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.

Breton wrote:

Grey40k wrote:
I cannot imagine any faction that wouldn’t take any of those units happily in their roster; that’s a bad thing in my book.

Hi, I'm the OP who didn't think much of the Eradicators. Its nice to imaginary meet you. Eradicators feel like they're going to be like Eliminators, and Suppresors once they hit the codex. So many of these 3 and only 3 units lose their luster once they hit the codex. Point for point I'll take sniper scouts over Eliminators with sniper rfles, tho the lasfusils are interesting (probably left over/expectations of a return to - armor facings). I'll take MM speeders before Attack Bikes before Eradicators. Maybe that's some left over bias from armor facings but it's also getting in range faster, and out of dodge even faster. 20+ points per shot is a lot of points for something that didn't get in firing range.

Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?

@ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.

And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.

 Bosskelot wrote:


Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?

Actually I did. And I really don't get 3x3 Eliminators. They aren't bad, but they aren't your entire HS choices good. Originally I thought the Assault Intercessors were the least appealing of the group, but they're rising fast for me as they'll fit in an Impulsor with a Something Else. I'm on the fence on the Outriders, if they stay a 3 and only 3 too ... If they go 3+3 or more

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...

The very fact, that supposed strengths (cue t1 deepstrike) get curbed for one (which thematically is core of their theme and supposed strengths) and then handed over to another faction.
Good scouts, better infiltrators. Eradicators> Fire dragons /Obliterators/ etc.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:


Did you miss the period of time where 3x3 Eliminators was everywhere or something?

Actually I did. And I really don't get 3x3 Eliminators. They aren't bad, but they aren't your entire HS choices good. Originally I thought the Assault Intercessors were the least appealing of the group, but they're rising fast for me as they'll fit in an Impulsor with a Something Else. I'm on the fence on the Outriders, if they stay a 3 and only 3 too ... If they go 3+3 or more

Then don't make statements about units being bad when the Codex comes out when in at least one of your examples the exact opposite happened.

Eliminators were insane on Codex release and it's only points increases and detachment changes that have made them manageable. (because like the Eradicators, they were far too cheap and cost efficient )

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.

And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.

He's also frankly just wrong. 195 points for 4 melta shots versus 120 points for 6 melta shots. "Within 10% cost" lol.

Breton wrote:


How much is a MM speeder? MM Attack bike?

They're single models though. Big difference when multiwound weapons target those units, a single lascannon can actually delete a speeder but only 33% of an eradicator unit. And MM speeder and bikes don't fire twice with an inner ability.

MM attack bike is 50 points? Without firing twice ability, but +1W and better movement than eradicators. I'd take a cheaper double tapping eradicator anytime.

Land speeder with melta and other weapon is 85? With also the downside of being vehicle, as Bring It Down is one of the most common end easiest secondary to achieve.

Eradicators should definitely be 50-60 points, and they'd still be worthy, or they could be ok at 40ppm if they get their shooting twice ability removed. A devastator with multimelta is 35 points but only T4 and 1W (jumping to 2W will also make it cost higher), no double tapping of course.

The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

I think at this point he is either trolling or trying to justify broken units to himself.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.

And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.

What makes you think I'm looking at a points efficient model? Everyone keeps assuming that but I'm looking at slower than even normal foot sloggers that can't Deep Strike, can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole, can't deep strike, and can't infiltrate. Shooty Models that can't shoot because they didn't get in range are not efficient. 1-2 shot Gravis 5" footsloggers that need to be within 24 and really want to be within 12"? To be fair it's 5+ D6" but that's still slower than most of what they want to shoot at. If they weren't Gravis, or even better if they were Inceptor Jump Gravis I'd be reaching for kleenex and lotion too.

