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.

TBH, my problem with the eradicators is not the potential imbalance. I don’t care how much they will eventually cost since I don’t play competitively. For all I know, they will be balanced.

My issue is how they are designed. Why are melta rifles straight up better than multimelta? Why do only marines have them? (And how does rifling even make melta shoot further?) why can’t multimelta shoot twice? Why should eradicators even shoot twice anyway? Why is GW holding back these types of rules just for marines? What’s up with these primaris names anyway?

Plus, even though I don’t play chaos, I hate how chaos are stuck with 1 W marines, but primaris get 2 and 3 W. Comparing havocs to eradicators is depressing. it’s just another case of GW not wanting to change old units but then having a field day with new units.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Daedelus: You're definitely not getting it.

I think we just share different perspectives, but that's fine.

Hmm, sounds broken, but... These guys are stuck in an exclusive, limited, expensive box set (for now)

If you want to Pay to Win, go for it.

I can wait.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

We are waayyyy past "making primaris not garbage". What I'm talking about is making other factions units "not garbage" as well, without strategems or just making them "primaris with spikes" or "xenos primaris". I'll leave what xenos units need to xenos players, but some csm units are easy.

Chosen are a much better representation of what a legionnaire should be than the current csm stat line. Make them a troops choice for the legions (not renegades, obviously) and get rid of the weird limitation of only allowing the first five squad members to take special weapons. Let the entire squad take combi-bolters (because an entire squad of troops with plasma or melta might step on some heavy support toes). This would give csm a troops choice that can, point for point, compete with intercessors, but be different. Primaris would be more durable and have greater range, but csm would be strong at mid range and in melee (they'll be keeping their chainswords, of course) while being slightly more numerous.

Raptors are an easy fix as well: just convert the Night Raptors data sheet from hh. That would give them the full selection of melee weapons for the entire squad, not just the Aspiring Champion, along with the "Onslaught" rule (+ d3 attacks on the charge). Point them accordingly. Suddenly raptors are dangerous again. Add some actually good legion traits and you have a start. It isn't hard, gw have just been lazy with factions that aren't loyalist marines lately.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Daedelus: You're definitely not getting it.

I think we just share different perspectives, but that's fine.

Your own argument doesn't hold up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

That really seems beside the point, especially in the context of the argument you appeared to be trying to make. Which was "Eldar have neat and unique stuff", which just happens in this case to be flatly worse than the new Primaris equivalent. (and they're still at half the range)

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.

Ok. . . so you wind up with either
A: A weapon which is flatly superior (even more so than it already is, being 24" range vs 12")
or
B: A warrior who is flatly superior at using said weapon, despite the fact that Fire Dragons are basically living to use meltaguns as an art form.

Either case is a facepalm.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Which is a statement that inherently suggests that everything NOT Primaris is garbage. A.k.a. If Primaris had stats/weapons/abilities that were more in line with other factions, they would be garbage like those factions.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

We are waayyyy past "making primaris not garbage". What I'm talking about is making other factions units "not garbage" as well, without strategems or just making them "primaris with spikes" or "xenos primaris". I'll leave what xenos units need to xenos players, but some csm units are easy.

Chosen are a much better representation of what a legionnaire should be than the current csm stat line. Make them a troops choice for the legions (not renegades, obviously) and get rid of the weird limitation of only allowing the first five squad members to take special weapons. Let the entire squad take combi-bolters (because an entire squad of troops with plasma or melta might step on some heavy support toes). This would give csm a troops choice that can, point for point, compete with intercessors, but be different. Primaris would be more durable and have greater range, but csm would be strong at mid range and in melee (they'll be keeping their chainswords, of course) while being slightly more numerous.

Raptors are an easy fix as well: just convert the Night Raptors data sheet from hh. That would give them the full selection of melee weapons for the entire squad, not just the Aspiring Champion, along with the "Onslaught" rule (+ d3 attacks on the charge). Point them accordingly. Suddenly raptors are dangerous again. Add some actually good legion traits and you have a start. It isn't hard, gw have just been lazy with factions that aren't loyalist marines lately.

