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.

ERJAK wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, you notice nobody's talking about the new landspeeder or not-a-predators? Because, why bother? No invul or T9 and any vehicle is DOA with eradicators around (and the rest of your army will be DOA after you pay for the T9).

You know that eradicators aren't the ONLY reason right? It's also the fact that they're just way too expensive for what they do and that changing multimeltas without changing their price has created a situation where EVERY imperium and chaos army has crazy anti-armor now. A unit of SoB retributors is nowhere near as tanky as eradicators but does more damage per point thanks to the MM changes.


Not that eradicators aren't way above board, they clearly ARE, it's just not the only reason no one is going to play the new vehicles.

While I agree with you about vehicles being too expensive generally, you do realize that chaos has exactly three units, unless there's something obscure that I'm forgetting about, that can take multi-meltas, and two of those are fw units.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, you notice nobody's talking about the new landspeeder or not-a-predators? Because, why bother? No invul or T9 and any vehicle is DOA with eradicators around (and the rest of your army will be DOA after you pay for the T9).

I have been.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
While I agree with you about vehicles being too expensive generally, you do realize that chaos has exactly three units, unless there's something obscure that I'm forgetting about, that can take multi-meltas, and two of those are fw units.

Arise Myphitic Blight-Hauler, and destroy them all.
Oh wait you're 100 points? As you were.

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
While I agree with you about vehicles being too expensive generally, you do realize that chaos has exactly three units, unless there's something obscure that I'm forgetting about, that can take multi-meltas, and two of those are fw units.

Arise Myphitic Blight-Hauler, and destroy them all.
Oh wait you're 100 points? As you were.

The humble hellbrute maybee? But that thing allready is also alot over

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, this is almost as bad as the Castellan Apologists that 8th had....Space Marines aren't broken!!! You Can't nerf them! Seriously, every time the hot new thing gets a unanimously decreed broken thing, the hordes come out to say it's not broken. Can anyone honestly provide a justification for Eradicators not getting a nerf?

EDIT: Rule 1

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
While I agree with you about vehicles being too expensive generally, you do realize that chaos has exactly three units, unless there's something obscure that I'm forgetting about, that can take multi-meltas, and two of those are fw units.

Arise Myphitic Blight-Hauler, and destroy them all.
Oh wait you're 100 points? As you were.

Ah, that makes four. I was thinking of Hellbrutes, Hellforged Contemptors, and the Hellforged Land Raider Achilles. Sorry, not that familiar with Death Guard.

Thing is, i can't think off anything remotly comparable without going into combi melta terminator territory performance wise, and even then, you'd pay more for less shots, less range, t5 vs SV2+ can be a wash...

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, this is almost as bad as the Castellan Apologists that 8th had....Space Marines aren't broken!!! You Can't nerf them! Seriously, every time the hot new thing gets a unanimously decreed broken thing, the hordes come out to say it's not broken. Can anyone honestly provide a justification for Eradicators not getting a nerf?

Careful. You’ll have dudeface and friends on your case in a second. Honest analysis? they no likey your kind around here, it’s all about downplaying your own personal collection because what’s better than easy mode, when you’re a terrible player?

Wow you managed to make a direct insult in under 3k words, much improved.

But no Fezzik, multiple people showed that custodes aren't vulnerable to Eradicators, the only unit you complained about and they do need a nerf. But not against custodes, they're fine.

What definition are we using for Custodes *not* being vulnerable to Eradicators?

Okay, its not a comic 100% return which I didn't think GW would put in the game - but I think on average dice you'd expect to kill a custode with either version. Which is 50/120 or 50/135. Sticking the MM complicates it even further.

In either case - a 35-40% return before any buffs was the historic norm for being *good*. Custodes have their own protections which would reduce it but still. They have them versus most other things too.

Tyel wrote:
What definition are we using for Custodes *not* being vulnerable to Eradicators?

Okay, its not a comic 100% return which I didn't think GW would put in the game - but I think on average dice you'd expect to kill a custode with either version. Which is 50/120 or 50/135. Sticking the MM complicates it even further.

In either case - a 35-40% return before any buffs was the historic norm for being *good*. Custodes have their own protections which would reduce it but still. They have them versus most other things too.

They're good as you note, but they're one of eradicators most resilient targets, when they can one shot tanks worth more than they are, bagging 50 points of custodes is a poor return *in comparison*.

Tyel wrote:
What definition are we using for Custodes *not* being vulnerable to Eradicators?

