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.

This is extra rich considering historically Eldar have been the most overpowered tournament faction for the vast majority of the games history.

I understand it is a bit of a downturn now but these things come and go for all factions, even Space Marines (who were in fact bottom tier just a year ago).

Karol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.

So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.

Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'

I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.

Seriously ,can you just stop with your eldar hate? Plenty of non-eldar players are complaining. Fire dragons are being used because theyre the closest equivalent to eradicators

 Malkyr wrote:
This is extra rich considering historically Eldar have been the most overpowered tournament faction for the vast majority of the games history.

You know I just used Eldar as an example, right? Because they had one of the most comparable units to eradicators.

But sure, I guess the fact that Eldar has been good in the past means that every Xeno army should just suck forever.

Ah yes, because it's only Eldar players complaining about Marines.

Let's just ignore how Marines invalidate GSC, Tyranids, Orks, Guard and Necrons as armies.

And as needs to be restated again and again and again, Marines being overpowered is far more oppressive and an issue for the game than Eldar. Even if you take Ynnari as the problem, raise your hands how many times you actually faced Ynnari in an ordinary game, or even in a tournament environment. Unless you're a hardcore competitive player I doubt you can even count the number of times on one hand. Plus, as is the case with many overpowered armies throughout the history of the game, it's usually specific army builds that are problems, not the factions as a whole. In fact you usually have to try very hard to make tough, unbalanced lists in most Codexes and that was certainly the case in 8th. Drukhari were strong on their Codex release, but you could still easily make horrendously terrible lists with them because plenty of units and choices were very suboptimal or had easily exploitable weaknesses.

The exception is Marines, where you actively have to try hard in order to make a bad list*. And to make this more on-topic, Eradicators are a perfect microcosm for the army as a whole because you have a unit that is cost-efficient as all hell and has straight forward incredibly powerful rules which require little thought or nuance to use. But on top of that, they have access to 50+ stratagems, auras and psychic powers that only amplify this efficient unit even further. Compare this to Dark Reapers which are, on their own, a good unit but one which has a few glaring weaknesses and are also not incredibly efficient for what they do. However, through stratagem and psychic power use, you push them up into being a very scary unit that is worth the relatively steep points you pay for a T3 1W model. 3x3 Eradicators on the other hand, with absolutely no extra buffs or auras or really anything is actually nightmarish to deal with... but they can actually get any of those at any time. Marines get the best of all worlds in having straight forward powerful units that can also benefit from proper execution and buffs to a degree that is far above and beyond other armies, with so many stacked bonuses that it makes stuff you can do a unit like Shining Spears look bland in comparison.

Like, you either have straightforward, "solid" units that can be reliably good but have limiters in how far you can buff or push them in terms of skill and bonuses. Or you can have units that can only be strong and effective through proper use and finesse. Having both in one is just nuts and yet that describes a load of Marine units, Eradicators included.

*And part of the problem is that they just have 3-4x the units as everyone else, so your chances of picking good units is dramatically increased. An Eldar army with 12 different model types has a high chance of including some real stinkers in it because there really aren't 12 excellent units in the Craftworld Codex. But there are easily 12 excellent units within the Marine Codex so it's much easier to pick a varied army that has no liabilities.

BrianDavion wrote:

Does anybody TAKE Fire Dragons?

Serious question here, last I heard fire dragons where seen as uncompeitive. it's blatently clear GW is reworking melta weapons considerably to make them better (and that eldar will get theirs when their codex comes up) so now that this is obvious... WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL COMPLAINING?

Seriously, does anyone here think fire dragons are worthwhile?

It's like you've never read most of the posts about it.

Breton wrote:

Grey40k wrote:


They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).

What new melta rule do they benefit from?

Already answered in a previous post PS - Along with why landspeeders are far worse than eradicators in a lot of situations.

They went from heavy 1 to heavy 2 (at least it looks like that is the intention), except for marines that got this pseudo assault 2.

I think no one will disagree with the statement that eradicators are the best infantry AT, point per point, in the entire game.

A very close equivalent: retributors. You are paying 120 points (same as primaris) for 3 meltas on 4 t3/1W/3+ body. Even if sisters get heavy 2, how is that balanced?

Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

Karol wrote:
I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.

Karol, point to me on this Dire Avenger where the nasty Aeldari players touched you

Grey40k wrote:

Breton wrote:

Grey40k wrote:


They do lots of damage (thanks to the new melta rules, but also do really benefit from marine rerolls).

What new melta rule do they benefit from?

Already answered in a previous post PS - Along with why landspeeders are far worse than eradicators in a lot of situations.

They went from heavy 1 to heavy 2 (at least it looks like that is the intention), except for marines that got this pseudo assault 2.

I think no one will disagree with the statement that eradicators are the best infantry AT, point per point, in the entire game.

A very close equivalent: retributors. You are paying 120 points (same as primaris) for 3 meltas on 4 t3/1W/3+ body. Even if sisters get heavy 2, how is that balanced?