The thing is GW selectively adds options to units (weapons ect) in a strange way. If kit is produced that doesn't have the full load out options (havocs) then they wont take those options away. As for raptors, they never had to those options to begin with, and I doubt GW will ad a sprue to a existing kit. Raptors are going to remain very niche until they get a Hammer of Wrath ability or strat.

The other thing is, we should all know by now that GW masturbates marines and their players. This is nothing new. They get double to triple the releases of other factions and mostly are kept with a competitive build even at their weakest (beginning of 8th). Primaris was a both a fix to the marine statline and a great way to push more plastic on the marine fan base. Except chaos wont be getting such a fix. And that is intentional. GW wants the table top to match the bolter porn their lore department produces. They cant have the bad guys being equal to the poster boys. It confuses the younger loyalist player base as they expect to be fielding demi gods.

Truth be told, I picked up my first ever Loyalist Marine codex last month. And while Im both amazed and envious of a lot of it (im a chaos player) I also now appreciate some of what Chaos does have. A lot of the more abusive melee options of marines are going to go bye bye once standard marines are squatted to a index ( smash captains im looking at you ). But my point in all of this is that these things should be known to the player base.

Marines WILL get new toys. Some of those toys are going to be super broken for a month or two as GW reaps the loyalist fan base of their cash. Marines are the largest selling faction by far. Expect for them to have favorable treatment. And chaos players have to square up the fact that they will never have the same amount of options and power levels as loyalists. This is intended. If you cant handle that then you need to pick a non marine faction that works (tau).

Oh. . . we get the fact that marines sell and GW loves to push them, yadda yadda. But there's still historically been a much closer parity and design-balance between factions in terms of how units compare on the table, somewhat independent of the disproportionate model support.

Primaris just junks all that precedent.

Vilehydra wrote:
The other problem is that they are PL5, now normally I would never care - but for 1 CP I can reserve two of them and mitigate their (not-so-short) range on a smaller board.

I hope something does change, because I have been able to stick from adding any primaris models so far, but those eradicators are just so damn good on paper - even if they still have the standard flaws of primaris/gravis

1 CP gets you to ouflank 0-9 PL of stuff though, for 10-19 it's 2 CP and so on.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh. . . we get the fact that marines sell and GW loves to push them, yadda yadda. But there's still historically been a much closer parity and design-balance between factions in terms of how units compare on the table, somewhat independent of the disproportionate model support.

Primaris just junks all that precedent.

Im all for the other factions (esp chaos) to get a buff up to parity. But for the reasons ive stated, I doubt its going to happen. You are correct that Primaris has blown out the closer parity of yesteryear but this is the new black. I don't excuse GW's border line abusive sales tactics but I also know its never going to change. I just wont play with a person running those melta rifle clowns until they have been appropriately priced. Meta players don't have this option however.

Should also be noted how valuable these guys will be in a meta filled with large models. Even a single unit of them will take a decent chunk of health out of a knight for a good price.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

And ? This would then Look even worse for cultists, and the new Units aswell.

 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.

You're...literally proving my point. You named ALL the other Heavy Weapons. The Multi-Melta just isn't good for anything. The Melta Rifle existing doesn't invalidate the Multi-Melta because the Multi-Melta was invalidated by it's own existence!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castozor 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 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?

You have GWs email and you have the ability to not buy their printed material until they do better balancing. I've been telling everyone here that for a long time. If you don't make GW realize their printed material is garbage, they will not learn, period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

And ? This would then Look even worse for cultists, and the new Units aswell.

And yes we all know that Cultists were the most hit because GW thinks nerfing Cultists will somehow make people take Chaos Marines.

Slayer-Fan123 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.

You're...literally proving my point. You named ALL the other Heavy Weapons. The Multi-Melta just isn't good for anything. The Melta Rifle existing doesn't invalidate the Multi-Melta because the Multi-Melta was invalidated by it's own existence!

