chapter tactics and doctrines seems OK imo.
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Ice_can wrote: Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.
5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
Ice_can wrote: Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.
5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.
Ice_can wrote: Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.
5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.
Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
So what the heck are you doing in a thread talking about balance?
He's tired of people not thanking him for playing the most overpowered unit in the game, I was wrong, you're right Racerguy go ahead and use some of the most OP units in the game with one of the best 8th edition sub-factions even if your opponent is using trash units with a trash faction, why should you care? How dare I or anyone else complain, we should just forge a narrative around how we are NPCs and don't deserve to use our Monoliths or Canoptek Reanimators. Given that he doesn't mind Eradicators being OP I am sure he would be okay playing against a 120 pt Monolith, who cares what's the cost is? Is it really going to win any games if I bring three 120 pt Monoliths?
Spoiler:
Tyel wrote: Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)
Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.
I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.
As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.
The TTS meta is slowed down by not having the new models right away sometimes, that means proxying (which you think is kind of lame), it's not really that different from RL. It's easy to band-wagon on TTS if the models are available and people are not constrained at all by price of FW models, but people on TTS are often very attached to their factions and own them in real life as well. If you play in RL exclusively your opponents will still have to build and paint their armies. If you play on TTS you can just require all your opponents to make a custom paint scheme they need to follow so that the they will be unable to test different units.
First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.
Racerguy180 wrote: First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.
See that's what grownups do, compromise.
I did not accuse you of jumping on any bandwagon, merely for downplaying how clearly OP Eradicators were to your own benefit. But I was wrong to call you out for doing that, I mixed you up with other posters with views other than you own. Have fun when you eventually get back to playing.
Ice_can wrote: Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.
5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.
Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
Sister have the 6++ and also potentially a ignore -1AP, but 3 wounds each and Toughness 5 is powerful in comparison, Sister are also much weaker it attacked in melee - S3, 1A and WS4+. Not sure they are that much easier to hid - the new models are quite hefty.
Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.
Ice_can wrote: Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.
5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.
5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
The Massive advantage of W3 is the waste of D2 shooting, which is going to become just avout everyones default going forward now.
But even if you say it's much of a wash thats 150 points worth not 120 AKA eradicators are massively undercosted even in comparison to their own codex's new buffed unit stats.
Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.
We also don't know how broken the Eradicator Strat/s will be if we are adding those in.
Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.
We also don't know how broken the Eradicator Strat/s will be if we are adding those in.
Or if they actually get toned down between now and then.
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
Now, as far as they main topic.
3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.
3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).
Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.
Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.
Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
Now, as far as they main topic.
3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.
3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).
Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.
Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.
Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?
Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.
You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.
Purifying Tempest wrote: You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.
Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.
Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.
Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.
They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).
In 9th, with the prevalence of terrain, they're pretty lacklustre. Their range is largely irrelevant, and they don't have enough shots in a unit to really put a big dent into anything much. They're also more expensive than terminators, for a T3 body and no invulnerable save, so they die to a stiff breeze. They're one of the better craftworld infantry units... but right now, that isn't saying an awful lot, craftworld infantry is mostly garbage. 20-35 points, for the defensive statline of a 5pt guardsman.
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
but why should anything that's from tournaments(spamming units, wombocombo gotchas)trickle down to fun metas? all that serves is to make fun metas more tourney like, which as far as I can tell, isnt wanted? the only people who want that are people playing in tournament metas.
kinda weird when the most fun games I've ever had I've been at a disadvantage i.e. unbalanced.
I still dont understand why 3models are soooooo OP? o wait when you take 3 full squads(spamming) they're an issue.
But if you guys are so competitive im sure you can figure out a way to deal with it? cuz isnt that the point of feth you lists, either deal with it or dont? Do you just concede when you see them in your opponents list? Or is it that in needing to prepare for this one unit you need to skew the rest of your armys list for it? which would then make it more difficult to deal with other factions?
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
Now, as far as they main topic.
3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.
3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).
Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.
Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.
Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?
Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.
You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.
You get an average of five hits, yeah.
But if you're giving the Orks their Stratagems, you should compare to what Eradicators can use-I'm pretty sure they can at least get RR1s to-hit with a strat.
+1 to-hit with Freebootas requires you to have killed another unit already, and is mutually exclusive with Bad Moonz firing twice.
And if you fire from a trnaspot, as written right now, you don't get to reroll hits.
You don't get DDD.
You don't get any Klan bonuses.
