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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Based on the 1 CP = 25 points formula.

So they’ll likely be around 125 points.

Which is being generous to them as GW have said 25 PL=500 points, 500÷25= 20 points per PL, exactly what GW said it's supposed to be.

What pisses me off the most is not even the units powerlevel. But...

A melta weapon from an anti-science race is better in every way than from a high-tech race that is millions of years older.

Wait what?!

Weidekuh wrote:
What pisses me off the most is not even the units powerlevel. But...

A melta weapon from an anti-science race is better in every way than from a high-tech race that is millions of years older.

Wait what?!

You dont have Belesarious potter on your side so you loose according to GW.

Martel732 wrote:

I don't know why you find that amusing. It's really the truth.

It's amusing because :
1 - the fact these models are bad being the truth doesn't mean your argument is valid.
2 - I'm not entirely sure but I think you'll be hard pressed to find anti vehicle infantry that is considered worth taking regularly in the game at the moment.
3 - I wonder how you would deal with "but BA aren't played anyway"
4 - It's a marine release that we are discussing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Weidekuh wrote:
What pisses me off the most is not even the units powerlevel. But...

A melta weapon from an anti-science race is better in every way than from a high-tech race that is millions of years older.

Wait what?!

You dont have Belesarious potter on your side so you loose according to GW.

The dude worked on this stuff for 10K years or something, he can't show bad results !

I have done my part by not purchasing any space marine models in a little more than a decade. That is the only defence we have.

Martel732 wrote:

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now.

Nothing GW can do will fix the problems you have.

Martel732 wrote:
Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

Well, it'll solve the problem that I didn't have some melta-type option should I make a 100% Primaris themed force.

I'm not sure it's a great argument to say "yeah these would be ridiculously good in any other army, but numarines are already so absurdly strong that by their standards this doesn't seem *that* overpowered..."

Well that's another kick in the teeth for me.

Using these as salamanders and they go from an incredibly efficient unit to downright broken. The melta weapons get +1 to wound, so T7 or less on 2+ T8 on 3+ - and since they get to shoot twice during the phase they get their re-roll hit/wound chapter tactic each time.

24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I've stopped myself from using any primaris thus far - but these guys are a slap in the face to the firstborn (as well as every other infantry ranged AT)

Vilehydra wrote:
24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I agree with the general sentiments in this post, but I think above is a bit of a stretch.

If you take into consideration the new heavy weapon rules & non-infantry interaction, there isn't much difference between melta rifles and multimelta, considering that there are only few infantries that can wield MM's.

For example, MM on AB's have 26" melta threat range w/o advancing vs MR on Eradicators have 17" melta threat range or 17"+d6" with -1 to hit after advancing.

I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

 skchsan wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I agree with the general sentiments in this post, but I think above is a bit of a stretch.

If you take into consideration the new heavy weapon rules & non-infantry interaction, there isn't much difference between melta rifles and multimelta, considering that there are only few infantries that can wield MM's.

I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

If they end up costing 150pts or less (due to their known cost of 5PL at the moment), they compare favourably against most infantry based ranged anti armour. Not just other meltas.

 skchsan wrote:
I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

Costing it according to the on-paper value of the gun plus the value of a basic Gravis statline would seem to me to be a mistake, given just how ridiculously strong a shoot-twice ability (that doesn't even require you to stand still!) is.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the 5PL cost was drafted without that shoot-twice ability, and it might actually be more expensive on release. Assuming this isn't another case of the suits using the rules to push plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I agree with the general sentiments in this post, but I think above is a bit of a stretch.

If you take into consideration the new heavy weapon rules & non-infantry interaction, there isn't much difference between melta rifles and multimelta, considering that there are only few infantries that can wield MM's.

I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

If they end up costing 150pts or less (due to their known cost of 5PL at the moment), they compare favourably against most infantry based ranged anti armour. Not just other meltas.