...you still really need to work on this whole declarative statement thing, don't you? "All" the heavy weapons weren't named - heck, not even all the AT heavy weapons were named. If we're considering "all" the heavy weapons available to a Dev squad, at a minimum we're missing the Heavy Bolter and the Missile Launcher - and despite your vocal dislike of it, the latter does count as an AT heavy weapon (even if it isn't brilliant at it).

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh. . . we get the fact that marines sell and GW loves to push them, yadda yadda. But there's still historically been a much closer parity and design-balance between factions in terms of how units compare on the table, somewhat independent of the disproportionate model support.

Primaris just junks all that precedent.

perhaps you could tell me how Reivers are OP? ya know since GW is clearly making every primaris unit OP right?

I don't understand how one can play marines for as long as Slayer claims to have, and still be this genuinely clueless as to how weapon selection works for them??

In this edition, just like every edition, Marines will prioritise the ideal answer to the Meta. Unlike other armies heavy options, they have an extremely versatile selection of heavy weapons - a strength of the codex's design for versatility. Melta isn't bad - it's just that the competitive options in the current meta are often heavily invul based, so this means melta's strength isn't as desired. If the meta shifts, to things like transports and other Armor that doesn't all pack invuls (as many is suspecting we might see in 9th), melta becomes a ton more effective.

You cannot just balance melta to be as good as plasma or AC's, versus things with an invul - that just makes melta the best choice since it's also the best vs everything that DOESN'T have. In this meta, of course melta is underplayed. Again, that doesn't mean create a melta unit that does everything as good as other heavy weapons, that means let melta keep its strengths and weaknesses as a profile, and pick it when it is meta appropriate - a strength of the SM dex.

If it sounds like I repeated myself a little in there, you may be right, unfortunately there's a couple of certain people who we have to take it really slow for. If you don't understand this concept, you are plain and simply not someone who should be trying to discuss and dictate the balance design of an entire faction, towards people who have understood this for much longer. It's that damn simple.

Also regarding the whole "Melta sucks anyway": Looking from the guard perspective our motorpool has no Inv saves and outside of Leman Russ and Superheavies (which might be much more expensive to take) it's T6 or T7 (Chimeras, Artillery etc.) with 3+. Against those things Melta seems to be pretty optimal, especially now that boards become smaller, terrain becomes better and everything can (at a cost) be deepstriked.

Those Eradicators can on average pop any T6/7, W11, 3+ vehicle from 12'' in one go without any reroll support etc.
(6 shots=> 4 hits => 2.66 wounds => 2.66 unsaved wounds =12 wounds within 12'' or 9.33 from 12'' to 24'')
And those are: all our nontitanic transports, all our fast attack or elite vehicles and almost all our artillery (except the collossus Bombard and Minotaur Artillery tank)
Give them reroll 1s to hit OR wound and they do on average 11 wounds from 24'', enough to kill those.

As someone else here mentioned: in a meta of T8 vehicles with Inv saves (like Knights): yes Melta is inferior. But it is a tool in the toolbox against vehicles without Inv saves like guard.
And it's not very surprising to me that when the rules are changed in a direction that will likely lead to guard bringing much more vehicles and also some of their less used stuff become more likely to be taken (no -1 to hit on moving vehicle heavy weapons makes a lot of the guard motorpool more viable outside Leman Russ and the Option to fire into melee also helps a lot), the Marines immediatly get a unit that sports an excellent variant of the - on paper - most effective Anti Tank weapon against those vehicles. Especially when it's biggest disadvantage (short range) is addressed by doubling the range while simultaneously making the boards smaller and terrain better.

Table wrote:

The other thing is, we should all know by now that GW masturbates marines and their players. This is nothing new. They get double to triple the releases of other factions and mostly are kept with a competitive build even at their weakest (beginning of 8th). Primaris was a both a fix to the marine statline and a great way to push more plastic on the marine fan base. Except chaos wont be getting such a fix. And that is intentional. GW wants the table top to match the bolter porn their lore department produces. They cant have the bad guys being equal to the poster boys. It confuses the younger loyalist player base as they expect to be fielding demi gods.