Okay, its not a comic 100% return which I didn't think GW would put in the game - but I think on average dice you'd expect to kill a custode with either version. Which is 50/120 or 50/135. Sticking the MM complicates it even further.

In either case - a 35-40% return before any buffs was the historic norm for being *good*. Custodes have their own protections which would reduce it but still. They have them versus most other things too.

Comic 100% return, you mean like pre-nerf Aggressors who were 40pts and killing about 48-56pts of Ork boyz a turn? without buffs mind you or are you talking about POST nerf Aggressors 45pts which can only kill 24-32pts of boyz a turn?

My general rule which apparently has been adopted was a unit should be able to kill about 33% of its value a turn to be good. This was based on the idea that most units in the game don't live past turn 3, so they have 3ish turns to make their points back before GG. Some will survive to turn 5 but generally not many.

At the moment, Eradicators earn back between 20-27% of their cost killing ORK BOYZ! Against units like even Tac Marines those Eradicators are earning back 45-60% of their cost.

They are hyper efficient at killing vehicles and elite infantry, and aren't that bad at killing horde either.

Yeah, but efficient anti-tank also being efficient against infantry is just a systemic flaw in 40k. You're never going to get an efficient anti-tank weapon that isn't efficient against infantry, thanks to them being on the same scale as anti-infantry weapons.

Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, but efficient anti-tank also being efficient against infantry is just a systemic flaw in 40k. You're never going to get an efficient anti-tank weapon that isn't efficient against infantry, thanks to them being on the same scale as anti-infantry weapons.

....Lascannon Devestator is 30pts and has a .66 chance to hit, .55 chance to wound and kill 1 ork boy, or in other words it earns back 4.4pts a turn vs horde. 4.4pts is equivalent to 14.6% of its cost, that is where it should be.

Tyel wrote:
What definition are we using for Custodes *not* being vulnerable to Eradicators?

Okay, its not a comic 100% return which I didn't think GW would put in the game - but I think on average dice you'd expect to kill a custode with either version. Which is 50/120 or 50/135. Sticking the MM complicates it even further.

In either case - a 35-40% return before any buffs was the historic norm for being *good*. Custodes have their own protections which would reduce it but still. They have them versus most other things too.

I mean no.

I would not classify a 35-40% return as good for a unit that I need to be 12" away, i.e. suicide range.

A "good" suicide unit is one where you can get an 80-100% return in a good situation. Because generally, an opponent can remove them with about that efficiency at their leisure.

Eradicators are obnoxious both on the offense front (very easy to get 100% or over vs good targets) and on the defense front (fairly difficult to get 100% points return killing them with most common stuff).

SemperMortis wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, but efficient anti-tank also being efficient against infantry is just a systemic flaw in 40k. You're never going to get an efficient anti-tank weapon that isn't efficient against infantry, thanks to them being on the same scale as anti-infantry weapons.

....Lascannon Devestator is 30pts and has a .66 chance to hit, .55 chance to wound and kill 1 ork boy, or in other words it earns back 4.4pts a turn vs horde. 4.4pts is equivalent to 14.6% of its cost, that is where it should be.

Sorry, what's defining where they should be?

Nurglitch wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, but efficient anti-tank also being efficient against infantry is just a systemic flaw in 40k. You're never going to get an efficient anti-tank weapon that isn't efficient against infantry, thanks to them being on the same scale as anti-infantry weapons.

....Lascannon Devestator is 30pts and has a .66 chance to hit, .55 chance to wound and kill 1 ork boy, or in other words it earns back 4.4pts a turn vs horde. 4.4pts is equivalent to 14.6% of its cost, that is where it should be.

Sorry, what's defining where they should be?

My own metrics for power of a unit. I've said a unit should kill 33% of its points value a turn to be good, but that is against its desired target. IE Lascannons against tanks and what not. But against things its not meant to kill it should be significantly less efficient. So 33% is good, half that would be bad and where an anti-tank weapon should be when trying to kill infantry.

A unit should not be amazing at killing both infantry and tanks without costing an absolute TON of points.

SemperMortis wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, but efficient anti-tank also being efficient against infantry is just a systemic flaw in 40k. You're never going to get an efficient anti-tank weapon that isn't efficient against infantry, thanks to them being on the same scale as anti-infantry weapons.

....Lascannon Devestator is 30pts and has a .66 chance to hit, .55 chance to wound and kill 1 ork boy, or in other words it earns back 4.4pts a turn vs horde. 4.4pts is equivalent to 14.6% of its cost, that is where it should be.