The other aspect is that, even if GW were to try and bring other races up to this standard, it seems like there's just not enough design space.

For example, Eldar Aspect Warriors are supposed to be highly elite, yet the constant buffs to Marines mean that most of them have been left in the dirt. You could potentially buff their damage output, but where do you go with their durability?

And then you've got races like Dark Eldar, which are supposed to be glass cannons. What do you do for them? Because it seems like Scourges, Trueborn etc. really need to be carrying the equivalent of 5-6 Blasters per model in order to keep up with the ever-escalating damage output of Marines.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

Oh, so many factions could have used upgrades to their infantry AT instead of primaris.

How about the custodes, which have crappy vehicles (thanks, calladius nerfs...) and some 50 points per devastators with weird heavy bolters (saggitarum)? Let's be clear, against the uber prevalent primaris, eradicators are both better AT and better anti personnel than saggitarum (same wounds, same toughness, worse saves but cheaper and far better damage put).

Balance!

 Super Ready wrote:

Karol wrote:
So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.

Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.

This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.

 vipoid wrote:

The other aspect is that, even if GW were to try and bring other races up to this standard, it seems like there's just not enough design space.

For example, Eldar Aspect Warriors are supposed to be highly elite, yet the constant buffs to Marines mean that most of them have been left in the dirt. You could potentially buff their damage output, but where do you go with their durability?

And then you've got races like Dark Eldar, which are supposed to be glass cannons. What do you do for them? Because it seems like Scourges, Trueborn etc. really need to be carrying the equivalent of 5-6 Blasters per model in order to keep up with the ever-escalating damage output of Marines.

Karol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Bear in mind that Eldar players don't even know when they'll get a 9th edition codex of their own, let alone whether said codex will address Fire Dragons.

So the fact that Marines - who already got the lion's share of releases in 8th whilst also being given layer upon layer of buffs and bonuses - are now being given a unit blatantly better than the equivalents of any other faction doesn't exactly engender positive feelings from those other factions.

Nor, for that matter, does a SM player saying 'What is everyone complaining about? This unit that blows all of your units out of the water isn't even the best thing in our codex. Nah, we've got much better than that.'

I don't see how those are out of the norm or bad things. Other faction players, including marines, also never know if their next codex is going to be a good one. The only difference between eldar and everyone else, is that unlike every other faction in the game they always seemed to have at least very good rule set. And now eldar players are expiriancing stuff other factions players are used to from GW. For eldar players them not having the best army, or at least not dunking on the most popular army which is marines seems to be some end of the world scenario that requires refusal to play marines, crying for marine nerfs and re doing of the whole eldar line. So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about. And it is made even more bizzar when we are coming in to 9th from 8th, where eldar were the top army for years. So GK or Tempest Scion players look at the eldar, and only can have a hearty laugh. Only thing I can wonder about is, if eldar players after their new codex and its OP rules are going to call out for baning of their own faction too.

Karol, remember the entirety of 8th where your precious Grey Knights were utter garbage?

When you spent literally two and a half years detailing every thread about how your army deserved better?

How most of the people here spent the same time telling you that the state of the GK Codex was terrible, and that you did in fact deserve better?

We remember. You pivoting to a “I got mine so feth you giys” isn’t a good look, nor a sustainable philosophy for the game as a whole. You know better.

 Niiai wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

Karol wrote:
So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.

Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.

This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.

...yes? And that relates to the point you're quoting how?

Super Ready is talking the entire span of 40k where the Codex form is in effect, not just 8th.

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?

It's amazing how often this argument is repeated over and over again.
A new Marine unit is compared with another unit that is supposed to fill the same role and is vastly better. But that is discarded because " this unit is garbage". And if it is compared to a unit that is not garbage but does not fill the same role it is discarded because "that's a whole other unit".

That's just... awesome.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

Karol wrote:
So yeah, everyone who is not an eldar players probably doesn't get what eldar players are angry about.

Categorically wrong. Eldar may have it worst off right now, but pretty much every Xenos and even non-Marine Imperial faction (barring Custodes and AdMech, who are too new) have had a lackluster Codex they've had to put up with for literal years.
Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard... heck, look at Sisters! They had no proper Codex for multiple editions.

This is not true. Tyranids ruled the skyes of 40k so much in 8th edition several rules where put in place to stop them.

...yes? And that relates to the point you're quoting how?

Super Ready is talking the entire span of 40k where the Codex form is in effect, not just 8th.

Exactly. They were great in 8th for a while - that's great! ...not so great for the literal years they had to put up with the Codex before that. And not so great in the years after, which at this point is a timespan nobody knows, but it's at least another few months. With those taken into perspective, the Tyranids' time in the sun was brief indeed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?

So your saying all units that are remotely equivalent to Eradicators are bad, and yet Eridcators are not priced like all these other bad units.