If they made a model for an Exterminatus Bomb. Costs 1 Point, and on a 2+ deals 80 mortal wounds to every opposition unit on the table. That's pretty efficient. But it only goes off on turn 7 of a 5 turn game... so? People pointed at Firedragons. Firedragons aren't bad because they're expensive. They're bad because they spend a lot of time not shooting and definitely not shooting at their best potential.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think at this point he is either trolling or trying to justify broken units to himself.

i don't think so, internally there are massive options around and some can be concieved as just as valid or better.

THat said, i feel that eradicators are just the straw that broke the camels back moreseo than the nr1 issue with the SM dex.

But gw beeing gw and hiring ruleswirters and designers more on attitude and not actual skill, or artificially stretching rules releases will lead to issues.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: Please don't take this comment badly but isn't that really what others said? You look at a - to say the least - very points efficient and effective unit and don't see a problem because you have even more effective options in the codex and wonder why other (codexes) see a problem. For the others it doesn't really matter that there is even better stuff in the Marine codex when their stuff cannot even compare on an eye to eye level with what you deem to be a 3rd choice.

And regarding the question why so many players are angry at the effectiveness of Eradicators when there are those more efficient choices (under the assumption that everybody gets 2 shot MM) I think one point is, that Eradicators are more comparable in their role than those. Not everybody had something that really compared to an attack bike or Land Speeder, but some (like Eldar Firedragons, the CSM heavy weapon guys I just forgot the name of or Sisters Retributors, perhaps IG Melta Squads) have something that fits the description "infantry with Melta weapons", so that a direct comparison is rather obvious.

What makes you think I'm looking at a points efficient model? Everyone keeps assuming that but I'm looking at slower than even normal foot sloggers that can't Deep Strike, can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole, can't deep strike, and can't infiltrate. Shooty Models that can't shoot because they didn't get in range are not efficient. 1-2 shot Gravis 5" footsloggers that need to be within 24 and really want to be within 12"? To be fair it's 5+ D6" but that's still slower than most of what they want to shoot at. If they weren't Gravis, or even better if they were Inceptor Jump Gravis I'd be reaching for kleenex and lotion too.

If they made a model for an Exterminatus Bomb. Costs 1 Point, and on a 2+ deals 80 mortal wounds to every opposition unit on the table. That's pretty efficient. But it only goes off on turn 7 of a 5 turn game... so? People pointed at Firedragons. Firedragons aren't bad because they're expensive. They're bad because they spend a lot of time not shooting and definitely not shooting at their best potential.

erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I think at this point he is either trolling or trying to justify broken units to himself.

Your Logical Fallacy is "Poisoning The Well"

Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Oblits are Assault 6, the full 24" and deep strike. If I were complaining about Oblits being overcosted - and they probably are - I'd look at Boltstorm Aggressors for the comparison. They should be more than the Aggressors due to a slightly better weapon profile, slightly better save and Deepstrike but not nearly triple.

Not Online!!! wrote:
erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.

Now THIS is something I hadn't considered. With the CP changes giving everyone enough CP to play with, not just the Loyal 32 I need to look more/again/better at pre-battle CP usage.

Oooh man.. I really need to, I forgot about Vigilus/CodexCarryover too for those strats and whatnot too. Thank you, you've finally found a reason I understand that doesn't start with assuming they're good proving they're good.

@ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.

And also

before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole

120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.

And also

before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole

120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?

Sisters Retibutors are pretty good with Multi meltas - when the new version arrives.

yeah alot of the obvious reasons "Eradcators are broken" seem to be just ignored for some reason.

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Oblits are Assault 6, the full 24" and deep strike. If I were complaining about Oblits being overcosted - and they probably are - I'd look at Boltstorm Aggressors for the comparison. They should be more than the Aggressors due to a slightly better weapon profile, slightly better save and Deepstrike but not nearly triple.

Not Online!!! wrote:
erm you can deepstrike 2 x 3 of these for one CP:
nuff said.

Now THIS is something I hadn't considered. With the CP changes giving everyone enough CP to play with, not just the Loyal 32 I need to look more/again/better at pre-battle CP usage.

