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.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Ah I see, his definition of ‘Decimation’ is ‘Elimination’.
Mine is: reduce to a critical level. And losing 66% of the unit’s strength fits the definition rather aptly.

So neither of you are using it correctly, at least in terms of its original definition? Good to know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think this is a key point to how Eradicators interact with the game. They will not likely have stratagems to increase their damage as opposed to many other units that do. No one would take a 3 shot melta unit. These guys will dump shots once or twice and then die. And at the same time if you decide to max out your Heavy slots with them you're missing out on the other tools and will be forced into another detachment.

The more we go on in this thread the more convinced I am that they aren't a huge problem even if they're on the other further end of good.

That just shows the greater problem with the space marine codex. When a unit with these stats isn't considered an autopick because theyres better options while other codexes don't have the same level of firepower without jumping through hoops IS a problem with the design of 40k.

I think there's a little more nuance to it. I'm sure you can walk these guys up the table, but if you do I can measure their effective range and counter with longer range guns before they shoot anything useful. They otherwise need to come in by reserves and that is a more difficult scenario to protect against.

So, functionally what is the difference between Eradicators spending a CP to get their job done and Destroyers spending a CP to get their job done?

There is also a chance Eradicators only get to be a 3 man unit, which means they don't scale as sharply whereas 3 obliterators will produce 36 shots in a single phase.

I'm talking about baseline stats. Without all the buffs.

The problem with the eradicators is that they are an evident fix to melta weaponry, that only marines get. On top of that, even with how good they will be at doing their job, marine players are still saying that there are better options than that in their codex. Same with the new outriders. Probably same with the new crusader guys.

Thats the problem i see as a non-marine player. They get the cheezy units and still say that these units aren't playable.

Meanwhile if i date to bring the only viable units of my codex, people start crying.

I wish all my armies had half as many viable options than marines.

is there nuance to comparing units? yeah absolutely, not every unit is going to be in optimal conditions on the battlefield.

Marines absolutely have way too many units.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines absolutely have way too many units.

I'm surprised GW hasn't made them into their own army really. I can easily see a Primaris codex with rules for the various chapters included. It would make my life easier.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Marines absolutely have way too many units.

I'm surprised GW hasn't made them into their own army really. I can easily see a Primaris codex with rules for the various chapters included. It would make my life easier.

f

I think this is a much bigger problem than this specific unit. If one faction gets 90% of the updates, of course they will get the best upgrades.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I'm talking about baseline stats. Without all the buffs.

The problem with the eradicators is that they are an evident fix to melta weaponry, that only marines get. On top of that, even with how good they will be at doing their job, marine players are still saying that there are better options than that in their codex. Same with the new outriders. Probably same with the new crusader guys.

No, I don't think its a fix to melta. Outriders aren't a fix to bikes, either. They're just the consequence of condensing models.

Let's look at Outriders and the current bikes. Based on GW's comments it sounds like all Astartes will get the new AP1 chainsword. So take this old bike:



This model gets 3 S4 AP1 attacks on the charge. So, what would you expect this model to do if you doubled it up? 6 attacks, of course. Are they going to add that to the Primaris himself? Of course not, so they get a bike that gives +2A and costs twice as much.

So I can get two old bikes and do --

8 S4 AP0 - bolters
6 S4 AP1 - on the charge
4 S4 AP1 - after charge
4 T5 3+ wounds

Or I can get one Outrider

4 S4 AP1 or 6 S4 AP0 - bolters
6 S4 AP1 - on the charge
3 S4 AP1 - after the charge
4 T5 3+

The difference? People don't like losing models so 4 wounds is more appealing, but the old bikes keep more attacks and have more shots. So even if old bikes go up a bit they still have wiggle room to be equivalent. People just don't take them, because they're scared of D2, but in the same breath they'll ignore that Outriders are equally vulnerable.

Melta itself finds itself out of favor because of cost and invulnerable saves. You'll notice the comparisons for Eradicators have been against T7 3+. A single guy gets 0.9 wounding hits before saves on T7 3+ (so no save), but 0.6 wounding hits after a simple 5++. That means roughly one to two guys each time they shoot will get to roll D6 damage out of all 6 shots.

