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.
Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
A lot of these games also have "yearly installments" where they rake you for $60+ just to get the new "balancing pass" (aka: improvements from last year's game). These also 100% invalidate a lot of work, keeping you on that tread a little longer.
But I guess we forgot how these games really rake their players. At least I don't have to pay tons of extra cash to get some fancy Ronin Warriors inspired skin for my Space Marines. Oh, wait, Forge World did that... lol.
Bosskelot wrote: Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
You don't buy runes anymore and most champion are on a similar powerlevel (in their respetive roles). Basically you buy champions that fit your playstyle more then for their "OP-ness" the % winrate of champions is usually between 45-55% and any outlier get patched for free in a reasonable amount of time. LoL is a completely FTP game with 0% P2W.
MTG isnt balanced anymore, after 25 years, they managed to feth up what they were doing right and now theyre spamming bans (30-ish in the last 5? years).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Purifying Tempest wrote: A lot of these games also have "yearly installments" where they rake you for $60+ just to get the new "balancing pass" (aka: improvements from last year's game). These also 100% invalidate a lot of work, keeping you on that tread a little longer.
But I guess we forgot how these games really rake their players. At least I don't have to pay tons of extra cash to get some fancy Ronin Warriors inspired skin for my Space Marines. Oh, wait, Forge World did that... lol.
What games make you pay for patches in 2020?
If you're talking about new versions of the game (Smash bros 4 vs Smash bros Ultimate for example), this isnt a balance patch, they are brand new games.
The only thing you pay for in Smash is for the new characters, which you are in no way obligated to buy. The balance patches are free.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 13:18:06
Part of the reason for banned cards in magic is that they provide cards for multiple player types. That includes cards who are story driven, but can be unbalanced. They basically go into each set knowing that certain cards are likely to be banned, because they're trying to appeal to multiple player types. Having a banned list for competitive lets them have their cake and eat it too.
Mmmpi wrote: Part of the reason for banned cards in magic is that they provide cards for multiple player types. That includes cards who are story driven, but can be unbalanced. They basically go into each set knowing that certain cards are likely to be banned, because they're trying to appeal to multiple player types. Having a banned list for competitive lets them have their cake and eat it too.
The "story driven cards" aren't the ones being banned. And they went 6 years with no bans in standard to most sets realeased having at least one card banned. They clearly messed up a part of their design process
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.
Because you are taking CM anyways? Also - have to get within 12 to get melta rule.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
New edition = new version of the game. GW does this every 3ish years, instead of annually.
New fancy characters to play with = codices. Which, unless you're space marines, seem to come out at about the same timing (every 3ish years).
These numbers are not absolute, but it is just to illustrate that like any big multiplayer game, the company keeps you on the release train buying the newest fad... be it through a new game where all the people will be playing (edition change), or getting the new hotness (a codex update).
Balancing patches (Big FAQs) are free. Game expansions (Chapter Approved) cost, but are normally substantially less than the core game.
The BIG difference is that typical online games are vastly more fast-paced in both game play and release. They definitely operate in the 'agile' space... where a big game like 40K tends to operate in 'waterfall'.
So... I mean, there's lots of parallels, but saying you get everything free in these online multiplayer games is disregarding how they really monetize the game. A developer is not going to constantly inject balancings and content for free... that's more like a AAA standalone release that may receive triage care through its first year, but that care DRASTICALLY drops off as the game ages and teams move onto new projects, and the game becomes either "as-is, no new improvements" or "community managed".
Why are we expecting GW to do anything different? They have to monetize their product, otherwise they won't be able to keep the lights on in their offices.
They always swinging to make good units, I just think in the case of Eradicators, they got a really solid hit. A unit that can punch ridiculously hard and has a really good defensive profile compared to many other "on foot" options that aren't Custodes or Terminator-styled. They're made a bit better because things like Salamanders exist, and that particular trait needs to be destroyed where ever it exists, lol.
I'm not even really sure how to handle it at this point, maybe a simple points increase will do... but that being said, I'd prefer to play against them than not at all. Fortunately, I adhere to "all units cost 0 points when they hit the table" and tend to react to what they can do to the game instead of how many points they cost.