Truth be told, I picked up my first ever Loyalist Marine codex last month. And while Im both amazed and envious of a lot of it (im a chaos player) I also now appreciate some of what Chaos does have. A lot of the more abusive melee options of marines are going to go bye bye once standard marines are squatted to a index ( smash captains im looking at you ). But my point in all of this is that these things should be known to the player base.

Marines WILL get new toys. Some of those toys are going to be super broken for a month or two as GW reaps the loyalist fan base of their cash. Marines are the largest selling faction by far. Expect for them to have favorable treatment. And chaos players have to square up the fact that they will never have the same amount of options and power levels as loyalists. This is intended. If you cant handle that then you need to pick a non marine faction that works (tau).

1) Until the back end of 2019, vanilla marines have been fairly crap from a competitive stand point for years and years (crossing multiple editions, not just start of 8th, which if you can recall they were only decent at for the short time they were the only 8th ed codex!). Don't let a brief period of time when they've been busted colour your views.

2) Of course they don't want marines to be flat out better than everyone else, if that were the case they've spent the last 10 years messing up hard.

3) The challenge GW has is generating sales for their most popular faction, which also is the best for recruiting new players to the franchise, without alienating all the multitudes of existing players with large collections of mini marines. That is one HELL of a tightrope to walk from a product design perspective. Overall I think they've been doing a decent job (as someone with a huge collection of mini marines), I can still run my army as I did whilst slowly adding new primaris units when they look cool or fun.

4) I think the level of whining about Eradicators is overblown and fair play to Daedalus for having the energy/willpower to keep the conversation going. I think on paper they look too strong personally, but as with all things there is no point freaking out until I see which slots they compete with and whether they are capped at 3 models like suppressors (a huge handicap). If I have to choose between these guys and whirlwinds I'll take the whirlwinds.

NB I also have a lot of other Xenos and Imperium armies, so I'm not indifferent to their plight either. I hope that this wholesale refresh of necrons will usher in a period of big launches for the other major xenos factions.

 ewar wrote:

1) Until the back end of 2019, vanilla marines have been fairly crap from a competitive stand point for years and years (crossing multiple editions, not just start of 8th, which if you can recall they were only decent at for the short time they were the only 8th ed codex!). Don't let a brief period of time when they've been busted colour your views.

I got this far.


Just a tip, you should open with a strong point to draw people in.



When you open with a complete fabrication, anyone with any sort of knowledge or history in the game knows to just ignore the rest of it.

i mean kudos to you ewar, but i kinda think the comparison with melta chosen still says it all, considering that their PL is 7, they only have meltas, and these are pl 5, less bodies but more shots baseline, more wounds baseline, and more durable baseline. Completly ignoring the assault multimelta because if that ain't another kick in the gonads to everything with a multimelta.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


I got this far.


Just a tip, you should open with a strong point to draw people in.



When you open with a complete fabrication, anyone with any sort of knowledge or history in the game knows to just ignore the rest of it.

But vanila marines were crap for most of 8th ed. they had the gulliman re-roll list that got nerfed fast, and hurt armies that used the same vehicles and had no access ro re-rolls or gulliman more. Then they had nothing for a long time, then durning the reign of castellas they were technicly in the top thanks to 2 Cpts and 15 scouts, and it wasn't till IH/RG got their 2.0 rules that they really became a power house.

I mean maybe marines were strong, comparing to realy bad armies in 8th, but comparing to the good ones it wasn't really the case. And now that they are finaly good, people can't play with them anyway, because stores are closed.

I think a large part of the problem with the Eradicators is the perception of them as just being better than anything else with a similar role and it's a worrying trend for Primaris in particular. Their gun is just a better MM, made even more annoying by the fact there's currently a niche for an 18" range melta weapon in the SM arsenal but we've skipped right over that for some reason. Then there's the special rule with it's patented GW "restriction" that isn't.

I think the design of this unit shows up GW's flawed design process in general. They just can't help themselves and every single unit needs some fancy special rule to differentiate it. It's not like just putting a melta unit in the Primaris range doesn't already add something different and new so I have no idea why we need to then give them a special rule on top of that to make them even better. The same applies to the Outriders. Just make them Primaris bikes and leave it at that, but no, we have to have some inane special rule too otherwise..something, something, bad I guess?

