Switch Theme:

And now for today's dose of salt  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?


Because in a world were the Units Rose in price These are verifably contrastable with their own released 500pts/25 pl powerlevel list Patrol exemples questionable?

Edit :autocorrect.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/30 22:44:52


   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
They're all suicide squads. Nobody lets a full melta unit stay in their face. Internal balance and external balance will play a role in what is fair for available units. Certainly it'd be nicer to have the harder to remove Eradicators. People in lower levels of play will have a harder time removing them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not appropriate.


It rather feels like you're ignoring the actual, relevant point- which is that Retributors cannot have comparable point-for-point firepower to Eradicators unless Eradicators are significantly more expensive than their PL implies- in order to harp on why their durability is irrelevant.

Even if that were a legitimate point (every shot spent taking them out is a shot not spent on something else), you're ignoring the more directly relevant part of the equation. 'Eradicators are fine at 30-35pts, just wait and see, maybe Retributors will be made just as good' is bogus. It can not, and will not, happen.


Also, retributors aren't suicide squads. Only an idiot would run a suicide squad of mm rets. They're a VH tank squad that can hopefully bait out some anti-infantry firepower. Which is also something the eradicators can do, except at 33% higher damage output for HALF THE PRICE.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in au
Navigator




Brisbane

 Dysartes wrote:
 Slayer6 wrote:
Ah I see, his definition of ‘Decimation’ is ‘Elimination’.
Mine is: reduce to a critical level. And losing 66% of the unit’s strength fits the definition rather aptly.


So neither of you are using it correctly, at least in terms of its original definition? Good to know.


I am well aware of the Roman act of Decimation where one in ten soldiers draws the short straw and ends up being clubbed to death by his comrades.

I am also pretty sure you have read the term used when regarding military units which have taken severe casualties during conflicts - WW1 for instance.

Next petty comment please.

Seriously give us another!




I don't think the Primaris units are very tough in general - unless they start getting their own heavy invulnerable saves or FnP rolls.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 22:56:06


 
   
Made in nl
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?

Because WE don't get to decide anything at the of the day and all we are seeing is GW making it usable for one faction (who arguably doesn't even need it) while the rest are left in the dust once again. I'm not against SM getting usable melta but I'm very much against GW handing out free candy to their poster boys while we get to eat gak once again. Not too mention this is not their first insult, everyone's bikers get +1 wounds but primaris get +2 because why?
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?

A: Because the Melta Rifle is strictly better than the Multimelta
and
B: Multimeltas aren't particularly bad, they're just overshadowed by the other options in most cases. Las, Plasma and Grav are better choices.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Let's say that the best way to fix multimeltas is to cut their cost to 15pts, on par with a lascannon.

Aggressors are 21pts base. Let's be generous and discount that to 18pts for having 1 less attack.

Eradicators effectively have two multimeltas, but hey, let's be generous and say that the extra shot only counts for 60%.

That gives us 18pts base, 15pts for the first multimelta, and 9pts for the second, for a total of 42pts.

I think I'm being extremely generous here, since Aggressors are under-costed to start with, and for all intents and purposes it might as well just be two multimeltas. What's the logic behind ~30-36pts each being appropriate?
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?

A: Because the Melta Rifle is strictly better than the Multimelta
and
B: Multimeltas aren't particularly bad, they're just overshadowed by the other options in most cases. Las, Plasma and Grav are better choices.


The only way to make MM work as marines is Salamanders, and it's still not that great. I prefer taking regular melta guns, and even then I know I'm playing those because I want to, not because they're the best option.
They do work somewhat when used with a drop pod, but now you're looking at way too many points for a suicide squad

Catbarf:aggressors are also able to shoot twice (usually needs a CP or a stupid or unlucky enemy, though)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 23:10:09


 
   
Made in us
Sister Oh-So Repentia





This is the most disgusting thing iv seen as a sisters player

"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost" 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Not for nothing, but if the B&C leaks are true a MM went down a whopping ONE point so that should totally make up for a 3W, T5, 2 shot, assault MM model being roughly the same price as a 1W T3, 1 shot, heavy MM model.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 catbarf wrote:
Let's say that the best way to fix multimeltas is to cut their cost to 15pts, on par with a lascannon.