Anyways, rambling now. Friend and I had a longish talk about Eradicators, I've simmered down about them. They're powerful, they give my Fire Dragons some wicked envy, and I just dance around them to try to ignore them while weakening the rest of the opponent's board. All said, I don't really care about them. Ultramarine Aggressors on the other hand...
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Infinity releases free balance patches. They even release free rules and an armybuilder that actually works.
How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 14:11:37
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
You'd have a point if you started 40k with any army rules, but you dont. Thats literally buying a balance patch right there compared to Index armies (which also has to be purchased!)
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 14:43:26
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
As much flak as loyalist get for their doctrines, giving them +1 Ap on various werapons as the game goes on was a good way to make bad units decent.
The fact that possessed was a legitimate strategy for csm shows how stupid the codex is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 14:47:17
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
Also, free doesn't go hand in hand with the best in the world and exclusive hobby. And it is hard to explain the game not being an exclusive hobby with 60$ non limited edition models.
Plus infinity is made by spaniard, and they are always strangly nice.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
Thats a problem too with most strats not exactly being strategic.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 15:06:08
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
There would still be a cost for rules I am sure if they went digital. The question is how much. Per year your average sucker is probably spending between 150-300 dollars on rules. A 10-20 dollar/month subscription would cover that - for those who can't afford you can just get access to your armies specific rules and core game rules for the cost of the codex today...(30$?). Since I'm sure GW already has servers for their online content - just add more space and hire the necessary staff to maintain the system and update it periodically. I would imagine that would actually cost less than paying a company to print millions of copies of a book.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Why does GW just do it like gaming companies. Have core books for core factions, but leave the good rules in supplements, which would be digital only and require both the paying for the digital rules, and upkeeping the subscription for their army builder app. And every edition they could update the app, being puting out a new one, so people would have to jump to that one if they wanted to have 10th ed rules.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
There is a fair bit more hatred going towards loyalists for every good combo they have. Sometimes it sounds like marines are the only strong army in the game they way people complain. its funny because I play lots of armies and consider lots of them to be as strong or stronger than marines.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Karol wrote: Why does GW just do it like gaming companies. Have core books for core factions, but leave the good rules in supplements, which would be digital only and require both the paying for the digital rules, and upkeeping the subscription for their army builder app. And every edition they could update the app, being puting out a new one, so people would have to jump to that one if they wanted to have 10th ed rules.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
We're circling the drain again. Why is it always assumed that eradicators will have freedom to appear inside of 12" with full rerolls and magically their targets haven't been out wrecking other stuff in the turn they're off the table?
Those 3 units of eradicators (360 points) by your own admission kill 1 armiger and half kill another (175 killed and 88 of damage assuming stubbers) Pretty sure their big brothers will then turn and summarily execute said eradicators.
The vacuum mathshammering for this never works out because of too many external factors.
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
We're circling the drain again. Why is it always assumed that eradicators will have freedom to appear inside of 12" with full rerolls and magically their targets haven't been out wrecking other stuff in the turn they're off the table?
Those 3 units of eradicators (360 points) by your own admission kill 1 armiger and half kill another (175 killed and 88 of damage assuming stubbers) Pretty sure their big brothers will then turn and summarily execute said eradicators.
The vacuum mathshammering for this never works out because of too many external factors.
What full re-rolls was assumed? ZERO re-rolls were assumed, despite a free re-roll to wound and to hit per squad is available for free with Salamanders, neither was the +1 to wound from Salamanders super doctrine featured in despite being FREE, neither was the roll two dice pick the highest melta feature part of the equation despite being FREE, because I figured it was unreasonable to say they arrived within 12", all they need to do is arrive within 24". How exactly is a Knights list going to screen you out by more than 24" from every single Armiger armiger in their army? Why are you assuming free chaff to screen out Eradicators? You can also shoot 1x3 Eradicators against one big Knight and 2x3 at another big Knight or shoot them all at the same big Knight if you have something else that can bait out RIS and you will do a pts-efficient amount of damage to them. You complain about me assuming full re-rolls (which I didn't) then turn around and assume that there is another 400-800 pts of big Knights waiting to pounce on the Eradicators, well how about we say 2 auto Armigers and 2 Crusaders for 1300 pts, that's 32,5 Eradicators, enough to kill one of the big Knights if the rest of your army was able to pop RIS. The remaining two Armigers will kill 3,5/32,5 of my Eradicators and the big Knight will kill 7 and hold up 1 squad in melee. The remaining Eradicators will wipe out the Knight in RF range and will finally kill the two Armigers T3 or T4.
