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.

120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.

Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.

There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.

Eyjio wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.

The argument isn't that the unit is single handedly going to the destroy the game. The point is that it's a unit which is undercosted for what it does, in an army full of undercosted units. Doing 21 damage to a tank at 24" range, or ~26.8 at 12" range for 360 points means that the rest of the army really doesn't need to be that bothered by large models as they remove one per turn. It's not like 7 wounds is shabby anyway, that's as much as a lev dread with 2 storm cannon arrays did on average to tanks; plus, at T5 W3 they're quite hard to remove. Compound this with the troop choice for that army having guns which are very effective against infantry, as well as everything in the army being decent in combat and it simply feels very unfair. Just because a unit doesn't single handedly break the game doesn't mean it's fair, nor does it mean it's not an issue in the wider context of the game.

People in this thread have literally said the unit ruins the game single handedly.

Dudeface wrote:
People in this thread have literally said the unit ruins the game single handedly.

Quote them. I can't see it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.

But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...

People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.

"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.

considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?

I get you're upset that the OOP FW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?

But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?

Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.

Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.

Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

9 wounds, not 6 - Eradicators, according to the Indomitus Face-Off article on WHC, have 3W each.

Spoletta wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.

But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...

People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.

"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.

They may not win the game, but they can ruin it.

If a model is too cheap by a wide enough margin, like the current case, you will see that model on most tables, especially if it is a model available to 9 different factions, which also happen to be the most played factions.

If that model is a specialist and is extremely good at what it does, like the current case, you have pushed out of the game his favorite targets.

The simple presence of eradicators, already tells us that any big target without an invul save is toast. If you happened to like that sort of models, like for example an IG tank company or a nidzilla, those 2 digits on that publication can literally ruin the game for you.

Eyjio wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
People in this thread have literally said the unit ruins the game single handedly.

Quote them. I can't see it.

There you go

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.

But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...

People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.

"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.

considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?

I get you're upset that the OOP FW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?

But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?

Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.

Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.

Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

9 wounds, not 6 - Eradicators, according to the Indomitus Face-Off article on WHC, have 3W each.

Even if they would be a "new army" release the ressources claim is bollocks all you'd need to do is 3 boxes like broodbrothers and 4 charachters and a command squad that also can stand in as a propper cultist release for csm/TS/DG. and chaos vehicle sprues. that's literally it. That would be the luxury treatment even you could just release 2 differing upgrade sprue boxes, making militia and cultists share one.

and of course a propper rulebook, which they literally could one to one copy from the past and adapt easily enough, which allready had prototraits so not even that would need time to create.

I did affirm that, and keep sustaining it.

As I explained (and no one offered a counter argument) if you happen to like tank companies or monsters, those 2 digits literally ruin the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.

But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...

People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.

"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.

considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?

I get you're upset that the OOP FW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?

But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?

Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.

Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.

Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

9 wounds, not 6 - Eradicators, according to the Indomitus Face-Off article on WHC, have 3W each.

Even if they would be a "new army" release the ressources claim is bollocks all you'd need to do is 3 boxes like broodbrothers and 4 charachters and a command squad that also can stand in as a propper cultist release for csm/TS/DG. and chaos vehicle sprues. that's literally it. That would be the luxury treatment even you could just release 2 differing upgrade sprue boxes, making militia and cultists share one.

and of course a propper rulebook, which they literally could one to one copy from the past and adapt easily enough, which allready had prototraits so not even that would need time to create.

Yeah, if any new army launched with half the kits GW have released for Primaris Marines it would be the most deluxe, over the top, incredible new faction release in history.

Martel732 wrote:
MM is not 12 or 15.

I know - that was my bar for where I thought they would make sense in the other thread. They didn't meet it so either meltas have to change or eradicators go up. Probably not 55 though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:


An Attack Bike looks like 55 points with a Multimelta. They have 4W, 2A, T5, twin Boltgun and a 14" move. They compare reasonably to an Eradicator only if the Multimelta is getting something like 2 shots.

The really perplexing thing is this:



If GW is aiming to sell Primaris then why stick this model with mini-marine weapons? The points are in line with current weapon costs since the MM is 5 more than the Asscan on a vehicle.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.

Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.

There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.

3 x 3 wounds = 9. just for starters

Why do people always defend the most broken units - same with the Cheese Serpents, and Eldar jet bikes, Iron hands....

Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?

 Nazrak wrote:
Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?

Probably to make the new 40k app easier to code, reduce the variables?

It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.

 Nazrak wrote:
Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?

It certainly isn't an irony that hasn't escaped my attention.