Aggressors are 21pts base. Let's be generous and discount that to 18pts for having 1 less attack.

Eradicators effectively have two multimeltas, but hey, let's be generous and say that the extra shot only counts for 60%.

That gives us 18pts base, 15pts for the first multimelta, and 9pts for the second, for a total of 42pts.

I think I'm being extremely generous here, since Aggressors are under-costed to start with, and for all intents and purposes it might as well just be two multimeltas. What's the logic behind ~30-36pts each being appropriate?

IIRC Aggressors were 43 pmm with the first space marine codex. Back when they only had 2 wounds per model. If they are increasing pts across the board in 9th these guys could be more like 45pts+ per model.

BTW I was looking over battlescribe earlier and points per power level for current pimaris marine units varies a lot actually. Roughly ranging from 17 to 26 pts per PL.
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 catbarf wrote:
Let's say that the best way to fix multimeltas is to cut their cost to 15pts, on par with a lascannon.
Lascannons are 25 points. Plasma Cannons are 16.

nekooni wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?

A: Because the Melta Rifle is strictly better than the Multimelta
and
B: Multimeltas aren't particularly bad, they're just overshadowed by the other options in most cases. Las, Plasma and Grav are better choices.


The only way to make MM work as marines is Salamanders, and it's still not that great. I prefer taking regular melta guns, and even then I know I'm playing those because I want to, not because they're the best option.
They do work somewhat when used with a drop pod, but now you're looking at way too many points for a suicide squad

Catbarf:aggressors are also able to shoot twice (usually needs a CP or a stupid or unlucky enemy, though)

Multimeltas will get you the Melta bonus at 12" range, aka withing Deep Strike range, and Imo that's their main benefit. UM can ignore the movement penalty for the Pod Deep Striking, so not unreasonable to go that route. The rerolls you can get in various ways.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

nekooni wrote:
Catbarf:aggressors are also able to shoot twice (usually needs a CP or a stupid or unlucky enemy, though)


I'm not giving them that as a freebie in the cost analysis for three reasons:
-18 (or 21, for that matter) points for a T5, W3, 3+ platform is plenty strong on its own.
-Unlike Aggressors, Eradicators don't need to stand still, so their shoot-twice condition is so easy to fulfill it might as well just be the core profile of the weapon.
-Kataphron Breachers (with worse BS, mind you) are 20pts, with no innate shoot-twice.

But yeah, if we assume the Aggressor profile minus an attack is worth 18pts, and a multimelta is really worth 15 points, then that comes to 33pts, right in the middle of the PL-based range... except we've given them shoot-twice completely for free. Wouldn't hear any arguments from me if it was 30-36pts for a multimelta on a tough infantry platform; they'd be Retributors except actually durable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blood Hawk wrote:IIRC Aggressors were 43 pmm with the first space marine codex. Back when they only had 2 wounds per model. If they are increasing pts across the board in 9th these guys could be more like 45pts+ per model.

BTW I was looking over battlescribe earlier and points per power level for current pimaris marine units varies a lot actually. Roughly ranging from 17 to 26 pts per PL.


That's mostly because PL was never updated in Chapter Approved, so points went up and down while PL remained the same.

Insectum7 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Let's say that the best way to fix multimeltas is to cut their cost to 15pts, on par with a lascannon.
Lascannons are 25 points. Plasma Cannons are 16.


Good catch, so even more affordable then. Got confused with the cost for BS4+ armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/01 00:25:33


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Nalim wrote:
To sum it up: These dudes are a (slightly worse) infantry version of a Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. A very good unit, yes, but nothing you see dominating tables.