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
I am glad for your sanity.
55% chance of killing 2+ according to this http://40k.ghostlords.com/dice/#attacks=4d3&bs=3&ap=1&s=7&d=3&t=5&save=3&wounds=3 website. Non-Salamanders are not spamming Eradicators, but that could be because they've "only" gotten one Indomitus box, that's the only thing I can see in favour of them not being totally insane as a baseline unit and only being OP in one specific Legion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 18:49:35
Anecdotal but pictures of 9 completed in custom chapter scheme has been a constant fixture of my feeds.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does the Armiger math include the Heavy Stubber, as low as the damage is?
No, it does not, sorry, that's another 3 pts worth of Aggressors dead, 1,714285714285714285714285714286% of the cost of the Armiger. Making the comparison 43% vs 76% instead of 41% vs 76%.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 18:54:38
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
I am glad for your sanity.
55% chance of killing 2+ according to this http://40k.ghostlords.com/dice/#attacks=4d3&bs=3&ap=1&s=7&d=3&t=5&save=3&wounds=3 website. Non-Salamanders are not spamming Eradicators, but that could be because they've "only" gotten one Indomitus box, that's the only thing I can see in favour of them not being totally insane as a baseline unit and only being OP in one specific Legion.
They are straight up best as salie succesors with +3 range and MOA because of the bonus melta super doct + sundergy with the other good units for salamanders...agressors with flamestorm. It is literally a gravis spam all the way.
The real life math on the armigers is this.
7 shots
5 hits
3 wounds
1 or 2 failed saves.
If you have reroll 1's on the armiger you average 2 failed saves. (Guilliman 12" aura(IMO the best way to run knights)/ and also 1 of the knight houses does this)
Realistically though - on the curve a little over half the time you are going to kill all 3 gravis.
It is the nature of flat 3 vs 3 wound models.
Lets break it down further though. Armiger (14" move) can then charge the erads...they dont even average a wound against the knight and now they cant shoot. The armiger can though. Armiger Wins.
Other than being slightly underpriced...these guys arent a problem at all...there is actually game breaking gak in this game...like 2++ shinning spears.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bosskelot wrote: Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
League hasn't had purchasable runes in years and they were never purchasable by money.
Getting additional champions gets you precisely ZERO extra power. In fact, having additional champions is honestly detrimental to the vast majority of the player base. You're usually MUCH better off getting really good at one champion than trying to fit into meta or team comps (until the higher levels of play at least.) A frankly huge number of people are actually paying to LOSE when they buy new champions with money.
There is not only no INCENTIVE to buy power, there's no ABILITY to do so. Try sticking to games you understand the basic aspects of for your arguments in the future.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
There is a fair bit more hatred going towards loyalists for every good combo they have. Sometimes it sounds like marines are the only strong army in the game they way people complain. its funny because I play lots of armies and consider lots of them to be as strong or stronger than marines.
You're wrong.
There are no ARMIES that are as strong as marines. There are LISTS that are as strong as the lists marines can put out but if you take the armies as a whole, there's nothing else that matches up.
What other army can put out 5 tournament winning caliber lists using 5 different 'chapter tactics' that all operate completely differently and require different tools to deal with? No one. You can bog down an IH list with bodies but that's not going to do you any good against ultramarine or imperial fists, is it? You can overwhelm an ultramarine or imperial fist list with fast, strong melee but all that's going to do to whitescars is let them kill you faster. You can bring marine killing guns and efficient screens to take out whitescar armies before they can overwhelm you with speed and competent melee AND shooting, but that's not going to be enough to get through ironhands or salamanders defensive bonuses before their dreadnoughts/eradicators pound your shooting into dust. That's even ignoring the whole 'grav pod' thing.
Space marines are as hated as they are right now because you can basically throw darts at the codex and come up with something that can hit the podium. It's the same problem CWE had in 7th before chaos took over the reigns with their insane deathstars and infinite horrors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 19:52:07
