Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Racerguy180 wrote: well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.
Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?
I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.
Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?
Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.
This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.
Or just remove double shoot and we're done.
what makes it overpreform for its cost? what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?
Can you name a single unit that performs a similar role as well as Eradicators, while still accounting for cost?
Because a unit should be balanced both externally (not significantly better or worse than other Codecs' units that fill a similar role) and internally (not significantly better or worse than other units in the same Codex that fill a similar role).
Which is not to say units should be identical-for instance, a glass cannon can be cheaper than a unit like Eradicators, even with the same damage output. Because they take less effort to remove. A Troops unit can be less durable than a similarly pointed Elites unit, because durable ObSec is more valuable than just plain old durable bodies.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
I wouldn't take their right to enjoy releases away, but they've as much right to enjoy a release as a blood angels player. Guess which one would get immediately attacked on these boards though.
Neither.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
If a player says "I can't wait to crush new players with these OP units!" then yeah, they're a jerkwad, but if they're more along the lines of "Oh, sweet! New models! Hope they look cool," then that's fine.
VladimirHerzog wrote: if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
It's difficult to gain cover for a Riptide.
And, assuming a Lord or Prince for RR1s, it takes...
162 BS3+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots.
But, as you're so fond of pointing out, Chaos relies on wombo-combos, so let's take a single Havoc squad with a Lord, Prescience and VotLW, shooting twice...
64 shots
2,240/36 or 560/9 hits
280/9 wounds
280/27 failed saves, for just over 10 damage.
Another singular Havoc squad can put 32 shots downrange, getting 24-25 hits, 8 or so wounds, and a good chance of finishing off the Riptide.
Now, I'm fully in agreement that you should not be able to buff up a singular squad to that monstrous level, and Havocs and other CSM units should be good on their own without so much crazy buff-stacking.
But we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about the game as it is.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
Rhino is significantly more vulnerable to Pule Rifles. Two less wounds and only a 3+ save means it takes...
But, against the Heavy Burst Cannon, T7 makes a big difference.
5 failed saves
7.5 wounds
22.5 hits
67.5 shots
Speaking of which, I just noticed I did make a mistake on my Lord Discordant/Heavy Burst Cannon math. I used 5+ to-wound, not 4+. The actual numbers are:
6 failed saves
12 wounds
24 hits
72 shots
So they're about as durable as each other to HBC, with the Rhino being easier to kill with Pulse Rifles.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves 72 wounds 216 5+ Overwatch hits 648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves 12 wounds 36 hits 108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
So charge with an Infantry unit from behind cover. Use anything that disables Overwatch. Or have multiple units ready to charge-once you FTGG, you can't Overwatch again.
Or, hell, just win on points. If the entire Tau army is just cornered up, they'll lose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/11 19:21:38
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
The ritual is complete, and Daemons begin spilling through to reality. There's only one surviving Cultist who is quickly beheaded by a Bloodletter, but the planet is still lost.
The comm pylon was protected for long enough to transmit vital data to the remainder of the Tau forces, even though there's no survivors.
The caravan of supplies that was making its way to the larger battlefront has made it through the pass, while the Ork assault was held off and prevented from disrupting it.
If you can't figure out a scenario that explains why a side can win despite suffering greater or even total losses, you lack imagination.
And if your sole criteria for a wargame's gameplay is "Kill the opposition" then I'm not sure wargames are for you.
Do you actually WANT the only objective to be killing enemy models?
Because to me, that sounds boring as hell as a default. An occasional game of that, whether to get a new player acquainted with the rules, or just a relaxing break from actually having to think beyond target priority is fine. But as the main ruleset? No. Not good.
I think that'd be a mistake as it's turn orks over night from a hoard army into an elites army. that said I'd be fine with them shifting Nobz to the troops slot (Nobz have 2 wounds yeah?) and thus letting Orks decide if they want quantity or quality
Why couldn't they stay horde though being at W2? T4 6+ is not a tough Stateline to cut through and it would double their resistance to D1 weapons and realt make them tougher to get that charge they need.
If you think about it, it's like cutting their points in half but without the consequence of turning them into Infantry squads.
because a second wound costs a fair bit of points.
your basic Nob is 17 PPM, and gains 1 wound and 2 armor for that price. (IMHO the Nob could proably stand to get a points reduction to 16 PPM gven the 17 PPM cost of assault intercessors) assuming Boyz are costed approperatly, they'd proably go up to something like 15 or so PPM, nearly doubling their cost. this would dramaticly cut down on the sizes of Ork armies in terms of bodies and it'd make the line between Nobz and boyz a little too small. so yeah I'd rather see Boyz remain at one wound and Nobz made troops. this would give Orks effectively three tiers of troop quality giving them some flexability in list building
Why do you say a T4 6+ W2 Troop needs to be 15 PPM?