A couple things. Tank commanders are a must take 3-of in every single Guard list and are 100% the first things to get targeted down by the enemy. You don't see it dominating the tournaments because the rest of the codex doesn't come close to what tank commanders provide. If you could take "tank commander, but in infantry form" and "tank commander but in fast attack form" you would see guard lists rocking it out there.

Second thing. It's basically impossible to hide leman russ tanks, or benefit from any sort of cover, so enemy anti tank has no problems gunning them down turn 1. For infantry like eradicators it's going to be very easy to plop them in terrain (for +1 save and/or -1 to hit) and out of LOS to protect them turn 1. And then just waltz out when you want and you get first shot every time. Any guard player will tell you, if you get first turn, tanks are great. If not, kiss your tank commanders goodbye.

Third thing, tied with the second, Eradicators being infantry allows them to much greater movement. They can jump from building to building, run through walls, etc. Tanks are funneled down roads and paths. And with 9th edition having smaller boards that are more terrain-dense, I think that'll leave even LESS room to maneuver tanks around. I think it'll be much easier to keep important targets away from demolishers than from eradicators.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Mississippi

So is it time to start having divisions in tournaments. I mean if GW plans to keep marines at this insane power level it’s kind of needed.

Just split it up like UFC weight classes.

-marines

-everyone else

That should balance most the game out.
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






ThePorcupine wrote:
Nalim wrote:
To sum it up: These dudes are a (slightly worse) infantry version of a Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. A very good unit, yes, but nothing you see dominating tables.


A couple things. Tank commanders are a must take 3-of in every single Guard list and are 100% the first things to get targeted down by the enemy. You don't see it dominating the tournaments because the rest of the codex doesn't come close to what tank commanders provide. If you could take "tank commander, but in infantry form" and "tank commander but in fast attack form" you would see guard lists rocking it out there.

Second thing. It's basically impossible to hide leman russ tanks, or benefit from any sort of cover, so enemy anti tank has no problems gunning them down turn 1. For infantry like eradicators it's going to be very easy to plop them in terrain (for +1 save and/or -1 to hit) and out of LOS to protect them turn 1. And then just waltz out when you want and you get first shot every time. Any guard player will tell you, if you get first turn, tanks are great. If not, kiss your tank commanders goodbye.

Third thing, tied with the second, Eradicators being infantry allows them to much greater movement. They can jump from building to building, run through walls, etc. Tanks are funneled down roads and paths. And with 9th edition having smaller boards that are more terrain-dense, I think that'll leave even LESS room to maneuver tanks around. I think it'll be much easier to keep important targets away from demolishers than from eradicators.
Eradicators are going to be prime targets for ignore LOS attacks. My Hive Guard will be polishing their Impaler Cannons.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think this is a key point to how Eradicators interact with the game. They will not likely have stratagems to increase their damage as opposed to many other units that do. No one would take a 3 shot melta unit. These guys will dump shots once or twice and then die. And at the same time if you decide to max out your Heavy slots with them you're missing out on the other tools and will be forced into another detachment.

The more we go on in this thread the more convinced I am that they aren't a huge problem even if they're on the other further end of good.





That just shows the greater problem with the space marine codex. When a unit with these stats isn't considered an autopick because theyres better options while other codexes don't have the same level of firepower without jumping through hoops IS a problem with the design of 40k.


I think there's a little more nuance to it. I'm sure you can walk these guys up the table, but if you do I can measure their effective range and counter with longer range guns before they shoot anything useful. They otherwise need to come in by reserves and that is a more difficult scenario to protect against.

So, functionally what is the difference between Eradicators spending a CP to get their job done and Destroyers spending a CP to get their job done?

There is also a chance Eradicators only get to be a 3 man unit, which means they don't scale as sharply whereas 3 obliterators will produce 36 shots in a single phase.

I think you're missing the point. Notice all those Eldar players comparing these things to Fire Dragons? They would be absolutely ecstatic if those Fire Dragons got similar rules at a similar price as these. But loyalist players look at them and say "Yeah, they look pretty good, but I'm not sure if I'd use a heavy support slot for them considering my other options". Why? Because loyalists have so many good units they don't know what to do with them. And they keep getting more.