Not to mention, a Trukk is probably not as survivable as the Eradicators, and a Battlewagon is real expensive.
Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
Purifying Tempest wrote: You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.
Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.
Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.
Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.
They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).
In 9th, with the prevalence of terrain, they're pretty lacklustre. Their range is largely irrelevant, and they don't have enough shots in a unit to really put a big dent into anything much. They're also more expensive than terminators, for a T3 body and no invulnerable save, so they die to a stiff breeze. They're one of the better craftworld infantry units... but right now, that isn't saying an awful lot, craftworld infantry is mostly garbage. 20-35 points, for the defensive statline of a 5pt guardsman.
100% agreed. Craftworlds are going to need some fundamental rethinking in a take-and-hold environment. Not having blanket invulnerables like everything else in the game... on top of no defensive potency on a model with an elite price tag... the foot troops are all but dead. I'm still enjoying my Court of the Young King (Biel-tan Aspect focused list)... but I definitely don't see it doing anything but crumpling to any competitive list.
I hate making direct comparisons, but really... look at any Gravis-clad model in the SM line... and put it up against Craftworld Elites. Fire Dragons vs Eradicators, Swooping Hawks/Windriders vs Aggressors and really see a tale of two codices. Anyone arguing that it is not so one-sidedly favoring the Gravis models is just homering for their guys because "it is their turn" or some nonsense.
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
Given MMs are going to 2 shots I don't see that happening. Points will change, rules won't. So it depends points MMs go to. If they just 20-25 points, then, yeah. Apparently this is a thing now. (I still think they should go up to 35-40 points).
But apparently utterly broken ludicrousness is what Imperial anti-tank does now. Sucks to be Xenos. Not sure if Chaos have MMs either (don't think so). But there we go.
Its still dumb, because you are going to have a devastator with MM at say 40 ish points and a Eradicator who has... an extra point of toughness, an extra wound, no penalty for moving and shooting for... 0 points more but... yeah. Crazier things have happened.
If that's the bar. Okay. But everyone else needs to be buffed, and any vehicle costing more than 80-100 points needs to go sit on a shelf.
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
but why should anything that's from tournaments(spamming units, wombocombo gotchas)trickle down to fun metas? all that serves is to make fun metas more tourney like, which as far as I can tell, isnt wanted? the only people who want that are people playing in tournament metas.
kinda weird when the most fun games I've ever had I've been at a disadvantage i.e. unbalanced.
I still dont understand why 3models are soooooo OP? o wait when you take 3 full squads(spamming) they're an issue.
But if you guys are so competitive im sure you can figure out a way to deal with it? cuz isnt that the point of feth you lists, either deal with it or dont? Do you just concede when you see them in your opponents list? Or is it that in needing to prepare for this one unit you need to skew the rest of your armys list for it? which would then make it more difficult to deal with other factions?
Take a Space Marine army using only 1 of each unit and play against any other army only take 1 of each unit (ignore troops if you think that changes anything) and tell me how it goes. I bet the Marine player gets to take a lot more 'good' units then whatever they are facing and they will likely handily win because of the plethora of good units in the current Space Marine arsenal compared to everyone else having only a handful in total in their codex. (if they even get to a handful).
Spam isn't the issue with things like Eradicators, its a symptom of the issue. Them being utterly undercosted.
Pretending its somehow balanced if you only take 1 unit is sticking your fingers in your ear and shout nanananananananaanCan'tHearYou.
undercosted units are undercosted. regardless of how many you take.
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
And if they get a strat to fire three times or auto wound or similar - guess the opposite is true.
100% agreed. Craftworlds are going to need some fundamental rethinking in a take-and-hold environment. Not having blanket invulnerables like everything else in the game... on top of no defensive potency on a model with an elite price tag... the foot troops are all but dead. I'm still enjoying my Court of the Young King (Biel-tan Aspect focused list)... but I definitely don't see it doing anything but crumpling to any competitive list.
I hate making direct comparisons, but really... look at any Gravis-clad model in the SM line... and put it up against Craftworld Elites. Fire Dragons vs Eradicators, Swooping Hawks/Windriders vs Aggressors and really see a tale of two codices. Anyone arguing that it is not so one-sidedly favoring the Gravis models is just homering for their guys because "it is their turn" or some nonsense.
I collect three ranges of models for 40k: demons, eldars, custodes.