Honestly, I just think there's a certain subset of units that GW is just trying to discourage appearing in competitive games. Whether the reason for that is "they aren't an 'iconic' part of the faction" or "they slow down competitive events and we don't like that" you can look at what units are most effected and see a pretty clear theme: Light infantry units that aren't "the star of the show" for that army.

Cultists
Guardians/Storm Guardians
Grots
Brimstones
Servitors
Conscripts
Kroot
Wracks
Neophytes

A storm guardian is self-evidently not the equal to a Skitarii, or a Fire Warrior, or worth one point more than a Bloodletter. They're not supposed to be. Fire Warriors and Skitarii and Bloodletters are what GW wants to see on the table when an army of that faction wins a tournament event, Guardians and Storm Guardians are not.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?

Have you played it?

Have you?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.

wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?

Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.

wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?

Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...

They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.

Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

Dudeface wrote:

They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.

I understand the argument but I'm not sure it could survive further investigation.

Between Battlescribe, that russian site everyone is using, leaks, Youtube reviews and sites like 1d4 chan, everyone is able to get basically all rules for free nowadays.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

This sums it up for me, as much as the last two pages have been people self feeding their rage at me for not overreacting and acting like the world has ended, they're making an attempt to shuffle things around and whilst there are some obviously questionable changes, nothing earth shattering or horrific has happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.

I understand the argument but I'm not sure it could survive further investigation.

Between Battlescribe, that russian site everyone is using, leaks, Youtube reviews and sites like 1d4 chan, everyone is able to get basically all rules for free nowadays.

There's a big theological step for them to take between giving it away and someone taking it though, it's not the sort of leap they're historically fond of.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".

They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.

wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?

Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...

They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.

Who said anything about the dex, why not point out certain things, specific units, f.e. CA balance , why something went up, why down.
You could ive insights without risking the monetary gain from rules sales.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

I do think it's a lot, lot easier to say that as someone who has one of the armies that's looking the absolute best going in. If I only had my Thousand Sons I might think the same thing, but I also have casual ork and eldar lists that got absolutely shellacked by the point changes and provide me with the perspective of having Storm guardians over HERE that Gw decided were worth 9 points, and Pink Horrors over HERE that GW thought looked good at 8.... hmmmmmmmm....

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.

Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.

There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.

It's a 9 wound unit, pointing out how terrible a gravis captain is in comparison for the same price doesn't really help, an anti-tank unit is supposed to only be killing one target, it's not a limitation for them, it's a BONUS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".

They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.

Consider that they effectively have a twin multimelta(only better) a twin multimelta sitting in the dirt is 10 points more expensive than they are.

the_scotsman wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

I do think it's a lot, lot easier to say that as someone who has one of the armies that's looking the absolute best going in. If I only had my Thousand Sons I might think the same thing, but I also have casual ork and eldar lists that got absolutely shellacked by the point changes and provide me with the perspective of having Storm guardians over HERE that Gw decided were worth 9 points, and Pink Horrors over HERE that GW thought looked good at 8.... hmmmmmmmm....

Easy to assume I'm still mainly playing Tsons. Love my guy magnus, but played drukhari a lot more before the changes. I liked my dissies, my patrols, and my transports full of cheap troops. Now the army is unusable. my poor kabalites....

That's not to say they won't be enjoyable, and won't receive justified changes in the future. Still trying to make it work will be a challenge Im all for

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?

Have you played it?

Have you?

Dude, if they don't listen to the playtesters, there's nothing they can do. Do you honestly think ANYONE on the playtest team looked at a handflamer and said "yeah, that needs to be FIVE TIMES more expensive?" No, they didn't.

The core rules seem to be a pretty vast improvement over 8th, especially with terrain, it's just the repointing that gakked the bed and you can tell just by how wacky it is that it was done mostly by spreadsheet, not by playtesting.

Tyel wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th

The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".

They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.

There's no denying that, I agree. Hopefully we'll see them changed in the near future with a dex- they should most definitely be a premium unit
More talking about down at the 4-8 ppm range

A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.

Especially if a lot of people drop horde units for elite/monsters. The math doesn't look good for my 115-point Talos when this 120-point unit walks onto the board from any table edge.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
120 points for a 3-model, 6 wound unit.

That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.

Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.

There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.

Does your captain in gravis shoot often 6 assault multimelta shots?

 Oaka wrote:
A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.

360 + HQ so about 500 pts?


I mean, yeah there's a CP tax (2 detachments) so you'd maybee want to fill them up in the mainline battalion or brigade most armies are fielding. but at 360 pts and 2 CP for infiltrating them i would do it 9/10 times.