There's nothing stopping gw from writing new rules for older units in other armies that make them more comparable to newer ones, especially when they have similar prices. Instead they just stick with old stat lines and rules that have often been gutted of special abilities that they used to have innately, only to give them the option to have them back in the form of strategems.

Fixing meltas for a faction that doesn't even need that fix while leaving others that do behind is just wrong.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?


Because in a world were the Units Rose in price These are verifably contrastable with their own released 500pts/25 pl powerlevel list Patrol exemples questionable?

Edit :autocorrect.


A funny thing about those patrols is the points matched what they are now or possibly even less in the case of CSM. Only marines was indeterminable. Necron Warriors only went up 1. "Up across every faction" does not mean every model goes up or that nothing goes down.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Melta Rifles aren't even a good fix. Ideally, Melta weapons would have higher S and D than longer-ranged anti tank, and a reworking or outright removal of the Melta rule.

Meltagun

12" 2 shots Str 10 D 3


Multi-Melta

24" 3 shots S10 D 3

Just as an example.

Ironically, I think the Melta rule is the main problem with meltas. It's more a penalty than a benefit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 02:23:20


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Compare to Land Speeders which get the same firepower armed with 2 Multimeltas for 44 points, on top of the 45 point chassis. Three such Land Speeders is 12 power level. LS have 6 wounds, T5 and a 16" move.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I think you're missing the point. Notice all those Eldar players comparing these things to Fire Dragons? They would be absolutely ecstatic if those Fire Dragons got similar rules at a similar price as these. But loyalist players look at them and say "Yeah, they look pretty good, but I'm not sure if I'd use a heavy support slot for them considering my other options". Why? Because loyalists have so many good units they don't know what to do with them. And they keep getting more.

There's nothing stopping gw from writing new rules for older units in other armies that make them more comparable to newer ones, especially when they have similar prices. Instead they just stick with old stat lines and rules that have often been gutted of special abilities that they used to have innately, only to give them the option to have them back in the form of strategems.

Fixing meltas for a faction that doesn't even need that fix while leaving others that do behind is just wrong.


No, I get it. I can't know that solution. I can only speculate. If Fire Dragons are 8 to 10 points and a fusion gun is 6 to 8 where does that put them? I don't know the best setup, but it seems like it's pretty easy to make them run 6" all the time and they can run and shoot without penalty, so we're talking effectively 25" range. You could *possibly* get 6 shots for the same cost, but also with reroll 1s to wound. Yes, they're softer, but Eldar has its own internal benefits like psykers. Marines aren't particularly amazing at that.

People are spending way too much time comparing prior points to unknown points and making a lot of assumptions along the way. All I can tell you is that Eradicators probably aren't busted.

Eradicators could actually be elites since these are "melta guns". Multimeltas could go to 36". Anything is possible.




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 02:49:03


   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I think you're missing the point. Notice all those Eldar players comparing these things to Fire Dragons? They would be absolutely ecstatic if those Fire Dragons got similar rules at a similar price as these. But loyalist players look at them and say "Yeah, they look pretty good, but I'm not sure if I'd use a heavy support slot for them considering my other options". Why? Because loyalists have so many good units they don't know what to do with them. And they keep getting more.

There's nothing stopping gw from writing new rules for older units in other armies that make them more comparable to newer ones, especially when they have similar prices. Instead they just stick with old stat lines and rules that have often been gutted of special abilities that they used to have innately, only to give them the option to have them back in the form of strategems.

Fixing meltas for a faction that doesn't even need that fix while leaving others that do behind is just wrong.


No, I get it. I can't know that solution. I can only speculate. If Fire Dragons are 8 to 10 points and a fusion gun is 6 to 8 where does that put them? I don't know the best setup, but it seems like it's pretty easy to make them run 6" all the time and they can run and shoot without penalty, so we're talking effectively 25" range. You could *possibly* get 6 shots for the same cost, but also with reroll 1s to wound. Yes, they're softer, but Eldar has its own internal benefits like psykers. Marines aren't particularly amazing at that.