Regular melta is still equally as effective, if a little shorter range. Realistically if these guys get within 12" of something the opponent made a bad play. If you have a unit with cheaper bodies getting them to 18" isn't a huge hassle. People just find little use for that strategy at the moment. The only remaining problem is cost, which is why I think it is likely we'll see the cost of regular melta come down quite a bit. And at that point Retributors will be able to give these guys a run for their money. This is just speculation, however.

Thats the problem i see as a non-marine player. They get the cheezy units and still say that these units aren't playable.

I don't think anyone is saying they're not playable. It's that they're not broken.

I wish all my armies had half as many viable options than marines.

Every since the last update (in the month before the pandemic) marines have been hit. Tyranids were running at 60% and IH was at 52%. Marines were borked for amount 6 months. There is still some work to do (looking at RG), but its time people started getting over it (if only yo let you say, "I told you so" when GW slips up again)

IH Marines are not down to 52% win rate unless you include the 7 or 8 mirror marine codex's. When you remove all the various marine subfactions that are now counted as their own factions IH are still over 60% win ratio.

Marines fighting other marines drags down their avarage massively as they make up such a huge percentage of the meta and every marine vrs marine fight has a 50% win ratio.

Yannari at their worst would have had a 50% win ratio if the number of people playing marines had played Yannari.

Ice_can wrote:
IH Marines are not down to 52% win rate unless you include the 7 or 8 mirror marine codex's. When you remove all the various marine subfactions that are now counted as their own factions IH are still over 60% win ratio.

Marines fighting other marines drags down their avarage massively as they make up such a huge percentage of the meta and every marine vrs marine fight has a 50% win ratio.

Yannari at their worst would have had a 50% win ratio if the number of people playing marines had played Yannari.

Pardon me - you're correct on that. It appears Tyranids still have a significant improvement. And Thousand Sons soup as well as BA. Of course all that is stale now and no one really had time to process and adjust to any changes much more than a month or so. We're wiping it clean for 9th, but who the hell knows when we'll see big tournaments again...at least in the US...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Every since the last update (in the month before the pandemic) marines have been hit. Tyranids were running at 60% and IH was at 52%. Marines were borked for amount 6 months. There is still some work to do (looking at RG), but its time people started getting over it (if only yo let you say, "I told you so" when GW slips up again)

You just responded to 'I wish my armies had more than one viable build each' with 'Look, these armies have at least one viable build'. Not really addressing the point at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Regular melta is still equally as effective, if a little shorter range. Realistically if these guys get within 12" of something the opponent made a bad play. If you have a unit with cheaper bodies getting them to 18" isn't a huge hassle. People just find little use for that strategy at the moment. The only remaining problem is cost, which is why I think it is likely we'll see the cost of regular melta come down quite a bit. And at that point Retributors will be able to give these guys a run for their money. This is just speculation, however.

Here's the problem: Based on PL, we can expect these models to be 30-36pts apiece. If they're meant to represent 'doubled up' non-Primaris units, then that implies that two Retributors with multi-meltas should be about the same cost. Roughly the same firepower, so sure, makes sense.

But there is just no way that we're going to see multi-melta Retributors for 15-18pts. Their base price is 10pts; even if that stays exactly the same (as opposed to going up, as has been heavily implied), that's 8pts at the most for a multi-melta, about a third of their current price. Even then, two Retributors is also T3, W2, 3+, whereas a single Eradicator is T5, W3, 3+, so the Eradicator has a significant durability advantage. That implies that Retributors should need to be even cheaper to compete.

So what prices, exactly, are you envisioning for Eradicators and Retributors such that they're actually comparable? I don't see it.

If these are actually heavy support, it bothers me less.

Heavy slots will be precious. If they have to drop more CP to get slots, fine. It seems like forcing CP costs might be really painful at high level play.

 catbarf wrote:
You just responded to 'I wish my armies had more than one viable build each' with 'Look, these armies have at least one viable build'. Not really addressing the point at all.

I can't competently address that one until the new points are out and we've had enough time in the new detachment/CP system.

Here's the problem: Based on PL, we can expect these models to be 30-36pts apiece. If they're meant to represent 'doubled up' non-Primaris units, then that implies that two Retributors with multi-meltas should be about the same cost. Roughly the same firepower, so sure, makes sense.