It's worse than that; 1PL = 20pts so we're looking at ~100pts for the three of them if it isn't changed before release.

 catbarf wrote:

It's worse than that; 1PL = 20pts so we're looking at ~100pts for the three of them if it isn't changed before release.

I know that 1PL is worth around 20pts, I just can't believe these will end up at around 100 rather than around 150.

I also find them... very optimized to say the least. Their weapon basically resembles a Devildog Meltacannon (D3 shots instead of 2, but appart from that it's the same) and they are also in roughly the same PL area (Devildog has PL6, but might go up with the points increase).

Yet when I look at both units... The Devildog (with Hullmelta) has on average 3 shots, 2 on a 4+ and another, heavy one that might be 5+ on the move. And those stats degrade. The Eradicators get 6 shots on a 3+ and are much more capable in CC. The Devildog is arguably faster and has +2 toughness and wounds, but as damage does not spill, the Eradicators take the same number of D2 shots (6) to kill. So I see a unit that is not that much weaker defensivly than a Devildog, while being much better offensivly and most likely cheaper. And that's coming from Imperial Guard that usually has the cheaper version of the imperial weapons systems.

But it might be unfair to compare them to a vehicle, I don't know.

dhallnet wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

It's worse than that; 1PL = 20pts so we're looking at ~100pts for the three of them if it isn't changed before release.

I know that 1PL is worth around 20pts, I just can't believe these will end up at around 100 rather than around 150.

I can't believe anyone would price them at 50 points a model. They aren't worth it. Honestly, they're just hitting the worth at being 33-35 points. They're not broken, simply all other Melta just downright sucks. Period.

 skchsan wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I agree with the general sentiments in this post, but I think above is a bit of a stretch.

If you take into consideration the new heavy weapon rules & non-infantry interaction, there isn't much difference between melta rifles and multimelta, considering that there are only few infantries that can wield MM's.

For example, MM on AB's have 26" melta threat range w/o advancing vs MR on Eradicators have 17" melta threat range or 17"+d6" with -1 to hit after advancing.

I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

Its fair to say that this comes down to points, and we'll have to wait and see. The main concern ofc is the doublefire rule (although a 12" vs 6" 2d6k1 range is HUGE - mostly because of explosions, it consistently changes how I play games, as I will stay out of melta range just to stop myself from exploding), because they start shifting to be incredibly threatening to any heavy infantry as well as vehicles. A squad of 3 salamander eradicators on turn 2 or 3 have a significant chance to just remove a 3 man squad of centurions, ignoring there armor save and wounding on 2's.

Funnily enough it heavily threatens other gravis units as well.

Why would anyone care about explosions LOL

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:
Where have they posted the point values for these units?

We only have the power level, but it is not high enough going by typical conventions. GW need to nerf the gak out of these guys straight out of the gate.

Come on now, you know how this game is played.

Step 1: GW knowingly makes x OP.
Step 2: GW sells x to as many people as possible.
Step 3: ONLY after having sold Y amount of X (determined by Accounting) will GW change it.

Just like they did with Intercessors for two and a half years!

Waaaaait a second!

Intercessors were utter garbage on launch. In fact, all the primaris units were horrendous on release. They've just gotten a ton of rules updates and point drops since then.

PL 5 covers something like 85-135 points in a Marine list. My initial estimate in 8th-ed points was "the base dude should probably closer to 25 point Incursors than 21 point Aggressors, that gun is clearly better than a 20 point Multimelta even without the double-tap, so ~45 ppm at the low end".

135 for the unit is at the top end of the PL 5 range, but it's not out of that range. 135 is probably still too low though.

Fire dragons 6PL equal shots, equal wounds less T.

Also Gw sucks at making their new stuff OP. half the time it sucks. They're just crap at balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also fire dragons come in at 24ppm.