People are spending way too much time comparing prior points to unknown points and making a lot of assumptions along the way. All I can tell you is that Eradicators probably aren't busted.

Eradicators could actually be elites since these are "melta guns". Multimeltas could go to 36". Anything is possible.





Making things cheaper isn't the same as making them better. No one wants to play the "cheapest" faction. Just like loyalist marines players want their marines to feel like marines, Eldar players want their Eldar to feel like warriors of an ancient race that once ruled the stars. Tyranids players want their nids to feel like an unending horde of biomechanical horrors out to consume all life. Csm players want our ancient veterans of 10,000 years of violence and bloodshed to feel like the elite warriors that would make them. You do that with rules, not price cuts. Right now the rules for all those factions only further serve to make loyalist marines to feel like marines. Putting more of them on the board only gives the loyalists more things to shoot.

Gw needs to actually write some new data sheets in the new codexes for 9th, not just copy paste what we had in 7th, because that doesn't translate when the new norm is 2W, T4, S4, A2 with 30 inch S4 guns with free AP.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Fire Dragons are 8 to 10 points and a fusion gun is 6 to 8 where does that put them?


It puts them at wondering when they became a horde army, and if all the other comparable anti-tank infantry units in the game follow suit with a comparable reduction in cost (a Fire Dragon is 22 right now, just FYI), it puts tanks and Knights back on the shelf for the rest of the edition.
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





Nalim wrote:
After years of lurking in the shadows, this topic finally got me to register. I just can't stand all the panic anymore. First of all, comparing Eradicators to existing Melta units doesn't say a thing about whether they are balanced or not. Nobody takes these units in competetive environments, because, let's face it, they're crap and meltas are the one of the most overpriced weapons in all of 8th edition. Their profile is just bad, because their special rule (double damage in half range of a rather short-ranged weapon) never comes into play. With S8 and good AP they excel at killing T7 3+ targets. However, T7 3+ targets are so easy to kill that most players avoid them like the plague anyway. Only with special rules (like -1 to damage taken or to hit penalties), invulnerable saves or really long range, perhaps even No-LOS, these units become viable. Against T8 without invul, something you see more often, their S8 is a problem. Point-for-point, without even accounting their short range, other options (autocannon-equivalents etc.) are just plain better.

What I want to say is: Yes, Eradicators are outperforming other current melta units by a large margin. But current melta units are garbage, so being better than them doesn't mean Eradicators are completely out of line to everything else. I'll try a - in my opinion - more fitting comparison.

Eradicators are PL5. We often saw the new Primaris units being priced a little bit higher than their power level suggests (Suppressors 4PL / 90P, Invictor 6PL 131/136P, Infiltrators 5PL / 110P,). I guess that, in 8th edition points, Eradicators will be priced somewhere between Dakka Aggressors and Dakka Inceptors. Let's make it easy and say they are 40 points apiece.

160 points nets us 4 Eradicators. 8 shots at S8 AP-4 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +D6 inch effective range for reduced damage (hit penalty). T5, 12W, 3+.
170 points (without the mandatory heavy bolter 162 points) nets us 1 Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. 2D6 (7) shots at S10 AP-3 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +5 inch effective range for half damage. T8, 12W, 3+.

Assuming Eradicators are 40 points, both units are very similar in role and effectiveness:

  • Their damage output against most targets is comparable. While the Tank Commander has less shots and worse AP, its strength is higher. The tank commander can also buff itself thanks to tank orders. I'd consider them even.

  • Their range is almost identical, both perform best up to 29 inches and lose efficiency afterwards.

  • Their survivabilty is comparable, the Tank Commander has the same wounds, but higher toughness. Eradicators will most likely make up for it due to wasted excess damage.

  • Both can be buffed greatly by subfactions (Salamanders, Tallarn).

  • The tank commanders will lose damage output more slowly than the Eradicators.

