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.

....I do assume dissies won't get blast, because they aren't a random shot weapon.

What?

 Eldarsif wrote:


The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.

Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.

But they will be in an army full of similar models, so it doesn't work like that. I get what you mean if they were part of an army full of 1w models, but they will be part of an army where 2 wounds is likely the minimum and bikes etc will be on 4 wounds.

I have been very positive about this 9th edition and I thin k the edition itself is looking great, but the Space Marines are looking very far from balanced compared to other factions

Aash wrote:
The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.

That actually sounds about right. If they have heavy bolter and flamer equives it'd muck PL right up with how GW currently does it.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Aash wrote:
The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.

No, the unit datasheet shows that there are no weapon options. Eradicators come with the bespoke melta rifle and cost only 5 PL, so ~100 points only for that profile.

This is probably the Datasheet included in the box. The Dark Imperium versions of the Intercessors, Inceptors, and Hellblasters didn't include their alternate weapon options either. The same was true for Eliminators and Infiltrators in Shadowspear.

 Rinkydink wrote:
You assume the dissies won't get blast?

Why would dissies get the blast rule? They aren't variable shots and never had templates. Only thing I expect to get the blast rule in Drukhari forces is the Shredder and Flyer missiles.

Murderbucket profile, since I didn't see it posted earlier.



I have to say, for what I assume is 20 pts each, they're pretty tasty.

Doohicky wrote:

Aash wrote:
The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.

This is the only hope, but unfortunately I really doubt it is the case.

Just a note - PL did consider weapons. It just averaged the overall possible upgrades. Things like Deathwatch had a really low relative PL, because their base was cheap and they had a ton of potential upgrades.

Doohicky wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.

Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.

But they will be in an army full of similar models, so it doesn't work like that. I get what you mean if they were part of an army full of 1w models, but they will be part of an army where 2 wounds is likely the minimum and bikes etc will be on 4 wounds.

I have been very positive about this 9th edition and I thin k the edition itself is looking great, but the Space Marines are looking very far from balanced compared to other factions

I agree on every note. I am personally super pumped for 9th except with this little speed bump that was revealed. My earlier post was just me trying desperately to find fault even if that fault is very minimal compared to what they represent.

the_scotsman wrote:
....I do assume dissies won't get blast, because they aren't a random shot weapon.

What?

Maybe i'm a little rusty. I'm sure disintegrators used to have a template, so would would be more effective at larger unit groups. I was trying to make the point that those redundant blasts might be less of a problem in 9th. They'd be good vs the Primaris as well as lighter infantry.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Things like Deathwatch had a really low relative PL, because their base was cheap and they had a ton of potential upgrades.

A typical 10-man kill team rolls in at 20+ PL in the present rules. That aint remotely cheap.

not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Behold, a totally not a daisy chain/conga line!

This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.

Which it is?

 Latro_ wrote:
not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..

Defensive melee to ward off heavier melee threats?

 Rinkydink wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
....I do assume dissies won't get blast, because they aren't a random shot weapon.

What?

Maybe i'm a little rusty. I'm sure disintegrators used to have a template, so would would be more effective at larger unit groups. I was trying to make the point that those redundant blasts might be less of a problem in 9th. They'd be good vs the Primaris as well as lighter infantry.

Must be long ago. At least as far back as fifth edition, they've just been 3 shots (though they used to be heavy). Fluff-wise, it's the Dark Eldar Plasma-Cannon.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.

Which it is?

Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.

As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.

We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.

There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Behold, a totally not a daisy chain/conga line!

Spoiler:

This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.

Not true. It certainly makes AdMech players think hard about brining 6 Ballistari instead of 5

The issue with pointing 3-damage weapons at Eradicators is that they can easily be supported by a Chief Apothecary or be Iron Hands.

If Iron Hands, a 3 damage weapon has just shy of a 60% chance of one-shotting them.
If supported by a Chief Apothecary, it drops to less than a 30% chance.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Behold, a totally not a daisy chain/conga line!

Spoiler:

This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.

Not true. It certainly makes AdMech players think hard about brining 6 Ballistari instead of 5

Yeah it's a massive mess of a rule that prevents 6 man units of stuff with large bases from moving in very natural ways, crippling those units compared to the same unit with 5 models instead.