Sorry, what's defining where they should be?

My own metrics for power of a unit. I've said a unit should kill 33% of its points value a turn to be good, but that is against its desired target. IE Lascannons against tanks and what not. But against things its not meant to kill it should be significantly less efficient. So 33% is good, half that would be bad and where an anti-tank weapon should be when trying to kill infantry.

A unit should not be amazing at killing both infantry and tanks without costing an absolute TON of points.

Makes sense, but why is 33% pegged as good? What is it about the game that makes killing 1/3 of a model's points-value a turn objectively good?

I don't mean to distract the thread... Maybe follow up as a PM?

I originally came to that conclusion based on 7th edition tactics which meant most units were dead by turn 3. So they need to earn their points back by turn 3 in order to be good.

SemperMortis wrote:
I originally came to that conclusion based on 7th edition tactics which meant most units were dead by turn 3. So they need to earn their points back by turn 3 in order to be good.

What about a unit with intentionally low output but high survivability ala plague marines, or stupidly high damage output but relatively low survival rate, I.e. melta retributors?

Neither of those would fit that because it disregards the notion of longevity.

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I originally came to that conclusion based on 7th edition tactics which meant most units were dead by turn 3. So they need to earn their points back by turn 3 in order to be good.

What about a unit with intentionally low output but high survivability ala plague marines, or stupidly high damage output but relatively low survival rate, I.e. melta retributors?

Neither of those would fit that because it disregards the notion of longevity.

Which is why its a general rule not a set in stone rule. But its obvious for some units when it applies, like eradicators and aggressors...they are just OP across the board.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I originally came to that conclusion based on 7th edition tactics which meant most units were dead by turn 3. So they need to earn their points back by turn 3 in order to be good.

What about a unit with intentionally low output but high survivability ala plague marines, or stupidly high damage output but relatively low survival rate, I.e. melta retributors?

Neither of those would fit that because it disregards the notion of longevity.

Which is why its a general rule not a set in stone rule. But its obvious for some units when it applies, like eradicators and aggressors...they are just OP across the board.

So what if we factor in longevity?

Nurglitch wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I originally came to that conclusion based on 7th edition tactics which meant most units were dead by turn 3. So they need to earn their points back by turn 3 in order to be good.

What about a unit with intentionally low output but high survivability ala plague marines, or stupidly high damage output but relatively low survival rate, I.e. melta retributors?

Neither of those would fit that because it disregards the notion of longevity.

Which is why its a general rule not a set in stone rule. But its obvious for some units when it applies, like eradicators and aggressors...they are just OP across the board.

So what if we factor in longevity?

If we factor in longevity, Eradicators should return an order of magnitude less points on their initial suicide volley than SOB retributors or CWE Fire Dragons, units that they are orders of magnitude more durable than.

The comparison between Retributors and Eradicators should be similar to the comparison between Fire Dragons and Wraithguard.

it ain't.

Sorry but why are Eradicators a suicide unit? Also why 12 away, they can be 24" away? Okay some randomness on the D6 damage - but rolling a 3+ isn't difficult.

Okay, people will try to kill them. But in a min-sized unit, they are still 9 T5 3+ marines for 120 points. They are not I think by any definition "fragile" in current 40k. They die because just about everything dies.

I'd tended to think a 33% return pre-buffs is about the minimum for "viable" in most of 8th edition. The game is a bit different now due to being more objective focused, but I don't think its changed. If you are getting a 40% or so return, you are doing fine. Even 25% usually isn't bad, in the context of a whole turn. Its when you drop below this - to the 10-15% range, that you know you are doing something wrong.

So I just want to make sure I understand the new melta rules....

These guys at 11.9 inches get 2 shots of D6+2damage s8 shooting, 3ws a pop, BS3+. for 40 points. At 12 they just get d6 damage.

Yeah, easy. That poses NO problem. Nothing some S4 AP1 shooting can't stop.......oh wait.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to make sure I understand the new melta rules....

These guys at 11.9 inches get 2 shots of D6+2damage s8 shooting, 3ws a pop, BS3+. for 40 points. At 12 they just get d6 damage.

Yeah, easy. That poses NO problem. Nothing some S4 AP1 shooting can't stop.......oh wait.

Well - they dont get the +2 damage with the rifles. The heavy melta rifle does - but that is also a heavy weapon. They are still very OP just trying to get the facts straight.