  • The tank commander takes a HQ slot (sorry dudes...tax), the Eradicators a heavy support slot (premium).


  • To sum it up: These dudes are a (slightly worse) infantry version of a Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. A very good unit, yes, but nothing you see dominating tables.


    But a tank commander is an HQ vehicle, and its weapon is a heavy, not assault. Their roles are nothing alike.

    I mean, I see your point- costs are close to equal for equal damage. But whatever slot eradicators occupy comes at less of a premium and opportunity cost than the slot required for the tank commander. You had to go to a vehicle to find comparable damage output for 4 infantry models precisely because there is no infantry equivalent. And again, there are literally decades old infantry melta specialists- like it's their entire schtick- and they are WAY worse at it than these casual, oh, I don't know, maybe all take a few of these guys, but like... all the other options are just as good, so maybe not.

    Versus like "We are the immortal warriors of Melty McMelt, the meltiest of the melting- so melting that our armour lives on to teach others to melt long after we are dead", who by comparison are terrible. And one of the other apologists for this tripe is like, no, they're so bad you can't even compare them to eradicators". And we're like, "yeah dude, that's what we're saying". And he's like "No, what I mean is that since they are so bad , you can't compare them, so eradicators are fine."

    SO because the other forces that ACTUALLY have the same role as eradicators are too bad to even compare, but there is an HQ battle tank with a heavy weapon that has similar damage output, this is all cool.

    Whatever. If people don't get after ten pages, you're never going to get it. Why do I even bother.



       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    Remember when Firepike was considered a special relic?

    "'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

    This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


    Freelance Ontologist

    When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





     Gadzilla666 wrote:

    Making things cheaper isn't the same as making them better. No one wants to play the "cheapest" faction. Just like loyalist marines players want their marines to feel like marines, Eldar players want their Eldar to feel like warriors of an ancient race that once ruled the stars. Tyranids players want their nids to feel like an unending horde of biomechanical horrors out to consume all life. Csm players want our ancient veterans of 10,000 years of violence and bloodshed to feel like the elite warriors that would make them. You do that with rules, not price cuts. Right now the rules for all those factions only further serve to make loyalist marines to feel like marines. Putting more of them on the board only gives the loyalists more things to shoot.

    Gw needs to actually write some new data sheets in the new codexes for 9th, not just copy paste what we had in 7th, because that doesn't translate when the new norm is 2W, T4, S4, A2 with 30 inch S4 guns with free AP.


    I don't disagree, but at the same time some weapons just aren't at a good relative cost - especially melta.

    There is also only so many meaningful rules you can add. You're not increasing toughness or strength - that's pretty Eldar. Their move is already high. Adding attacks is pretty meaningless for most units. Exarchs have an extra wound unlike any race in the game, I think? Aspect Powers are a thing and those are pretty unique.

    And then there's D-weapons, Wraithbone, peerless psykers, towering wraithlords, webways, avatars, and monofilament weapons. There's a lot more to "ancient" than more special rules. T'au are the "most advanced", but their plasma is weaker. That doesn't mean the plasma isn't advanced.

    Despite that I still understand that and I'm not promoting a race to the bottom, but if a Primaris is 20 and a marine is 12 then an Eldar must naturally be cheaper than that. If a Primaris Melta Gun is 16 then all other melta must be cheaper than that.


       
    Made in us
    Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




    T'au are the "most advanced", but their plasma is weaker. That doesn't mean the plasma isn't advanced.

    Its super advanced- it doesn't kill the warrior _behind_ the gun. An elusive form of mastery, to be sure.

    Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
       
    Made in us
    Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:

    Making things cheaper isn't the same as making them better. No one wants to play the "cheapest" faction. Just like loyalist marines players want their marines to feel like marines, Eldar players want their Eldar to feel like warriors of an ancient race that once ruled the stars. Tyranids players want their nids to feel like an unending horde of biomechanical horrors out to consume all life. Csm players want our ancient veterans of 10,000 years of violence and bloodshed to feel like the elite warriors that would make them. You do that with rules, not price cuts. Right now the rules for all those factions only further serve to make loyalist marines to feel like marines. Putting more of them on the board only gives the loyalists more things to shoot.