If they are 14 (7+7)PL 28 PPM(14 PL x 20points per PL/10 models) they're 280 points for 30 T5 Wounds and 10-20ish slightly better shots (assuming Heavy Bolt Rifle, no Heavy options just the base) (and 21-31 close combat)
A LRC is slightly more PL, barely more points, for 16 T8 2+ W. and 36 shots.
280 points of intercessors gets you 28 T4 3+ wounds and 14-28 slightly worse shots.
Not Quite 280 points of Mini Calgar Aggressors gets you 18 T5 W and 36 + shots.
280 points of Boyz gets you about 35 T4 6+ wounds, 35-70 + shots, and 105+ Close Combat attacks.
280 points of Terminators (this Month) gets you 14-16 (280 falls kind of in the middle of One Terminator added/subtracted) T4 2+/5++ wounds, and 42 shots.
Where exactly is the absurd part?
It takes 27 HITS at S4 to kill 1 Heavy Intercessor on average. It takes 2.32ish hits to kill 1 Boy. Another way to put it, it takes about 35 boyz armed with Shootas, all within 18' of 1 Heavy intercessor to kill him. So 280pts of Orkz to kill 28pts of HI. In CC Those 35 Shoota boyz are dealing (Assuming illegal squad size of 35) 105 CC attacks for 23 wounds which inflicts almost 8 dmg, or 2 dead Intercessors. So 280pts of Orkz in their amazing assault phase are able to kill 56pts of HI, almost 82.
In response those 10 HI's are dealing 20 shots (Assuming bolter discipline) for 14ish hits and 10ish dead orkz (No saves allowed) for 80pts worth of dead Orkz. Ohh, did I mention at 36' range...or double that of the boyz? And in CC those 10 Intercessors are getting 20 attacks for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds for 6 dead boyz or 48pts of dead Orkz.
In a pure shooting battle those HI's win every single time, and since they have twice the range of boyz with stronger guns and more AP...im going to assume they will be shooting a lot more then charging into CC. And if they do get into CC, a full strength squad of 30 boyz is only able to kill 2 on average. In fact, add in the Pistols from the HI's and that 30 Boy mob is likely to LOSE in CC against HIs.
Not sure why you'd use shoota boyz and no rokkits (which are conveniently D3) or why you leave home without a PK/big choppa.
Or why you don't point out that HI are objectively no better than Intercessors at killing boyz.
With some luck (deathskulls) that unit could kill 1 to 4 HI.
It takes...
5+ DDD to-hit is a 2.57 multiplier
3+ to-wound is a 1.5 mutlpier
5+ save is another 1.5 multiplier
Just shy of 6 Rokkits to kill a single Heavy Intercessor, with no FNP, cover, or penalties to-hit.
A PK or Big Choppa does add a lot of melee punch, though.
Xenomancers wrote: Comes down to using the right gun for the right job. Bolters are not good at killing 1 wound space marines ether. Point flat 3 damage weapons at the gravis and you get huge points return.
Boys are overcosted RN. No question about it. If I played orks I wouldn't even run troops atm. Good thing is - you don't have to.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Did you guys really think Eliminators wouldn't be core when Terminators were revealed as core?
No, but I'm quite curious as to whether Reece is blowing smoke up our asses about Aggressor nerfs and since CORE isn't it then what and does that also apply to Eradicators.
Well considering the source... Seriously, maybe aggressors lose their double shoot? Don't know.
As far as eradicators, I never really factored rerolls into their effectiveness. When the codex drops loyalists will be limited to one captain per detachment, are they going to relegate that captain to units that need to get within 24 to be effective against their targets? Eradicators seem almost tailor made for the new tactical reserves rules, they want to get in deep into your lines. That's what I think makes them good, they're effective without character support. I'm more worried about the strategems that will still affect them if they get the CORE keyword, 9 T5 3+ wounds with Transhuman Physiology tacked on them will be an aggravation to get rid of. Maybe we'll get lucky and that won't make it into the new codex, but I doubt it. Gw likes messing with the wounding table too much.
Just charge them. Their threat range is in reasonable charge range for almost any unit if they coming in from the edge of the table. Charge them with a tank! Even better.