Units that do not have a lot of options tend to skew higher on the PL scale. Given it sort of assumes you take about average on the options. It's why in more spammy and competitive lists the direct comparison can give you a skewed image.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would anyone care about explosions LOL

Vengeance of the machine spirit
Noble Sacrifice
Ctan
Seraptek Heavy Construct
HellHounds
The Admech forced Explosion Strat
The GSC forced Explosion Strat
+ all the other various vehicles that have a higher then normal chance of exploding
+ all the other strategems that I'm probably forgetting here
+ The chance that the opponent rolling the hard six would change the course of the game.

These are all scenarios that I would care about explosions when making my decisions. These are also all scenarios that I have had experience with and either avoided or fell into by merit of my own decisions.
Saying that I can maximize that effectiveness whilst also completely ignoring any non 2d6 explosions is a pretty big deal for that weapon type.

 skchsan wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
24" Meltas assault meltas are absolutely bonkers, Ones that can double tap, and with the strategic reserves you can even further mitigate range and penalties and enemy target priorities is just ridiculous.

I agree with the general sentiments in this post, but I think above is a bit of a stretch.

If you take into consideration the new heavy weapon rules & non-infantry interaction, there isn't much difference between melta rifles and multimelta, considering that there are only few infantries that can wield MM's.

For example, MM on AB's have 26" melta threat range w/o advancing vs MR on Eradicators have 17" melta threat range or 17"+d6" with -1 to hit after advancing.

I think it all comes down to how much these units are going to cost. Any less than 22 pts (or the cost of MM) for melta rifles will lean towards 'unbalanced' category unless melta weapons across the board gets price reduction.

That double-tap rule needs to be a stratagem however. ALL double anything rules NEEDS to be stratagem.

By few you mean 'every basic trooper in both SoB and oldmarine armies as well as specialist units in both'?

dhallnet wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

It's worse than that; 1PL = 20pts so we're looking at ~100pts for the three of them if it isn't changed before release.

I know that 1PL is worth around 20pts, I just can't believe these will end up at around 100 rather than around 150.

If we're doing price is right and the closest without going over wins then i'll bet 110. It's just that a lot of other weapons have to come down a ton in cost, which feels weird, because games were supposed to be smaller...which I guess happens when people take more special weapons?

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would anyone care about explosions LOL

Vengeance of the machine spirit
Noble Sacrifice
Ctan
Seraptek Heavy Construct
HellHounds
The Admech forced Explosion Strat
The GSC forced Explosion Strat
+ all the other various vehicles that have a higher then normal chance of exploding
+ all the other strategems that I'm probably forgetting here
+ The chance that the opponent rolling the hard six would change the course of the game.

These are all scenarios that I would care about explosions when making my decisions. These are also all scenarios that I have had experience with and either avoided or fell into by merit of my own decisions.
Saying that I can maximize that effectiveness whilst also completely ignoring any non 2d6 explosions is a pretty big deal for that weapon type.

Honestly that's just straight paranoia based on anecdotes.

ERJAK wrote:

Intercessors were utter garbage on launch. In fact, all the primaris units were horrendous on release. They've just gotten a ton of rules updates and point drops since then.

*nods* I was being facetious, because I find the premise of that argument so flimsy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
PL 5 covers something like 85-135 points in a Marine list. My initial estimate in 8th-ed points was "the base dude should probably closer to 25 point Incursors than 21 point Aggressors, that gun is clearly better than a 20 point Multimelta even without the double-tap, so ~45 ppm at the low end".

135 for the unit is at the top end of the PL 5 range, but it's not out of that range. 135 is probably still too low though.

I don't think PL5 goes to 135. Aggressors are currently PL5 and range from 105 up to 111 making the average 108 and rounding them down to 100 -- ergo PL5. I am unsure is 119 would be PL5, but anything past that would be PL6.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe anyone would price them at 50 points a model. They aren't worth it. Honestly, they're just hitting the worth at being 33-35 points. They're not broken, simply all other Melta just downright sucks. Period.

Are we talking 'worth it' in the meaning of 'fairly priced compared to the rest of the game' or 'worth it' in the meaning of 'yes I would take this to LVO where only the very best, most broken builds from any codex ever show up'?