Oooh man.. I really need to, I forgot about Vigilus/CodexCarryover too for those strats and whatnot too. Thank you, you've finally found a reason I understand that doesn't start with assuming they're good proving they're good.

Obliterators suffer from obliterator syndrome, a thing such units for SM should also suffer, but don't, hence why "spike tax" is a real thing not just a figment for imagination.
As for the later, you can make even less flattering comparisons to chosen, which for 1 CP you get 1 Squad in reserves for deepstriking, cost 30 pts more, with 1 shot less in melta, half the range and if you want actually more output another 2 CP, in a faction that relies on CP for more then just some meltas.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton:
They have 24'' guns... and are reeeally sturdy. And regarding "they are slow footsloggers": they are 1'' slower than Sisters Retributors or Guard Meltaguys. And the latter have to get into 12''/6'' with that.

And also

before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole

120 Points... 120... That have to be removed with massive firepower because those are 3 x 3 T5 3+ wounds... giant point sinkhole... I just... really?

The Repulsor they were riding in was the it exploding in a smoking crater of a points sinkhole. They only fit in Repulsors. The part you cut was pointing out their transport options.

can only ride in 1 transport that won't get them very far before it explodes in a giant points sinkhole

1 transport that won't get them very far before it

If you cannot find ways to shot your eradicators at least turn 2 with a 24'' range and the new smaller takes it means your opponent heavily outplayed you.

https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/9th-edition-40k-eternal-war-mission-rules-youll-need.html

Eradicators are now massively OP, in part because no one got their heavy 2 meltas yet.

But even then, you are paying 120 points for a squad of 5 retributors (3 meltas) and those are t3/1w; heavy 2 won't diminish the imbalance.

Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.

@ Breton: in this case I apologize, as I have misunderstood that passage.
I still stand to the "very cost effective" bit though

 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.

If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.

Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey40k wrote:
If you cannot find ways to shot your eradicators at least turn 2 with a 24'' range and the new smaller takes it means your opponent heavily outplayed you.

https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/9th-edition-40k-eternal-war-mission-rules-youll-need.html

Eradicators are now massively OP, in part because no one got their heavy 2 meltas yet.

But even then, you are paying 120 points for a squad of 5 retributors (3 meltas) and those are t3/1w; heavy 2 won't diminish the imbalance.

Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.

What competitive play? Is this in Europe? Are people still ignoring the virus? My state is so heavily locked down that the only way to get a game in is to play at home, in the basement.

Grey40k wrote:


Consider, for a second, that there is a reason why in competitive play everyone is taking 3x eradicators and no one is bringing speeders and attack bikes; put yourself in the ohter's side shoes for a moment, like I did for you to compare your speeder and eradicators against lascannon fire.

Yeah about your math...

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.

If the hit and wound are both the same - but 67% of damage rolls 1shot kills an aggressor and only 50% of damage rolls kills a speeder....when you put two speeders against 3 Eradicators hit by 3 or 4 Lascannon (your choice) I suspect it gets closer. And the numbers get even better when its a flat 1D or 3D weapons like bolters, most melee, (not-overcharged) plasma and lasfusils and their non-SM counterparts


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


He's also frankly just wrong. 195 points for 4 melta shots versus 120 points for 6 melta shots. "Within 10% cost" lol.

Last I checked two MM speeders were 140 points Did you not see the original premise was "assuming Heavy 2 MM goes live"? Were you creating three speeders? Four Speeders? Were you adding the second weapon option? Not sure how you're getting to 195.

I did misread the Eradicators as 130 instead of 120 so it's not within 10% They're 85.7% of cost instead of 90%

Breton wrote:


If the hit and wound are both the same - but 67% of damage rolls 1shot kills an aggressor and only 50% of damage rolls kills a speeder....when you put two speeders against 3 Eradicators hit by 3 or 4 Lascannon (your choice) I suspect it gets closer. And the numbers get even better when its a flat 1D or 3D weapons like bolters, most melee, (not-overcharged) plasma and lasfusils and their non-SM counterparts

It just gets more cumbersome to show you the full distribution of outcomes; 2d6 dice have 36 possible damage outcomes, 3d6 have 216 outcomes. I picked 2 because it is manageable.