Yes, flattening them with the Fellblade they came to kill would be quite satisfying, but with Transhuman Physiology it ain't happening. Better to just feed them to the Warp Talons. And that's still assuming there's only one squad of the little buggers.
Just saying game mechanics wise - charging them with a tank is great. Transhuman not going to be too helpful there ether - because that unit is never shooting again anyways. Erads can't fall back and shoot and tanks can shoot into their own melee and can keep recharging them when they fallback. Fellblade is t9 also. A unit of erads does very little to a fellblade.
Warp talons will shred them though.
A Feelblade is also ridiculously overpriced.
Also, 10 Warp Talons (1 attack, +1 for first round of combat, +1 for dual Lightning Claws, and the Champ gets a singular extra one too) do...
31 attacks
63/3 hits
315/27 or 35/3 wounds
70/9 failed saves, for two dead and one wounded assuming no FNP
So, for more than twice the price of three Eradicators, you can almost kill a squad! Assuming, you know, you can charge them. It's definitely possible (I believe Warp Talons can get up to +4 to a charge out of Deep Strike) but is it worth it?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Did you guys really think Eliminators wouldn't be core when Terminators were revealed as core?
No, but I'm quite curious as to whether Reece is blowing smoke up our asses about Aggressor nerfs and since CORE isn't it then what and does that also apply to Eradicators.
Well considering the source... Seriously, maybe aggressors lose their double shoot? Don't know.
As far as eradicators, I never really factored rerolls into their effectiveness. When the codex drops loyalists will be limited to one captain per detachment, are they going to relegate that captain to units that need to get within 24 to be effective against their targets? Eradicators seem almost tailor made for the new tactical reserves rules, they want to get in deep into your lines. That's what I think makes them good, they're effective without character support. I'm more worried about the strategems that will still affect them if they get the CORE keyword, 9 T5 3+ wounds with Transhuman Physiology tacked on them will be an aggravation to get rid of. Maybe we'll get lucky and that won't make it into the new codex, but I doubt it. Gw likes messing with the wounding table too much.
Just charge them. Their threat range is in reasonable charge range for almost any unit if they coming in from the edge of the table. Charge them with a tank! Even better.
Yes, flattening them with the Fellblade they came to kill would be quite satisfying, but with Transhuman Physiology it ain't happening. Better to just feed them to the Warp Talons. And that's still assuming there's only one squad of the little buggers.
Just saying game mechanics wise - charging them with a tank is great. Transhuman not going to be too helpful there ether - because that unit is never shooting again anyways. Erads can't fall back and shoot and tanks can shoot into their own melee and can keep recharging them when they fallback. Fellblade is t9 also. A unit of erads does very little to a fellblade.
Warp talons will shred them though.
A Feelblade is also ridiculously overpriced.
Also, 10 Warp Talons (1 attack, +1 for first round of combat, +1 for dual Lightning Claws, and the Champ gets a singular extra one too) do...
31 attacks
63/3 hits
315/27 or 35/3 wounds
70/9 failed saves, for two dead and one wounded assuming no FNP
So, for more than twice the price of three Eradicators, you can almost kill a squad! Assuming, you know, you can charge them. It's definitely possible (I believe Warp Talons can get up to +4 to a charge out of Deep Strike) but is it worth it?
Well they would kill the eradicators in melee in their next turn. Also IDK if you are factoring in DTTFE.
Agreed - fellblade costs too much. It's maingun is fething garbo too.
That is my bad-I always forget DttFE.
That increases damage by 7/6ths, for a total of 490/54 or 245/27, just BARELY enough to kill the Eradicators (assuming no FNP).
Which is... Probably WORSE for the Warp Talons, actually. If they're Night Lords and an Eradicator survives, you can stop them from falling back, meaning you have to get charged to do anything. With all the Eradicators dead, there's no protection, meaning you're looking at (currently) 10 T4 3+ wounds to survive. (Soon to be 20.)
And there's still the issue that you dropped 270 points and probably some CP to kill one 120 point squad.
Xenomancers wrote: Ultras can fall back and shoot at -1. Even as successors they can do it for 1 CP. Tactical prowess man...what can I say...
In all fairness any advantage gained by ultras fall back and shoot ability is lost in losing all the other great special rules you could have had. Like imperial fist super bolters...or Ironhands FNP. If guess their suicide erradicators aren't bad.
I fully expect erads to go up to 135/150 pints per unit.