I mean, at 33-35pts these guys are better than Hellblasters in every way that matters. Same cost, comparable range and rate of fire, double the average damage, no risk of overheat, higher T and an extra wound. All they lose is an inch of movement.

People keep saying 'these only seem broken because melta sucks'. Well, no, they seem broken because they're flat-out better for the cost than any infantry AT I can think of. What other anti-tank infantry are comparable to this?

People keep saying 'these only seem broken because melta sucks'. Well, no, they seem broken because they're flat-out better for the cost than any infantry AT I can think of. What other anti-tank infantry are comparable to this?

It's doubly interesting when you consider the fact that all those other "existing" AT units are likely getting points increases ...

Hopefully they will get rules adjustment as well ...


Also, @Daedalus81 - I agree, they are very nice looking data sheets.

EDIT: I don't know why I put "existing" in quotes. It's not a conspiracy - they really do exist!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would anyone care about explosions LOL

Vengeance of the machine spirit
Noble Sacrifice
Ctan
Seraptek Heavy Construct
HellHounds
The Admech forced Explosion Strat
The GSC forced Explosion Strat
+ all the other various vehicles that have a higher then normal chance of exploding
+ all the other strategems that I'm probably forgetting here
+ The chance that the opponent rolling the hard six would change the course of the game.

These are all scenarios that I would care about explosions when making my decisions. These are also all scenarios that I have had experience with and either avoided or fell into by merit of my own decisions.
Saying that I can maximize that effectiveness whilst also completely ignoring any non 2d6 explosions is a pretty big deal for that weapon type.

Honestly that's just straight paranoia based on anecdotes.

How is stating tools that opponents will consistently have and can be leveraged against you paranoia? I don't know your how competent your local gaming situation is, but I if I put small units within 6 of a dying repulsor, my opponent would pop Vengeance of the machine spirit. I have leveraged noble sacrifice to do heavy damage and exert board control. Skilled opponents have positioned Hellhounds or Ctan to threaten board position just by merit of existing.

These are things that can consistently happen in a wide variety of match ups and can have significant effects. Just because its difficult for you to fathom doesn't make it paranoia.

Here's a comparable platform: Kataphron Destroyers. They're T5, W3, but only a 4+ save, and more importantly only BS4+. They do ignore Heavy penalties when moving, so that gives them comparable mobility.

Their Plasma Culverin is D6 shots (so 3.5 average) at a Plasma Cannon profile. So overcharged, they get 3.5 shots at D2 each, while the melta rifles are 2 shots at D3.5 (average) each, for comparable firepower, although the Culverin has the edge against W2 infantry. The Culverin has 36" range, but also explodes on a 1 (which, even with re-rolls, can happen when 3 of them are firing ~11 shots).

Kataphrons with Plasma Culverins are 42pts apiece. If 33-35pts is right for Eradicators, then that implies the Kataphrons (less accurate, less durable) ought to be more like 25-30pts- that's a huge drop for a unit that isn't anywhere near Fire Dragon levels of terrible, and I would argue is an unreasonably low price for a tough platform toting essentially twin plasma cannons.

Even with the presumption that Kataphrons are a bit overpriced, I see Eradicators being fair at no less than 45pts per model. With typical Marine buffs they're going to throw out a stupid amount of firepower, even at that price easily making back their points in one turn by slagging a Leman Russ from full health.

Just seen the thread.

I feel outraged. 5 PL ~100 points for that kind of unit makes every other anti-tank infantry look bad in comparison.
They are straight up better than Fire Dragons, Tau Crisis with melta guns, IG veterans with meltaguns, Devildog melta tank (with multi-melta on hull), and the list goes on.
Access to super powerful doctrines and stratagems of marines supplements.

Double-tap firing for whatever reason.GW wants them to sell like hotcakes.
Same story with the outriders bikers, with their two free bonus attacks, over bonus attacks, over bonus AP.

Beginning of 9th will not be pretty.