It is a bit pointless to do endless examples with 2,3,4 lascannons and this or this many other landspeeders. The point here being whether it is better to have multiple units with smaller wounds than a single unit with more wounds, and when that is the case (everything else equal).

If the shooting output degrades faster per wound on one or the other, that's a possible reason (e.g. brackets in vehicles).
Another reason is to which extent we can face overspilling of weapons, given the relative prevalence of different profiles and how suitable they are against the targets we evaluate (e.g. good luck killing eradicators with lasguns).

I picked the simplest example (splitting 6 wounds in 2 vs 1 units and 2 shots) to show you how the wound splitting advantage is pretty powerful, enough to compensate for the wound advantage of the speeder over eradicators (without getting into the fact that you can cover / hide better infantry). Now, if you only had 1 lascannon show and only 1, it would be better to shoot at the eradicators. See how one can tailor examples to fit whatever you want as the outcome? Hence why I think it is more valuable to illustrate properties.

Since I can already see that you will insist, I will give you your example nonetheless, but I will take shortcuts for ease of computation.

Take 4 eradicators vs 2 landspeeders (you did 140 points of speeders vs 120 of eradicators, I do 160 points of eradicators vs 140 of speeders, so hopefully it is fair?), shoot them with 4 lascannons.

The odds that 2 lascannon shots that hit and wound eliminate a landspeeder are 72%, and 44% that they kill 2 eradicators. Since those are independent events, the odds that this happens twice (that the second barrage also succeeds) are:

.72*.72=51% for the speeder vs and similarly 19% for the eradicators.

Please, at least acknowledge the results (or challenge them!), it takes time for me to calculate things.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the idea that they "invalidate" all other armies? C'mon...

Marines have always been about flexability. that's kinda their schtick, hyper elite troops flexable eneugh to do any number of tasks well. which is what they have, thing is with points limits marines have to choose wisely. we can't do everything at once.

Yeah, but why would anyone TAKE marines?

Intercessors are so much more powerful, they've had years of being crazy strong.
The only people willing to take your basic marine are the ones that aren't following the game, the meta and the sales pitch and don't deserve having powerful models at all.

Not to mention in the LORE it states the Primaris are so much more than a basic marine. For them to all of a sudden become the same strength is essentially unfair for all those that love primaris.
They should've stayed binned forever.

Primaris have had years of being crazy powerful? Try 11 months.

Think about the poor animals that were born in, and died during this marine meta, think about how they feel.
Tell them "Your life was only 11 months". To them it was years.

... I doubt Mayflies care much about 40k one way or another

My own thoughts for what it's worth - there are plenty of other low cost units with decent guns, it is that eradicators are also so durable that makes them over the top.

T5, 3W, 2+ save (stealthy or in cover). There are very few weapons that have a flat 3 damage, and a D6 damage weapon is frankly unreliable, even a bs 3+ lascannon has less than a 20% chance of one shotting a single eradicator (4/6 to hit x 4/6 to wound x 4/6 to bypass armour x 4/6 to roll enough wounds to kill).

This is all exaggerated even further by how many durability enhancing abilities marines have between psychic powers, stratagems, relic banners, apothecaries etc. They will live long enough to get the job done, or soak enough attacks to allow the rest of your force to.

 Togusa 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.

If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.

Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.

.

You think 12" is as far as models see? Also, 120 points of Eradicators also just get more shots than 120 points of Fire Dragons, let alone doing it at 2.5x the range. If you think there's a debate on which is better, you're opinion doesn't matter since you're either willfully ignorant or completely misinformed.

Something you people are missing is this. A MM can not be 20 points. A lastalon is 35/40...A MM is better so should probably cost even more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Togusa 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.

If feel like this would matter, if Eradicators could be taken by other factions. Are they better than Fire Dragons? Debatable. Are Fire Dragons still good, very much so. Can Eldar players run Eradicators? No. Can Eldar Players run Fire Dragons? Yes.

Will both of these units delete any tank they see? Yes.

.

You think 12" is as far as models see? Also, 120 points of Eradicators also just get more shots than 120 points of Fire Dragons, let alone doing it at 2.5x the range. If you think there's a debate on which is better, you're opinion doesn't matter since you're either willfully ignorant or completely misinformed.

Nah...there are situations were firedragons are better. Like when you want to split fire (actually occurs a lot in the game) or if you want to hyperbuff or fire and fade. Dragans also move farther and with battle focus don't suffer the penalty for advance and firing assault weapons. Can also take a heavy flamer in the unit and still throw a melta bomb with the Exarch. Eldar can doom the target and support the first dragons from 24" away with guide from a farseer. Plus dragons can fit in reasonably cost transports...gravis might as well have no transport options because repulsors and executioners are between 50 and 100 points overcosted. Really the only issue with eradicators is they are a little undercosted. at 50 points they aren't exciting at all and probably wont ever be used. Its gonna be devestators in drop pods and land speeders with quad melta all day if the cost leaks have been accurate up till now.

Bringing up character support and psychic powers for FD's isn't exactly helping the point though. Eradicators can also benefit from amazing character support, amazing stratagems, amazing doctrines, amazing litanies and amazing psychic powers.

That's kind of the point. Fire Dragons need the extra support in order to approach anything remotely effective. Eradicators are already incredibly effective and efficient on their own... but also get access to incredible buffs that are far above any other army too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Something you people are missing is this. A MM can not be 20 points. A lastalon is 35/40...A MM is better so should probably cost even more.
. . .
Nah...there are situations were firedragons are better. Like when you want to split fire (actually occurs a lot in the game) or if you want to hyperbuff or fire and fade. Dragans also move farther and with battle focus don't suffer the penalty for advance and firing assault weapons. Can also take a heavy flamer in the unit and still throw a melta bomb with the Exarch. Eldar can doom the target and support the first dragons from 24" away with guide from a farseer. Plus dragons can fit in reasonably cost transports...gravis might as well have no transport options because repulsors and executioners are between 50 and 100 points overcosted. Really the only issue with eradicators is they are a little undercosted. at 50 points they aren't exciting at all and probably wont ever be used. Its gonna be devestators in drop pods and land speeders with quad melta all day if the cost leaks have been accurate up till now.

At the moment it's still 38 points for a Devastator with a Multimelta that has fewer wounds, lower toughness, can't move and fire without penalty, and can't Advance and shoot at all. . . Vs. 40 points for an Eradicator. +2 points for +1 T, +1 W, No movement penalty and can advance and still fire. That's a little awkward, and that's with the Multimelta at 20 pts.

I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?

Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.

Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.

 DarkHound wrote:
I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?

Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.

Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.

Well since 4x3 isn't a legal army that raises questions.

Dudeface wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
I mean, since it seems like the reasons Eradicators are too strong are falling on deaf ears, would the nay sayers prefer examples?

Goonhammer featured an article two weeks ago that looked at the top winning competitive armies. The two highest placing armies were Salamanders and Iron Hands, both with 3x3 Eradicators. Every competitive Space Marine list I've seen has included at least 2x3 Eradicators, and sometimes even 4x3. To Breton specifically, the top Salamander army is already unconventionally running Landspeeders. However, even they didn't bother with Multi-melta Landspeeders in favour of Eradicators. If that isn't a directly damning example of their efficiency compared to other options, nothing is.

Maybe you don't see the reason why Eradicators are strong. However, empirical evidence shows they are game-warpingly strong. Every competitive player runs them if they can, or builds specifically to counter them if they can't. If you don't understand why they are strong, that points to your misunderstanding, not their consensus experience.

Well since 4x3 isn't a legal army that raises questions.

Sigh - thats the only thing you took from that post?....