But there is just no way that we're going to see multi-melta Retributors for 15-18pts. Their base price is 10pts; even if that stays exactly the same (as opposed to going up, as has been heavily implied), that's 8pts at the most for a multi-melta, about a third of their current price. Even then, two Retributors is also T3, W2, 3+, whereas a single Eradicator is T5, W3, 3+, so the Eradicator has a significant durability advantage. That implies that Retributors should need to be even cheaper to compete.

So what prices, exactly, are you envisioning for Eradicators and Retributors such that they're actually comparable? I don't see it.

These don't represent doubled up in the same direct fashion, but a 3 man unit that only gets 3 shots wouldn't be very useful. Look at Inceptors - they come with a pair of "heavy bolters". Same concept, but just a different application.

I couldn't say where things are "even". The whole premise is predicated on the idea that weapon costs will come down as (some) bodies go up. This may turn out to be wrong, but my expectation would be multi-melta 12 to 15 and melta 6 to 8.

Both units are pretty much set to die after delivering the payload. They just require different weapons to take off the table. How that will play out in the grand schem of things I do not know.

Inceptors are less of an issue because of the following differences.

They went from 36 inch heavy3 weapons (10 points) to 18 inch assualt3 weapons which they pay 8 points for each weapon.
Same edition

These lads took a 24 inch Heavy 1 weapon (22 points) to a 24 inch Assault 1 weapon for 9-14 points (using the current 21 point agressor body 1 point more than a 9th edition intercessor FFS) in an edition where "Everyone is seeing points increases".

I'm calling that out as blatant disregard for balance and powercreep.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I couldn't say where things are "even". The whole premise is predicated on the idea that weapon costs will come down as (some) bodies go up. This may turn out to be wrong, but my expectation would be multi-melta 12 to 15 and melta 6 to 8.

Okay, so at least one of these three statements has to be wrong:

-Eradicators will be ~30-36pts
-Multi-meltas will be 12-15pts
-Retributors will be comparable to Eradicators

Because two multi-meltas at your proposed price is 24-30pts, so that leaves 0-12pts for the two Sisters who will carry them. Currently the two Sisters alone are 20pts. How do you make that work?

This is what I'm getting at; the idea that price adjustments may make existing heavy weapons squads comparable to Eradicators is really just ignoring the facts. Even if they're 40pts apiece, and even if multi-meltas come down to 12pts apiece, then that would require the Sisters to be reduced in price (again, the opposite of what they've suggested) to be comparable. And even then, they'd be significantly squishier for only comparable damage output.

Existing melta troops simply can not be made comparable to Eradicators if they're under 45pts. The numbers just don't work out with a 30-36pt unit carrying effectively 44pts of guns.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

No, I don't think its a fix to melta. Outriders aren't a fix to bikes, either. They're just the consequence of condensing models.

i shouldve split my comment, thats a second statement in my comment

On top of that, even with how good they will be at doing their job, marine players are still saying that there are better options than that in their codex. Same with the new outriders. Probably same with the new crusader guys.

Ice_can wrote:
Inceptors are less of an issue because of the following differences.

They went from 36 inch heavy3 weapons (10 points) to 18 inch assualt3 weapons which they pay 8 points for each weapon.
Same edition

These lads took a 24 inch Heavy 1 weapon (22 points) to a 24 inch Assault 1 weapon for 9-14 points (using the current 21 point agressor body 1 point more than a 9th edition intercessor FFS) in an edition where "Everyone is seeing points increases".

I'm calling that out as blatant disregard for balance and powercreep.

They pay 16 points for what 20 points does. Yes, at shorter range, but with deepstrike, M10, and fly.

But the overriding principle - you'd never take a guy with one such weapon. He'd just be junk.

I'll wager 25 points for the body and 12 for the gun, but we're all just guessing at the moment. It could turn out I'm blowing smoke up my own ass in a couple weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I couldn't say where things are "even". The whole premise is predicated on the idea that weapon costs will come down as (some) bodies go up. This may turn out to be wrong, but my expectation would be multi-melta 12 to 15 and melta 6 to 8.

Okay, so at least one of these three statements has to be wrong:

-Eradicators will be ~30-36pts
-Multi-meltas will be 12-15pts
-Retributors will be comparable to Eradicators

Because two multi-meltas at your proposed price is 24-30pts, so that leaves 0-12pts for the two Sisters who will carry them. Currently the two Sisters alone are 20pts. How do you make that work?

This is what I'm getting at; the idea that price adjustments may make existing heavy weapons squads comparable to Eradicators is really just ignoring the facts. Even if they're 40pts apiece, and even if multi-meltas come down to 12pts apiece, then that would require the Sisters to be reduced in price (again, the opposite of what they've suggested) to be comparable. And even then, they'd be significantly squishier for only comparable damage output.

Existing melta troops simply can not be made comparable to Eradicators if they're under 45pts. The numbers just don't work out with a 30-36pt unit carrying effectively 44pts of guns.

They're all suicide squads. Nobody lets a full melta unit stay in their face. Internal balance and external balance will play a role in what is fair for available units. Certainly it'd be nicer to have the harder to remove Eradicators. People in lower levels of play will have a harder time removing them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not appropriate.

Are Retributors doing well right now? (honest question) Because their counter exists already. If people are still using them and they get an equivalent cost to produce melta shots then that is the part that matters.

Thats still 111 points for 3 and should be PL6 not PL5.

Either
1 GW goofed the cost of these lads and they are OP
2 they are going to be PL6 or 7and that still ignores the issue of many units needing to get cheaper in the change from 8th to 9th to actually compete against them.
3 half the buffs available to marines are going to have to go byebye or cost way more CP in the day 1 FAQ.

After years of lurking in the shadows, this topic finally got me to register. I just can't stand all the panic anymore. First of all, comparing Eradicators to existing Melta units doesn't say a thing about whether they are balanced or not. Nobody takes these units in competetive environments, because, let's face it, they're crap and meltas are the one of the most overpriced weapons in all of 8th edition. Their profile is just bad, because their special rule (double damage in half range of a rather short-ranged weapon) never comes into play. With S8 and good AP they excel at killing T7 3+ targets. However, T7 3+ targets are so easy to kill that most players avoid them like the plague anyway. Only with special rules (like -1 to damage taken or to hit penalties), invulnerable saves or really long range, perhaps even No-LOS, these units become viable. Against T8 without invul, something you see more often, their S8 is a problem. Point-for-point, without even accounting their short range, other options (autocannon-equivalents etc.) are just plain better.

What I want to say is: Yes, Eradicators are outperforming other current melta units by a large margin. But current melta units are garbage, so being better than them doesn't mean Eradicators are completely out of line to everything else. I'll try a - in my opinion - more fitting comparison.

Eradicators are PL5. We often saw the new Primaris units being priced a little bit higher than their power level suggests (Suppressors 4PL / 90P, Invictor 6PL 131/136P, Infiltrators 5PL / 110P,). I guess that, in 8th edition points, Eradicators will be priced somewhere between Dakka Aggressors and Dakka Inceptors. Let's make it easy and say they are 40 points apiece.

160 points nets us 4 Eradicators. 8 shots at S8 AP-4 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +D6 inch effective range for reduced damage (hit penalty). T5, 12W, 3+.
170 points (without the mandatory heavy bolter 162 points) nets us 1 Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. 2D6 (7) shots at S10 AP-3 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +5 inch effective range for half damage. T8, 12W, 3+.

Assuming Eradicators are 40 points, both units are very similar in role and effectiveness:

Their damage output against most targets is comparable. While the Tank Commander has less shots and worse AP, its strength is higher. The tank commander can also buff itself thanks to tank orders. I'd consider them even.

Their range is almost identical, both perform best up to 29 inches and lose efficiency afterwards.

Their survivabilty is comparable, the Tank Commander has the same wounds, but higher toughness. Eradicators will most likely make up for it due to wasted excess damage.

Both can be buffed greatly by subfactions (Salamanders, Tallarn).

The tank commanders will lose damage output more slowly than the Eradicators.

The tank commander takes a HQ slot (sorry dudes...tax), the Eradicators a heavy support slot (premium).

To sum it up: These dudes are a (slightly worse) infantry version of a Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. A very good unit, yes, but nothing you see dominating tables.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They're all suicide squads. Nobody lets a full melta unit stay in their face. Internal balance and external balance will play a role in what is fair for available units. Certainly it'd be nicer to have the harder to remove Eradicators. People in lower levels of play will have a harder time removing them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not appropriate.

It rather feels like you're ignoring the actual, relevant point- which is that Retributors cannot have comparable point-for-point firepower to Eradicators unless Eradicators are significantly more expensive than their PL implies- in order to harp on why their durability is irrelevant.

Even if that were a legitimate point (every shot spent taking them out is a shot not spent on something else), you're ignoring the more directly relevant part of the equation. 'Eradicators are fine at 30-35pts, just wait and see, maybe Retributors will be made just as good' is bogus. It can not, and will not, happen.

I agree with Daedalus in that to get the whole picture we'll need to wait until the rules are out - maybe all other melta weapons drop price by half, and give decent competition to eradicators.

The problem is that - at face value and colored by context - eradicators are +1 over any similar unit. Focus firing gets an additional shot. Meltas get double the range for their closest counterpart while still maintaining assault. Also doubling the range is critical, It means that the squads don't get danger close.

The other problem is that they are PL5, now normally I would never care - but for 1 CP I can reserve two of them and mitigate their (not-so-short) range on a smaller board.

I hope something does change, because I have been able to stick from adding any primaris models so far, but those eradicators are just so damn good on paper - even if they still have the standard flaws of primaris/gravis

Nalim wrote:

Assuming Eradicators are 40 points, both units are very similar in role and effectiveness:

1 PL ~= 20 points. We know this based on the PL to point structure they announced with the new game sizes. They've also said they are going to readjust PL as they go, as it has more meaning in basic games now (such as outflanking), and they haven't really adjusted them with the CA drops.

40 points each would imply these are 2 PL each, which does not seem the case. Unless for some reason they wanted these slightly cheaper for outflanking, it makes no sense for them to be 5 PL and not 6 PL.

That means these are more likely to be between 30 and 37 points (It's usually PL *20 +/- 15 points).

If these take up a heavy slot? yeah, it's a tradeoff then between other very good units. Elites? A battalion has 6 elite slots. Shouldn't be an issue, and these are very, very good. 3 wounds is not always the easiest thing for some armies to remove efficiently, and these can get stacked defensive buffs (2+ save with cover, 5++, 5+++).

Edit: Not to mention numerous re-rolls to both hit and wound.

Unfrtunately we are all used to "wait and See" and then we get th e latest Iron Hands and then its well lets wait fro the FAQ.

It will be sad to see if these are as broken as everyone can see from just looking at the stats and knowing everythng else hasgone up in price to make these even better

I do feel obliged to point out that no one ever takes Russ tanks without the ability to reroll shot-count on the main gun, so they're reliably a little over 8 shots instead of 7.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also feel obliged to point out, as a Marine player, that just looking at the cost of other Gravis units and the current price of a Multimelta there is no excuse for Eradicators costing less than 46 ppm.

tulun wrote:

Nalim wrote:

Assuming Eradicators are 40 points, both units are very similar in role and effectiveness:

1 PL ~= 20 points. We know this based on the PL to point structure they announced with the new game sizes. They've also said they are going to readjust PL as they go, as it has more meaning in basic games now (such as outflanking), and they haven't really adjusted them with the CA drops.

Let's see - as I pointed out above, recent Primaris releases were always a little bit higher in points cost compared to PL. There's just no chance these guys will cost 30 points. Whether they cost 37 or 40 points doesn't change my assessment significantly. My point is not that the unit is bad - it's a good unit, but not meta-shaking. It's most likely the best SM unit in the new box (closely followed by the storm shield characters just for the sake of their storm shields).

The Newman wrote:
I do feel obliged to point out that no one ever takes Russ tanks without the ability to reroll shot-count on the main gun, so they're reliably a little over 8 shots instead of 7.

That's true, but for fairness' sake I didn't want to include external factors in my comparison. We'll see a lot more Tallarn Russes on the table than Salamanders Eradicators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
I
I also feel obliged to point out, as a Marine player, that just looking at the cost of other Gravis units and the current price of a Multimelta there is no excuse for Eradicators costing less than 46 ppm.

Also true, but as we all know there is a reason these weapons are currently collecting dust in the chapters' armories. Multimelta (and normal melta) need a signficant price cut or rules rework.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines absolutely have way too many units.

I hope there's an option to put this weapon on a dreadnought.

The Newman wrote:

I also feel obliged to point out, as a Marine player, that just looking at the cost of other Gravis units and the current price of a Multimelta there is no excuse for Eradicators costing less than 46 ppm.

Mhm, that's actually a good point.

Pun not intended.

Even Better Sten and co 6PL 115 points in 8th edition.

No way these boys are being PL costed fairly at 5PL

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

I also feel obliged to point out, as a Marine player, that just looking at the cost of other Gravis units and the current price of a Multimelta there is no excuse for Eradicators costing less than 46 ppm.

Mhm, that's actually a good point.

Pun not intended.

Except why are you looking at the price of a Multi-Melta, already considered an almost universally bad weapon?

People, lets play nice please, and keep on the topic of the new units, if I have to delete more posts there will be warnings issued. Thanks!

Nalim wrote:
After years of lurking in the shadows, this topic finally got me to register. I just can't stand all the panic anymore. First of all, comparing Eradicators to existing Melta units doesn't say a thing about whether they are balanced or not. Nobody takes these units in competetive environments, because, let's face it, they're crap and meltas are the one of the most overpriced weapons in all of 8th edition. Their profile is just bad, because their special rule (double damage in half range of a rather short-ranged weapon) never comes into play. With S8 and good AP they excel at killing T7 3+ targets. However, T7 3+ targets are so easy to kill that most players avoid them like the plague anyway. Only with special rules (like -1 to damage taken or to hit penalties), invulnerable saves or really long range, perhaps even No-LOS, these units become viable. Against T8 without invul, something you see more often, their S8 is a problem. Point-for-point, without even accounting their short range, other options (autocannon-equivalents etc.) are just plain better.

What I want to say is: Yes, Eradicators are outperforming other current melta units by a large margin. But current melta units are garbage, so being better than them doesn't mean Eradicators are completely out of line to everything else. I'll try a - in my opinion - more fitting comparison.

Eradicators are PL5. We often saw the new Primaris units being priced a little bit higher than their power level suggests (Suppressors 4PL / 90P, Invictor 6PL 131/136P, Infiltrators 5PL / 110P,). I guess that, in 8th edition points, Eradicators will be priced somewhere between Dakka Aggressors and Dakka Inceptors. Let's make it easy and say they are 40 points apiece.

160 points nets us 4 Eradicators. 8 shots at S8 AP-4 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +D6 inch effective range for reduced damage (hit penalty). T5, 12W, 3+.
170 points (without the mandatory heavy bolter 162 points) nets us 1 Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. 2D6 (7) shots at S10 AP-3 D6 damage. 24 inch range, 5 inch movement. +5 inch effective range for half damage. T8, 12W, 3+.

Assuming Eradicators are 40 points, both units are very similar in role and effectiveness:

Their damage output against most targets is comparable. While the Tank Commander has less shots and worse AP, its strength is higher. The tank commander can also buff itself thanks to tank orders. I'd consider them even.

Their range is almost identical, both perform best up to 29 inches and lose efficiency afterwards.

Their survivabilty is comparable, the Tank Commander has the same wounds, but higher toughness. Eradicators will most likely make up for it due to wasted excess damage.

Both can be buffed greatly by subfactions (Salamanders, Tallarn).

The tank commanders will lose damage output more slowly than the Eradicators.

The tank commander takes a HQ slot (sorry dudes...tax), the Eradicators a heavy support slot (premium).

To sum it up: These dudes are a (slightly worse) infantry version of a Leman Russ Tank Commander with Demolisher Siege Cannon. A very good unit, yes, but nothing you see dominating tables.

It's not about dominating tables, it's about crowding out every single other D6 damage infantry in the imperium. I'm looking at these guys versus retributors or battle sisters or dominions or even multimelta immolators and not seeing any case where it isn't worth the CP to run these instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

I also feel obliged to point out, as a Marine player, that just looking at the cost of other Gravis units and the current price of a Multimelta there is no excuse for Eradicators costing less than 46 ppm.

Mhm, that's actually a good point.

Pun not intended.

Except why are you looking at the price of a Multi-Melta, already considered an almost universally bad weapon?

Because they have a better multimelta and ir's highly unlikely that GW are finally going to fix the MM so why do marines get a better version for cheaper?

So why aren't we looking to fix the weapon that's STILL NOT BEING USED instead of nerfing a usable unit just because "GW won't fix the MM"?