    Gw needs to actually write some new data sheets in the new codexes for 9th, not just copy paste what we had in 7th, because that doesn't translate when the new norm is 2W, T4, S4, A2 with 30 inch S4 guns with free AP.


    I don't disagree, but at the same time some weapons just aren't at a good relative cost - especially melta.

    There is also only so many meaningful rules you can add. You're not increasing toughness or strength - that's pretty Eldar. Their move is already high. Adding attacks is pretty meaningless for most units. Exarchs have an extra wound unlike any race in the game, I think? Aspect Powers are a thing and those are pretty unique.
    Nobz have 2w to a Boyz 1. I'm not sure how "unique" Aspect powers are these days. Lots of units are getting lots of special rules. . . like native Fire Twice. . .

    Hmmm. . . which "aspect rule" seems better, Rerolling 1s to wound (Fire Dragons) or Fire Twice (Eradicators)?

     Daedalus81 wrote:
    And then there's D-weapons, Wraithbone, peerless psykers, towering wraithlords, webways, avatars, and monofilament weapons. There's a lot more to "ancient" than more special rules. T'au are the "most advanced", but their plasma is weaker. That doesn't mean the plasma isn't advanced.

    Despite that I still understand that and I'm not promoting a race to the bottom, but if a Primaris is 20 and a marine is 12 then an Eldar must naturally be cheaper than that. If a Primaris Melta Gun is 16 then all other melta must be cheaper than that.
    Only part of the problem is balance via points.

    The other, imo more irritating problem is: PrImaRiS ArE JuSt BeTtEr CuZ blah GW blah SuPaH-MahRiNeS blah. There's an erosion to the integrity of the setting.

    Also, have you put a "towering Wraithlord" next to a Redemptor recently?

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 04:12:06


    And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

    Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





     catbarf wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    If Fire Dragons are 8 to 10 points and a fusion gun is 6 to 8 where does that put them?


    It puts them at wondering when they became a horde army, and if all the other comparable anti-tank infantry units in the game follow suit with a comparable reduction in cost (a Fire Dragon is 22 right now, just FYI), it puts tanks and Knights back on the shelf for the rest of the edition.


    And I could be entirely wrong about melta coming down and there's other considerations to be made through internal codex balance.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Nobz have 2w to a Boyz 1.


    Oh yea. Derp.

    I'm not sure how "unique" Aspect powers are these days. Lots of units are getting lots of special rules. . . like native Fire Twice. . .


    If Fire Dragons can get 6 shots for similar cost then reroll 1s.

    The other, imo more irritating problem is: PrImaRiS ArE JuSt BeTtEr CuZ blah GW blah SuPaH-MahRiNeS blah. There's an erosion to the integrity of the setting.

    Also, have you put a "towering Wraithlord" next to a Redemptor recently?


    Shoot twice, a weapon with two shots - it's the same thing except this has slightly more restriction to it.

    I think people are too hung up on primaris getting "more" and not viewing them through a lens of making the Primaris not garbage. It's like a weird penis envy.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 04:41:43


       
    Made in us
    Been Around the Block




    Voss wrote:
    T'au are the "most advanced", but their plasma is weaker. That doesn't mean the plasma isn't advanced.

    Its super advanced- it doesn't kill the warrior _behind_ the gun. An elusive form of mastery, to be sure.


    What I find extremely funny about Tau plasma is that they made the Plasma Rifle basically garbage. AND THEN they gave Imperium Plasma a "safe mode" that's still better than Tau's Plasma. So so much for that advantage.

    Finally, to cap it off they gave Tau bunch of Ion Weapons, which is pretty much Imperium Plasma with less AP. Why even bother with the superior plasma thing?

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/01 04:49:10


     
       
    Made in us
    Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






    @Daedelus: You're definitely not getting it.

    And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

    Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: