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.

Assuming the Multimelta change goes live

Two speeders with multimeltas will
cost within 10%
move 4x as fast
have 33% more wounds
fly over obstacles
slow down chargers with antigrav upwash
fall back and shoot
4 shots all the time instead of 6 most of the time

2 Attack bikes will
cost 10% less
move almost 3X as fast
have 1 less wound but also climb out of the 1 shot 2-3D model deletion sweet spot
have some Twin Bolters
etc etc.

Edit to Add: Both of those are from less contention FA slot, than the more utilized HS slot.

You're missing that when the Eradicator outrage was ongoing people had no idea GW were going to balence it by making other marine units EVEN BETTER.


Silly us, we should have seen that coming.

The fire twice at same target is hardly a limitation, given its intended usage; maybe mathhammer can prove me wrong? This means that, in general, eradicators provide more shots per point.

The durability is potentially superior given the chance to get in cover.

I'd say that eradicators are curently so hot because they are very aggressively point priced, they are infantry (benefit more from new cover rules), they ride the melta sweet changes, and relatively durable (t5, 3W).

Also, note that having wounds spread out across models is also a hidden defensive buff, since it can often result in wounds being wasted.

For example, it takes 6 plasma shots to destroy 2 speeders (12 wounds), but also 6 plasma shots to kill the 9W of the eradicators. This only gets better if you are being targetted by AT (say a demolisher cannon).

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You're missing that when the Eradicator outrage was ongoing people had no idea GW were going to balence it by making other marine units EVEN BETTER.


Silly us, we should have seen that coming.

I don't mean then, I mean now. I see people still raving over them, and wondered if I was missing something like Eradicator Melta getting 2 shots per action, and able to shoot twice twice or something.

You're missing the 40 ppm which is absolutely insane

We dont know how many points attack bikes or speeders will be. ABs and speeders dont get light or heavy cover from terrain.

Grey40k wrote:
The fire twice at same target is hardly a limitation, given its intended usage; maybe mathhammer can prove me wrong? This means that, in general, eradicators provide more shots per point.

The durability is potentially superior given the chance to get in cover.

I'd say that eradicators are curently so hot because they are very aggressively point priced, they are infantry (benefit more from new cover rules), they ride the melta sweet changes, and relatively durable (t5, 3W).

Also, note that having wounds spread out across models is also a hidden defensive buff, since it can often result in wounds being wasted.

For example, it takes 6 plasma shots to destroy 2 speeders (12 wounds), but also 6 plasma shots to kill the 9W of the eradicators. This only gets better if you are being targetted by AT (say a demolisher cannon).

What melta changes are they riding?
I was taking the wasted wounds into account as well. The Flat 3D or D6 damage (which averages to 3.5) is going to put wasted wounds on the speeders/bikers too while they'll outright e- no, I'm not going to make that pun- but it'll average one shot one kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
We dont know how many points attack bikes or speeders will be. ABs and speeders dont get light or heavy cover from terrain.

With 3X the move do they need it? They're small enough to obscure, and fast enough to take their shot. The new board sizes are 44" player edge to player edge. 20" move plus 24" range is exactly the whole board. Add 12" of the 24" deployment (6" on each side) and their turn 1 even 1" move you're within half range for full effect. This makes me wonder what the movement rates will be as much as the points costs.

The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Breton wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You're missing that when the Eradicator outrage was ongoing people had no idea GW were going to balence it by making other marine units EVEN BETTER.


Silly us, we should have seen that coming.

I don't mean then, I mean now. I see people still raving over them, and wondered if I was missing something like Eradicator Melta getting 2 shots per action, and able to shoot twice twice or something.

they can indeed fire twice at a target if they all shoot the same target.

that said people are over reacting. because "Marine Envy" is real. At this rate I expect people to claim reivers are OP

Vipoid nails it.

Having more powerful units within a codex doesn't change anything with regards to how overpowered a single unit is in relation to other codices.

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

Breton wrote:

What melta changes are they riding?
I was taking the wasted wounds into account as well. The Flat 3D or D6 damage (which averages to 3.5) is going to put wasted wounds on the speeders/bikers too while they'll outright e- no, I'm not going to make that pun- but it'll average one shot one kill.

The double tapping change (already baked in for the eradicators, but for others melta will be heavy 2).

I am not going to go in a long winded explanation, and perhaps I am wrong (I'd love to see mathhammer for this). EDIT - It was long, I couldn't resist.

Typical profiles for weapons are: 1/2/3/1d3/1d6/1d6+X.

Against 1D and 3D (less common), without accounting for cover, landspeeders are more durable per point. However, for 1d3, 1d6, 1d6+X, at first glance I'd say eradicators are more durable.

As an example, take lascannons (1d6) against both. To give some more mathhammer, assume 1 landspeeder and 2 eradicators are being shot at by 2 lascannons that always hit (to simplify a bit)

Possible outcomes: 36

2 {(1,1)} - 1/36 - non die
3 {(1,2),(2,1)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead
4 {(1,3),(3,1),(2,2)} - 3/36 - 1 eraditor dead
5 {(1,4),(4,1),(2,3),(3,2)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead
6 {(1,5),(5,1),(2,4),(4,2),(3,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
7 {(1,6),(6,1),(2,5),(5,2),(3,4),(4,3)} - 4/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 6/36 - 1 land speeder dead
8 {(2,6),(6,2),(3,5),(5,3),(4,4)} - 2/36 - 1 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 2 eradicator dead - 5/36 - 1 land speeder dead
9 {(3,6),(6,3),(4,5),(5,4)} - 4/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 4/36 - 1 land speeder dead
10 {(4,6),(6,4),(5,5)} - 3/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 3/36 - 1 land speeder dead
11 {(5,6),(6,5)} - 2/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 2/36 - 1 land speeder dead
12 {(6,6)} - 1/36 - 2 eraditor dead - 1/36 - 1 land speeder dead

So, summarizing:

(2+3+4+4+4+2)/36= 0.52 1 eradicator die
(1+2+3+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.44 2 eradicators die
1/36 = .02 no eradicators die

(5+6+5+4+3+2+1)/36= 0.72 1 land speeder dies

That is, while the landspeeder dies 72% of the times, the two eradicators far better, with only 44% of the times the squad being destroyed, and about half the times 1 eradicator surviving. And note that one eradicator puts out the same number of shots that 1 land speeder.

Its been covered but I don't think its surprising that people talk about things you can use right now rather than what might be available in 6 weeks time.

If Multi Melta Landspeeders etc are the new hotness, expect much salt. But if Multimeltas are say 50 points each, its not the same.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

I think that's kind of the point. Fire dragons fill exactly the same role as eradicators and are.apparently fundamentally flawed.so they aren't used competitively.

BrianDavion wrote:

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

I don't generally keep up with Eldar lists, so I'm probably not the person to ask when it comes to how competitive Fire Dragons are or how many people are using them.

I'd compare them to DE Trueborn but those have been relegated to Legends because they lacked an official model and GW is too busy vomiting Primaris nonsense from every orifice to give them one.

However, let's just go ahead and assume that Fire Dragons are presently uncompetitive. Do you think it makes Eldar players happy that GW has basically said "Hey, we realise that Fire Dragons aren't very good at the moment. Hence, we're committed to fixing this . . . but only for this new Marine unit."?

Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.

So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.

Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Firedragons aren't in the same codex. I'm not necessarily talking about why do other armies dislike them so much as the drooling over them as opposed to other choices etc. Just wondering if I missed a FAQ to make them Assault 2 or something.

We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.

 Super Ready wrote:
We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.

Or the fix might be a brand new unit for Eldar with more efficient anti armour, putting the final nail in the coffin of Fire Dragons.

 Super Ready wrote:
We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.

Sure we do, we just don't know if the fix will accomplish anything They're going to do something with 9th codexes. Barring a major staff upheaval, the leaks and rumors imply they're in the middle of a moderate revamp of the major upheaval that came out of the Indexes. It probably hasn't been long enough for someone else to get put in charge and reboot the rules from scratch with the 8th and 9th BRB being so similar.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

BECAUSE IT COULD BE MONTHS OR YEARS BEFORE XENOS FACTIONS GET THOSE BONUSES? Because the marine eqiuvalents are still better? Because it seems like they've buffed melta WAY too much and brought multimeltas from useless to "...whelp, guess we can leave any no-invul vehicle home now.

When attack bikes are suddenly comparing favorably to arguably the best anti-tank unit in the game currently...we may be in for some bad times. At least for mechanized/monster lists.

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Nah, eradicators are better than landspeeders given current table sizes. They are more durable in many scenarios and they put out more damage per point.

There is a reason why everyone is complaining about them:

They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).
They are very good at tanking small arms fire.
They are infantry to benefit from cover, while having almost light vehicle durability (compare them to mortifers in that regard).
They are very cheap for what they provide.

Other factions may benefit from meltas too, but what other faction has comparable packages for the unit using them? Custodes have super short range meltas, guard get blown to bits, maybe sisters? I'd be interested in comparing retributors in VH to eradicators.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

They did before insane power creeps and they didn't get the same power creep. But now they are trash, so why take a unit that needs help doing its only role its meant to do..

BrianDavion wrote:


Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

You're so close to grasping the issue at hand, yet still manage to be entirely snippy about the whole thing. Its actually rather impressive.

Fire Dragons are abjectly terrible. That is not in dispute. The reason people, especially Craftworlds players, are upset over Eradicators is that they do literally everything that Fire Dragons do (who by the way are supposed to be an exemplar of the tank busters to such an absurd degree that a handful on a battlefield will slag entire armored columns) while being cheaper, tougher and with better rules synergy.

Speaking as someone who was on the receiving end of the "just wait for your rules update" for the entirety of 8th (Hey there Deathwatch!), I can tell you for a fact that argument is exceptionally condescending and frankly detached from the reality of how GW rolls out said updates. They routinely leave entire factions out in the cold, and its not an enjoyable nor a mechanically functional place to be. Especially when others are getting literally the things that one would hope to get with rules updates.

 Super Ready wrote:
We also don't know that they're definitely going to fix non-Imperial factions. We've seen a statement of intent, but whether that's actually followed through on is another matter - the Imperial weapon stats are the only ones we've seen.
For all we know Fire Dragons might well still end up with a higher point cost and inferior stats on the model and weapon - which fixes nothing.

We've seen the Necrons stats as well and their twin-multi-melta is not becoming heavy 4.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

Fire dragons are one of my favourite, and the first unit I ever buy with my own money. I would like to use them.
Seriously this comes of as quite a toxic attitude and really makes me sad seeing it.

Grey40k wrote:


They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).

What new melta rule do they benefit from?

Eradicators are too cheap, period. Gravis aren't that hard to kill and they have drawbacks like lack of transport options, but their price doesn't match their stats and damage potential. Another issue is compared to multi-meltas, which are heavy weapons, their guns are assault, which means they'll be getting the benefits of doctrines twice as many turns and in the turns when they will most likely be able to make use of that bonus AP. AP-5 renders anything without an invul without an armor save. That's pretty nasty for 40 PPM infantry.

 vipoid wrote:


Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.

So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.

Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'

I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

That's the point...marine envy as if. When rest have to deal with having fire dragon level stuff and marines go "eradicators are bad, we have better stuff" there's a problem.

Pretty much nothing outside marine codex is as efficient as eradicators. Yet you call it marine envy...

Well easy to hold highground and diss complains as marine envy when you are holding the broken stuff eh.

Karol wrote:
So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.

Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.