And oh boy you are a 100% right in this analysis. The comparisons between sort of equivalent units in the eldar range and primaris are frustrating.
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
a 24" meltagun on a t5 3w body for 40 points sounds 'normal', not pointless.
(except for the point you can make that normal in competitive isn't good enough, but that simply means the other stuff that is to good needs to get nerfed down)
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
Crisis suits would like a word, they currently cost more points for less range.
Even bare suit plus 18 inch fusion blaster is 45 points for T5 3w 3+ with no doctorines no shock assualt no super doctrines. And they need another 1or 2CP spent just to make the BS3+
That additional AP from doctrines that's another 5 points so ita now 50 ppm still with 6 inches less range.
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
but why should anything that's from tournaments(spamming units, wombocombo gotchas)trickle down to fun metas? all that serves is to make fun metas more tourney like, which as far as I can tell, isnt wanted? the only people who want that are people playing in tournament metas.
kinda weird when the most fun games I've ever had I've been at a disadvantage i.e. unbalanced.
I still dont understand why 3models are soooooo OP? o wait when you take 3 full squads(spamming) they're an issue.
But if you guys are so competitive im sure you can figure out a way to deal with it? cuz isnt that the point of feth you lists, either deal with it or dont? Do you just concede when you see them in your opponents list? Or is it that in needing to prepare for this one unit you need to skew the rest of your armys list for it? which would then make it more difficult to deal with other factions?
Take a Space Marine army using only 1 of each unit and play against any other army only take 1 of each unit (ignore troops if you think that changes anything) and tell me how it goes. I bet the Marine player gets to take a lot more 'good' units then whatever they are facing and they will likely handily win because of the plethora of good units in the current Space Marine arsenal compared to everyone else having only a handful in total in their codex. (if they even get to a handful).
Spam isn't the issue with things like Eradicators, its a symptom of the issue. Them being utterly undercosted.
Pretending its somehow balanced if you only take 1 unit is sticking your fingers in your ear and shout nanananananananaanCan'tHearYou.
undercosted units are undercosted. regardless of how many you take.
The real difference is. Undercosted marine unit is a instant hot fix problem that breaks the internet. But an undercosted DE unit like a ravager..or an eldar unit like a shinning spear...or an IG command tank...we can ignore those issues for 18+ months. No problem.
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
Crisis suits would like a word, they currently cost more points for less range.
Even bare suit plus 18 inch fusion blaster is 45 points for T5 3w 3+ with no doctorines no shock assualt no super doctrines. And they need another 1or 2CP spent just to make the BS3+
That additional AP from doctrines that's another 5 points so ita now 50 ppm still with 6 inches less range.
" with no doctorines no shock assualt no super doctrines"
This is irrelvent Tau have their own army wide rules. Which are actually pretty good mind you...The ability to deep strike on it's own is worth a fair amount of points. The ability to fly over a wall is also worth a fair amount of points. Aint no one taking suits with 1 gun anyways because it wouldn't make sense. You take them with 3 rocket pods are 2 rockets and a SG with -2 AP missles (-1 AP for missles army trait effective the whole game BTW...better than doctrines) and kill the Erradicators before they every get in range. Or you just deep strike and kill them with fusions or plasma.
Xenomancers wrote: The real difference is. Undercosted marine unit is a instant hot fix problem that breaks the internet. But an undercosted DE unit like a ravager..or an eldar unit like a shinning spear...or an IG command tank...we can ignore those issues for 18+ months. No problem.
Pretty sure these forums have been aflame for months complaining about broken eldar units and the entire Guard codex being undercosted. (I should know, I was one of those complaining)
In what universe do you live where people didn't complained about them for 18+ months?
Mr Morden wrote: Surely its better not to have overpowered units than to have them?
If you don't care about them - then why worry if they are brought down to a resonmable level (say by making their cheesy rule a strat) and/or a points increase.
They will still be good and usable but not something people sigh about when you put them on the table....
I remember the reaction when people starting unpacking Wave Serpents when they were broken as feth.
If their melta rifles go to 1 shot and a strat to fire twice, then they better get a points cut because they'd become pointless otherwise.
I mean... they'd then still be better than the Xenos equivalents. They just would be pointless compared to other space marine options.
Which is kinda the whole issue with the space marine codex right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Pretty sure these forums have been aflame for months complaining about broken eldar units and the entire Guard codex being undercosted. (I should know, I was one of those complaining)
In what universe do you live where people didn't complained about them for 18+ months?