I would just like to point out though that without 2 shots these guys aren't good at all and will never be taken. Much like aggressors will never be taken with no more shooting twice. Shooting twice makes almost any unit too good. Units should just be good on their own without a special rule.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to make sure I understand the new melta rules....

These guys at 11.9 inches get 2 shots of D6+2damage s8 shooting, 3ws a pop, BS3+. for 40 points. At 12 they just get d6 damage.

Yeah, easy. That poses NO problem. Nothing some S4 AP1 shooting can't stop.......oh wait.

Well - they dont get the +2 damage with the rifles. The heavy melta rifle does - but that is also a heavy weapon. They are still very OP just trying to get the facts straight.

I would just like to point out though that without 2 shots these guys aren't good at all and will never be taken. Much like aggressors will never be taken with no more shooting twice. Shooting twice makes almost any unit too good. Units should just be good on their own without a special rule.

No he has it right. The Melta Rifle is basic melta, but +2 under half. The roll two dice melta is gone completely.

I was about to say, I'm pretty sure the new Melta rules across the board are changed, except for Custodes spears (BECAUSE THEY DON'T SAY THE WORD MELTA)

EDIT: Then again, wait till FW just dials it up to 11, and the Melta spears become S9 at range 14, with double shots and D3+3 damage.

Jebus...it is worse than I thought.

The heavy melta is d6+2 all the time and d6+4 at half range.....

 Xenomancers wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to make sure I understand the new melta rules....

These guys at 11.9 inches get 2 shots of D6+2damage s8 shooting, 3ws a pop, BS3+. for 40 points. At 12 they just get d6 damage.

Yeah, easy. That poses NO problem. Nothing some S4 AP1 shooting can't stop.......oh wait.

Well - they dont get the +2 damage with the rifles. The heavy melta rifle does - but that is also a heavy weapon. They are still very OP just trying to get the facts straight.

I would just like to point out though that without 2 shots these guys aren't good at all and will never be taken. Much like aggressors will never be taken with no more shooting twice. Shooting twice makes almost any unit too good. Units should just be good on their own without a special rule.

Why arent aggressors going to be taken at 45pts a model? Same stat line as Eradicators except they kill Hordes like crazy. Again, without buffs a unit of 3 is killing 10 ork boyz a turn. 135pts kills 80. Just shy of a 60% return on investment in 1 turn. And if they get into CC they are as good as Ork Meganobz in CC.

As far as shoot twice making units too good/OP. 25 Lootas in 8th cost 425pts, to get them into 1 Mob required 1 CP, Shoot twice with rerolls 1s cost 3CP. So 4 CP to get this unit to shoot twice, averages 100 S7 -1AP D2 shots, of which, with dakka and reroll 1s you will get about 44ish hits (33 hits, 33 rerolls for another 11ish hits). Against a T7 Vehicle they were 22 wounds, -1 AP mean 11 go through for 22 dmg. This was considered broken good and was nerfed so it could never happen again. 4 CP to get this, plus 1 CP for grot shields to keep it alive for longer than 1 turn, because T4 6+ isn't hard to melt through. Eradicators at max size are what? 280pts? fully upgraded to heavy and multi-meltas. They get 16 shots, 10-11 hits and 6-8 wounds vs a T7 vehicle. COMPLETELY goes through armor so it does 6xD6+2 dmg which averages out to 26ish damage? No CP required and half the points.

Think about that. GW realized a Loota bomb was just too powerful, costing 425pts and needing 4CP Plus another 1 CP for grot shields and at least 30 grots to make them durable so another 90ish points and you had to spend 4 CP a turn to keep them at that level. This was broken.

So GW instead created Aggressors and Eradicators which are Loota bombs on crack. BTW, lootas got nerfed in 9th, going up in price 17%.

Humm lets see...because 8ish bolter shots at 18" range isnt that great. Str 4 ap-0 shots are literally garabge. The only reason they were taken was because the sheer amount of dice allowed them to hurt things they shouldn't threaten. And because the sheer weight of the dice when buffed by chaplains and doctrines enhances their damage like 6 fold. The powerfists are nice but rarely used on a unit that tries to get into 18" to shoot at things. Agressors are totally medicore now. Why would I take over an outrider?

It wasn't the actual Lootas that were considered broken. It was the combo of a unit shooting twice that youll never kill because grot shield was busted.

I'm not defending erads ether. They are OP. Remove their double shots at the same target though and they are monotonous.

However with this new heavy melta rilfe...I think that puppy is fine with just 1 shot.