I encourage everyone to put down some 40 or 60mm bases on a table and try moving them around with terrain and enemy models to limit your movement options, to realize just how much of a mess this rule is. There are all sorts of times you will want to make a completely normal move - nothing like a conga line - and simply not be able to do so because of the arbitrary nerf to coherency you take from a 6th model.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.

Which it is?

You clearly have anger issues. Are you angry at the unit cost, that someone is less angry than you, or something else in life?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.

Which it is?

Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.

As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.

We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.

There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.

I completely agree that criticising GW for something that may potentially happen is foolish and a waste of time. That said, the datasheet shows no options so has no potential for averaging. We can also compare 5PL of 9th with 5PL of 8th with the context of points increasing for 9th. One would expect in that context that the 5PL 9th unit be underpowered or equal to the 5PL 8th unit, but this is clearly not the case as has been evidenced several times in this thread.

I think it is fine to caveat that, as things stand these appear to be very powerful for their PL.

what i dot get is, isnt most GW scenery (the new stuff) like 6" between levels. So the 5" vertical coherency is a bit

 Latro_ wrote:
not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..

They're pretty damn good at melee. And that's probably the point - you have them so he isn't in combat.

 mould2k wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.

Which it is?

Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.

As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.

We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.

There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.

I completely agree that criticising GW for something that may potentially happen is foolish and a waste of time. That said, the datasheet shows no options so has no potential for averaging. We can also compare 5PL of 9th with 5PL of 8th with the context of points increasing for 9th. One would expect in that context that the 5PL 9th unit be underpowered or equal to the 5PL 8th unit, but this is clearly not the case as has been evidenced several times in this thread.

I think it is fine to caveat that, as things stand these appear to be very powerful for their PL.

GW has withheld information before.

Heck Eliminators had a gun option missing when they came out in the original set, but the PL already reflected their full options AFAIK.

Oh wow, the unit coherency rules now also require you to *remove models* to get back into unit coherency.



This is such a trap for the unwary. Pull one single casualty and your whole squad can disappear down to about 3ish models.

The Death Jester ability to choose which model flees first is going to cause whole squads to evaporate now when people aren't careful.

This rule is going to create so much mess and unintended consequences.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..

They're pretty damn good at melee. And that's probably the point - you have them so he isn't in combat.

what hitting on a 4 with 6 attacks
vs marines
3 hits
2 wounds
1 dead?

you'd need 6 of them to kill 3 marines.

only goes up to 4 dead marines if you have 6 of them and they are all within 3" of a tek

I really am curious as to what there will be to encourage anyone from going to a 6-man squad from a 5-man squad.

Right now, it seems like GW has created yet another one of their trademark weird break points like the ~300 point "you're a superheavy now so you can ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY SLAM DUNK on anything that costs 299 points" from 7th ed or "You're a Character with 10 wounds so now you get INSTANTLY HOSED TURN 1" from 8th.

"Hey there little jimmy, hows your space marine collection coming?"

"Pwetty good mister GW, I'm just thinking I'll take my skwad of terminatows and add just oooone moooore moooodel..."

"Oh no, little jimmy, looks like you've added a sixth member to your squad! Now you give up double the PL in our new Kill Points system, you have to keep your unit bunched up, blast weapons get automatic 3 shots on you, your unit costs twice as much to place into reserves, and our newest previewed rule comes into effect: Smash The Enemy Hordes! That means your opponent is allowed to take a hammer and smash your models into little bits if they successfully destroy your whole squad of 6 or more models!"

 Latro_ wrote:
what i dot get is, isnt most GW scenery (the new stuff) like 6" between levels. So the 5" vertical coherency is a bit

only if they change the rule to measure from Base to Base instead from "any point of the model"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..

They're pretty damn good at melee. And that's probably the point - you have them so he isn't in combat.

Yeah, 40 points is pretty cheap to protect a character... assuming the character itself is worth protecting. It rides on how worth it cryptkes/plamancers are, but so far these seem like pretty effiecient little murderbots. 6 attacks is already more than any current necron model has.

Faction Focus: Genestealer Cults