The difference being, for the most part the problem with Eldar was a very limited handful of units that were strong. So in competitive games, people who spammed those units could do very well (if they also played well). IG... I don't recall people saying the "entire guard codex was undercosted", it was pretty much the CP generators being so cheap along with (again) a few strong units.
Space Marines... are currently so universally broken, that there's been articles about just how easy it's become to win with them. There was a goon article about how a bunch of complete nobodies turned up and won entire tournaments because the lists could just steamroll through anything. Of course, that's no longer a thing, because everyone knows those lists and there's a bunch of them in each tournament.
It's not even that I dislike the new marine codex. I think it's decent, got a lot of variety, and pretty much all of it is viable. Which is great.
Problem is that every other army doesn't have the same kind of codex. Not even close.
Yes of course, only those elite eldar players with their few rare units should be allowed to win tournaments. Heaven forbid someone buys two or three starter sets and gets a tournament worthy army out of it. How could one even rival the skill levels one had to achive playing a double dipping Inari army or a 6-7 flyers list.
And with majority of people playing marines, it is also the most natural thing for minority played armies to be always the OP ones. Nothing helps the game grow and be fun, then a minority bullying a majority.
Karol wrote: Yes of course, only those elite eldar players with their few rare units should be allowed to win tournaments. Heaven forbid someone buys two or three starter sets and gets a tournament worthy army out of it. How could one even rival the skill levels one had to achive playing a double dipping Inari army or a 6-7 flyers list.
And with majority of people playing marines, it is also the most natural thing for minority played armies to be always the OP ones. Nothing helps the game grow and be fun, then a minority bullying a majority.
Wasn;t Iron Hands a "miniority army" -was that ok? cos it was Marines.
Broken is broken - what Army, race , faction or subfaction that it belongs to is irelevant.
Eldar Cheese Serpents were broken and revilied and now so are Eradicators - both times we also had people saying:
Wait till the rules offically come out
Wait till the Codex
Wait till the FAqs Wait till they have been played abit.
Wait
Wait
Wait
And wierdly often the people with those models and those armies.
Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.
You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.
7 shots with Dakkax3 = 2.33 hits and 1.16 DDD re-rolls for another .38 hits so 2.71. Reroll the 4.67 misses for another 1.5 hits with .77 DDD which results in a further .25 hits. Grand total 4.46 hits with DDD.
You can give a unit a 5+ chance to proc DDD for 2CP, you can get another stratagem to shoot again but only if you take Badmoons which is something you really do not want to use and you can get +1 to hit if you are playing as Freeboota's but only if you kill something first.
Also, you can't use any of those stratagems if in a vehicle, plus if we are going to be giving Tankbustas a 65-135pt transport I think its fair to include other buffs for those eradicators which again, moves the goal posts and puts them well and truly above Tankbustas.
Last note on the luxurious transport, T6 with a 4+ save isn't exactly durable in an edition where Eradicators are actively being argued against as "balanced"
Racerguy180 wrote: how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".
if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.
If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?
If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?
Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.
There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
but why should anything that's from tournaments(spamming units, wombocombo gotchas)trickle down to fun metas? all that serves is to make fun metas more tourney like, which as far as I can tell, isnt wanted? the only people who want that are people playing in tournament metas.
kinda weird when the most fun games I've ever had I've been at a disadvantage i.e. unbalanced.
I still dont understand why 3models are soooooo OP? o wait when you take 3 full squads(spamming) they're an issue.
But if you guys are so competitive im sure you can figure out a way to deal with it? cuz isnt that the point of feth you lists, either deal with it or dont? Do you just concede when you see them in your opponents list? Or is it that in needing to prepare for this one unit you need to skew the rest of your armys list for it? which would then make it more difficult to deal with other factions?
Take a Space Marine army using only 1 of each unit and play against any other army only take 1 of each unit (ignore troops if you think that changes anything) and tell me how it goes. I bet the Marine player gets to take a lot more 'good' units then whatever they are facing and they will likely handily win because of the plethora of good units in the current Space Marine arsenal compared to everyone else having only a handful in total in their codex. (if they even get to a handful).
Spam isn't the issue with things like Eradicators, its a symptom of the issue. Them being utterly undercosted.
Pretending its somehow balanced if you only take 1 unit is sticking your fingers in your ear and shout nanananananananaanCan'tHearYou.
undercosted units are undercosted. regardless of how many you take.
can you explain to me how if you only take one its OP?
Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.
You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.
7 shots with Dakkax3 = 2.33 hits and 1.16 DDD re-rolls for another .38 hits so 2.71. Reroll the 4.67 misses for another 1.5 hits with .77 DDD which results in a further .25 hits. Grand total 4.46 hits with DDD.
You can give a unit a 5+ chance to proc DDD for 2CP, you can get another stratagem to shoot again but only if you take Badmoons which is something you really do not want to use and you can get +1 to hit if you are playing as Freeboota's but only if you kill something first.
Also, you can't use any of those stratagems if in a vehicle, plus if we are going to be giving Tankbustas a 65-135pt transport I think its fair to include other buffs for those eradicators which again, moves the goal posts and puts them well and truly above Tankbustas.
Last note on the luxurious transport, T6 with a 4+ save isn't exactly durable in an edition where Eradicators are actively being argued against as "balanced"
Just the maths because I can, 2.333 hits, another 1.555 off the rerolls. 0.648 hits from DDD, 0.432 from DDD reroll. Total of 4.969.
Yeah Tankbustas are worse than eradicators, thats a given, eradicators are too good/cheap, but they're not lightyears behind in terms of output, they're probably about right really.
Just the maths because I can, 2.333 hits, another 1.555 off the rerolls. 0.648 hits from DDD, 0.432 from DDD reroll. Total of 4.969.
Yeah Tankbustas are worse than eradicators, thats a given, eradicators are too good/cheap, but they're not lightyears behind in terms of output, they're probably about right really.
2.33 hits = 1.16 6s which is .38 extra hits from DDD not .64 hits. rerolls nets you 4.67 shots which gets 1.55 hits and .77 DDD rerolls which is .25ish extra hits. I rounded the numbers but it works out to about 4.5 hits, not 4.969
DDD procs on 6s and allows you to shoot 1 extra shot for a .33% chance of a hit.
Tankbustas are incredibly weak compared to Eradicators and that is before you get into strats and aura buffs. Again, if they are considered OK (I think they are over priced) then Eradicators are a different level of OP Output wise they are worse, durability they are worse, synergy wise they are worse etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: can you explain to me how if you only take one its OP?
A unit is OP or it is not. Taking 1 or 100, it doesn't change the fact that the unit is itself OP.
Scatterbikes were OP in 7th, didn't matter if you took 1 squad of them or 6.
Just the maths because I can, 2.333 hits, another 1.555 off the rerolls. 0.648 hits from DDD, 0.432 from DDD reroll. Total of 4.969.
Yeah Tankbustas are worse than eradicators, thats a given, eradicators are too good/cheap, but they're not lightyears behind in terms of output, they're probably about right really.
2.33 hits = 1.16 6s which is .38 extra hits from DDD not .64 hits. rerolls nets you 4.67 shots which gets 1.55 hits and .77 DDD rerolls which is .25ish extra hits. I rounded the numbers but it works out to about 4.5 hits, not 4.969
DDD procs on 6s and allows you to shoot 1 extra shot for a .33% chance of a hit.
Tankbustas are incredibly weak compared to Eradicators and that is before you get into strats and aura buffs. Again, if they are considered OK (I think they are over priced) then Eradicators are a different level of OP Output wise they are worse, durability they are worse, synergy wise they are worse etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: can you explain to me how if you only take one its OP?
A unit is OP or it is not. Taking 1 or 100, it doesn't change the fact that the unit is itself OP.
Scatterbikes were OP in 7th, didn't matter if you took 1 squad of them or 6.
Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
Racerguy180 wrote: Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
For a casual player who detests "Feth you" lists. you sure are ok with a unit being OP so long as you only take 1 of them.
They are over powered because they are significantly better then any unit of similar type in the game. They cost less, do more damage and have more staying power. They have better rules and interactions and stratagems. That is what makes them OP.
The unit is OP, taking 1 of them doesn't make them not OP, spamming a maximum amount just makes the power imbalance that much more noticeable.
Just the maths because I can, 2.333 hits, another 1.555 off the rerolls. 0.648 hits from DDD, 0.432 from DDD reroll. Total of 4.969.
Yeah Tankbustas are worse than eradicators, thats a given, eradicators are too good/cheap, but they're not lightyears behind in terms of output, they're probably about right really.