I was looking forward to expanding my Blood Angels with the new Indomitus stuff but it's now looking far more likely I'll be concentrating on the Necron side of that box much more. I'm starting to get a little tired of SM just being better than everyone else at everything.

Final annoyance: the tiny little change to the melta rule makes it more effective against Quantum Shielding. Why? Because Xenos, that's why.

Well they have to be better then regular marines, if you want to phase out classic marines, without the whole out rage thing.
It is safer to do, make primaris options better, let people play it that way for 1-2 editions, and later put all classic models in to legends. If no one, specialy out of the new player uses the old options there would be no uproar. I am waiting for primaris version of an HQ with a bike or jump pack, which to me , is going to be the sign of classic marines going legend.

Unsure on the rules for posting leaks, so I''ll refrain from doing so.

But we now have leaks showing these at 40ppm before weapons, and capped at 3 per unit. Does this make them more reasonable to players?

Karol wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


I got this far.


Just a tip, you should open with a strong point to draw people in.



When you open with a complete fabrication, anyone with any sort of knowledge or history in the game knows to just ignore the rest of it.

But vanila marines were crap for most of 8th ed. they had the gulliman re-roll list that got nerfed fast, and hurt armies that used the same vehicles and had no access ro re-rolls or gulliman more. Then they had nothing for a long time, then durning the reign of castellas they were technicly in the top thanks to 2 Cpts and 15 scouts, and it wasn't till IH/RG got their 2.0 rules that they really became a power house.

I mean maybe marines were strong, comparing to realy bad armies in 8th, but comparing to the good ones it wasn't really the case. And now that they are finaly good, people can't play with them anyway, because stores are closed.

Dude.

Duuuude.



Stop.



Breath.

Take a SECOND to read the posts you are responding to before rattling off a rant like this.

Nobody said a damn word about Marines being good in early 8th. Read what was actually said here. Again, it's the exact same quote:

 ewar wrote:

1) Until the back end of 2019, vanilla marines have been fairly crap from a competitive stand point for years and years (crossing multiple editions, not just start of 8th, which if you can recall they were only decent at for the short time they were the only 8th ed codex!). Don't let a brief period of time when they've been busted colour your views.

 Talurit wrote:
Unsure on the rules for posting leaks, so I''ll refrain from doing so.

But we now have leaks showing these at 40ppm before weapons, and capped at 3 per unit. Does this make them more reasonable to players?

There are a few weird things in that leak which could point to it being a fake, or at least an outdated document.

In any case 40 is definitely too cheap. The limit to 3 models hurts for sure, but they are still too cheap. Especially considering that in that same leak a multimelta on infantry is 20 points.

Spoletta wrote:

 Talurit wrote:
Unsure on the rules for posting leaks, so I''ll refrain from doing so.

But we now have leaks showing these at 40ppm before weapons, and capped at 3 per unit. Does this make them more reasonable to players?

There are a few weird things in that leak which could point to it being a fake, or at least an outdated document.

In any case 40 is definitely too cheap. The limit to 3 models hurts for sure, but they are still too cheap. Especially considering that in that same leak a multimelta on infantry is 20 points.

kinda disagree, because if that ain't the right size for a suicide unit i don't know.

I allready get 3suicide termites flashbacks..

With suitable scepticism, according to the document you can pay 35 points more (about 30%) for 5 devastators with 4 MMs.

Enjoy 2 less melta shots, 4 less wounds, 1 less toughness and being heavy instead of assault.

Tyel wrote:
With suitable scepticism, according to the document you can pay 35 points more (about 30%) for 5 devastators with 4 MMs.

Enjoy 2 less melta shots, 4 less wounds, 1 less toughness and being heavy instead of assault.

And with this in mind, if this part turns out to be true, is there really any doubt left as to what GW is doing here?

wanna bet on a similar situation to the wraithknight debacle?

In what world were SM not top tier in 7th?