2.33 hits = 1.16 6s which is .38 extra hits from DDD not .64 hits. rerolls nets you 4.67 shots which gets 1.55 hits and .77 DDD rerolls which is .25ish extra hits. I rounded the numbers but it works out to about 4.5 hits, not 4.969
DDD procs on 6s and allows you to shoot 1 extra shot for a .33% chance of a hit.
Tankbustas are incredibly weak compared to Eradicators and that is before you get into strats and aura buffs. Again, if they are considered OK (I think they are over priced) then Eradicators are a different level of OP Output wise they are worse, durability they are worse, synergy wise they are worse etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: can you explain to me how if you only take one its OP?
A unit is OP or it is not. Taking 1 or 100, it doesn't change the fact that the unit is itself OP.
Scatterbikes were OP in 7th, didn't matter if you took 1 squad of them or 6.
Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
So balance matters not, OP units don't matter?
If its much much better than equivalents as has repeatedly been proven on this thread then its bad for the game - if you can't understand that then "i dont know what to tell you"
...And friend maybe consider that if you are a lone voice shown with facts what the issue is that you ignore - then maybe consider the problem is not everyone else....but you.
And answer me this - WHY do you want OP units to exist?
Just the maths because I can, 2.333 hits, another 1.555 off the rerolls. 0.648 hits from DDD, 0.432 from DDD reroll. Total of 4.969.
Yeah Tankbustas are worse than eradicators, thats a given, eradicators are too good/cheap, but they're not lightyears behind in terms of output, they're probably about right really.
2.33 hits = 1.16 6s which is .38 extra hits from DDD not .64 hits. rerolls nets you 4.67 shots which gets 1.55 hits and .77 DDD rerolls which is .25ish extra hits. I rounded the numbers but it works out to about 4.5 hits, not 4.969
DDD procs on 6s and allows you to shoot 1 extra shot for a .33% chance of a hit.
Tankbustas are incredibly weak compared to Eradicators and that is before you get into strats and aura buffs. Again, if they are considered OK (I think they are over priced) then Eradicators are a different level of OP Output wise they are worse, durability they are worse, synergy wise they are worse etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: can you explain to me how if you only take one its OP?
A unit is OP or it is not. Taking 1 or 100, it doesn't change the fact that the unit is itself OP.
Scatterbikes were OP in 7th, didn't matter if you took 1 squad of them or 6.
I found it easier to group the ddds together from both the first rolls and the rerolls on the normal attacks, then work the 2ish extra shots out after as 1 set.
Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
A unit is either OP or it isn't. One unit is OP, 3 are much, much worse because when a unit is OP it tends to get increasing returns rather than diminishing returns when you run multiples. I'm sure most armies could probably deal with 1 unit, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are disproportionately good for their points - their offense is absurd for the points they cost and their defense is very good too.
It's not even about losing or winning against 1 or 3 units of them, it's simply about how powerful the unit is compared to its cost. The entire thread explains this, it's genuinely puzzling you don't seem to understand the problem if you've read the whole thing.
Racerguy180 wrote: Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
For a casual player who detests "Feth you" lists. you sure are ok with a unit being OP so long as you only take 1 of them.
They are over powered because they are significantly better then any unit of similar type in the game. They cost less, do more damage and have more staying power. They have better rules and interactions and stratagems. That is what makes them OP.
The unit is OP, taking 1 of them doesn't make them not OP, spamming a maximum amount just makes the power imbalance that much more noticeable.
One of them isnt OP, it won't win the game by its mere presence alone.
I'm ok with taking them irrespective of their rules. Cuz, ya know they fit my army. I was gonna use them as soon as I saw them, BEFORE THEIR RULES WERE KNOWN and I will continue to take them when they get inevitably nerfed due to how abusive competitive players complain about them.
Let's not take a the only melta(primaris) unit in a Salamanders list, might as well do the same for my bloody rose, oh and I'll toss out all those flamers while I'm at it then. Cuz apparently thematic units that so happen to be good(when spammed to the gills) have zero reason to be in an army that makes extensive use of meltas.
Racerguy180 wrote: Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
For a casual player who detests "Feth you" lists. you sure are ok with a unit being OP so long as you only take 1 of them.
They are over powered because they are significantly better then any unit of similar type in the game. They cost less, do more damage and have more staying power. They have better rules and interactions and stratagems. That is what makes them OP.
The unit is OP, taking 1 of them doesn't make them not OP, spamming a maximum amount just makes the power imbalance that much more noticeable.
One of them isnt OP, it won't win the game by its mere presence alone.
I'm ok with taking them irrespective of their rules. Cuz, ya know they fit my army. I was gonna use them as soon as I saw them, BEFORE THEIR RULES WERE KNOWN and I will continue to take them when they get inevitably nerfed due to how abusive competitive players complain about them.
Let's not take a the only melta(primaris) unit in a Salamanders list, might as well do the same for my bloody rose, oh and I'll toss out all those flamers while I'm at it then. Cuz apparently thematic units that so happen to be good(when spammed to the gills) have zero reason to be in an army that makes extensive use of meltas.
No one has said they aren't fluffy-but fluffy doesn't mean bad.
A unit being OP, in this case, is true whether you have one squad or three. It's not as overbearing with just one, but it's still far too killy and durable for its points, without really sacrificing anything.
Name a unit that, as of right now (you know, the game we're currently playing, not a hypothetical future gamestate where they've been nerfed or Fire Dragons got a buff) fills the same or similar role as well as Eradicators for their points.
One of them isnt OP, it won't win the game by its mere presence alone.
I'm ok with taking them irrespective of their rules. Cuz, ya know they fit my army. I was gonna use them as soon as I saw them, BEFORE THEIR RULES WERE KNOWN and I will continue to take them when they get inevitably nerfed due to how abusive competitive players complain about them.
Let's not take a the only melta(primaris) unit in a Salamanders list, might as well do the same for my bloody rose, oh and I'll toss out all those flamers while I'm at it then. Cuz apparently thematic units that so happen to be good(when spammed to the gills) have zero reason to be in an army that makes extensive use of meltas.
Nobody here is accusing you of purposely buying them to be TFG or a WAAC. but at the same time. Would nerfing Eradicators really break your heart? No? Then DONT WORRY ABOUT IT.
Racerguy-is your definition of OP "Wins the game by itself when included at all"?
Because that seems like an awfully narrow metric. Let's say a unit costs, I dunno... 120 points, when it would be better costed at 180. If it's not a Troop unit, you can take three at most, meaning that you spend 360 when you should be spending 540. That's 180 points "saved", and nearly 10% of a 2k list. But if that's your ONLY overpowered unit, and everything else is costed correctly, will that 10% guarantee you victory?
Of course not-skill and luck matter more than a small handicap. A 10% bonus is reasonably hefty-it'd certainly make the match easier-but it won't GUARANTEE you victory.
Daedalus81 wrote:I wonder how much the perception of eradicators would change if their range was 12/15/18" instead.
To me, one of the biggest issues is their long range. I like the idea that melta weapons usually sit between flamers and plasma in terms of range. I kinda always view them as a sort of microwave shotgun type weapon and want their rules to fill that area as 40k has a shockingly low amount of shotguns for my taste. I think 18" is good range for them as it makes it difficult to get the half range bonus without some maneuver or additional effort.
I'm ok with taking them irrespective of their rules. .
Then you shouldn't mind if their rules change or their points increase.
I want to take my Eradicators most games as well irrespective of rules too. I agree they are over powered and/or under pointed right now. I don't really it being feasible to fix them via points though. As it stands, I doubt I will ever actually get to shoot with them if I allow my opponent even the slightest chance to kill them beforehand. At the same time, I don't want to be burdened with multiple squads just have them be more than a distraction carnifex. I think keeping the datasheet as is puts them on a knife's edge of either being too good for their points or too many points to bother fielding them as anything more than a suicide unit.
I would much rather see their range go down to 18" and drop the shoot twice ability. Or at very least, change it from shoot twice to re-roll 1s to hit if shooting at the same target. Which according to some in this thread Eradicators basically already have anyways so might as well make it a redundant ability. I also wouldn't mind them being taken in squads of up to six as I think that is a good size, for lack of a better word, symmetry for heavy Primaris infantry.
They're going to do something with 9th codexes. Barring a major staff upheaval, the leaks and rumors imply they're in the middle of a moderate revamp of the major upheaval that came out of the Indexes. It probably hasn't been long enough for someone else to get put in charge and reboot the rules from scratch with the 8th and 9th 
Ynnari primarized eldars, with 2 wounds and larger sculpts.
... If they go 3+3 or more 
which again, moves the goal posts and puts them well and truly above Tankbustas.