Do you see why people complain about Eradicators being broken?

If you don't think Eradicators are broken, then how about you bring up a better comparison that proves they are not broken.
And I dare you to chose a unit that isn't space marines.

Grey40k wrote:

So far the answer has been to lower points and turn every other army into some horde

Laughs in 9pt Kabalite Warriors.

A faction being bad in previous editions meaning it should be OP in this edition and or 8th is a rubbish arguement.

If that were the case many xenos factions have had lackluster codexes since they came out, and should be OP.

How poorly previous edition codexes were balanced shouldn't be a balancing factor for any edition.

A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.

Ditch the melta comparisons and do anti-tank in general.
You don't usually get 6 24" S8 AP-4 D6 damage shots for 120 points.

A Ravager with 3 dark lances (...) sets me back 145 points.

Now you can say "36" range omg" or "Run Dissies you nerd" - but the reality is this unit costs considerably more and has half the fire power. Yes its flying, yes it has an invul bla bla bla - but sub 50% output is ludicrous.

This is going to get worse then the new MM rolls out - when a landspeeder does about the same damage a dark lance Ravager in 12" but pays about 40% as much - but that's the case right now.

Cornishman wrote:
A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.

Does this actually happen, though? If you need two units dead then you take two units of Eradicators. It's like saying if an unclaimed objective is 9" away from either Eradicators or Fire Dragons, then the Fire Dragons have a massive advantage. Sure, I guess.

Cornishman wrote:
A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.

A couple of counterpoints:

1) I'd actually argue that split-firing the same type of weapon isn't something that's typically done. The only exceptions tend to be stuff like Knights or Leviathan Dreadnoughts, where you have ludicrous levels of firepower on the same platform.

2) Perhaps more importantly, if other units want more shots then they generally have to pay for extra guns. In contrast, Eradicators basically get 6 multi-meltas at half the normal cost.

 Oaka wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
A problem inherent to evaluating the performance/ efficiency of Eradicators is the nature of their double tapping.
A situational double tap is always going to be tricky to price. Depending on the opposition and how the game develops the restriction of having the concentrate fire all fire on a single target may come up a lot, or a little.
Thus, it’s not surprising to find them, on the basis of 6 shots vs other 6 shot platforms looking good. However, those other platforms have the options to split fire any which every way you like. This is massively advantageous for the alternatives when faced with already injured targets, or an environment with multiple smaller targets rather than facing single big target. In the situation where you think you’ll need a few melta shots to finish off one of a number of targets, with eradicators you can double that to 6 shots, to make sure one of those is really dead but doesn’t allow you to split fire and potentially take out 2 (or more) of those viable targets.
This isn’t to say that the overall package isn’t attractive, (T5 3W…. 40pts).
However, how attractive would it be on the basis of only single melta shot for each of thus 40pts? Nowhere near I bet.
Thus, we would seem to end up in the situation you’d expect for a conditional bonus, in that Eradicators are rather over costed in situations where they only get a single shot each, and a bit of a bargain when they get to double tap.

Does this actually happen, though? If you need two units dead then you take two units of Eradicators. It's like saying if an unclaimed objective is 9" away from either Eradicators or Fire Dragons, then the Fire Dragons have a massive advantage. Sure, I guess.

So 2 units allows you to pump 2 targets with upto 6 shots each, it doesn't allow you to put 3 shots into each of 4 targets. I haven't had the chance to play 9E yet but based on experiences of nearly previous every edition it certianly will occur. How often is a completely different question, an is impossible to answer - The answer depends firstly on what you are up against and secondly on how the games gone (is your target of choice taken no damage or are you just after finishing them off).

I have a question for the marine critics. If eradicators had just a melta gun plus a Thunder Hammer with gravis profile. Would they remain broken?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not think a single Eldar player thinks that Fire Dragons are garbage. 10 Melta shots into a tank coming out of a Waveserpent will put a huge dent in just about anything. Second, Eldar players will obviously see what GW will do with the 9th edition Eldar codex so no worries.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The issue is that Eradicators blow the anti-tank options of virtually every other faction in the game out of the water.

Just compare them to Fire Dragons, for example.

The fact that Marine players look at them and think 'well, they're okay, but I've got better stuff...' is neither a point in their favour, nor a point in the favour of the Marine codex in general.

Fire Dragons were already garbage as anti-tank. Saying Eradicators are better than garbage says literally nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but I do not think a single Eldar player thinks that Fire Dragons are garbage. 10 Melta shots into a tank coming out of a Waveserpent will put a huge dent in just about anything. Second, Eldar players will obviously see what GW will do with the 9th edition Eldar codex so no worries.

FFS stop using Fire Dragons as a comprable unit to Eradicators they aren't.

Compare Eradicators with Wraithguard and their normal weapon and you can start to see how much better they perform than just a *decent* unit in 8th and 9th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Another point of comparison: 6 combi-melta/melta Chosen. Same number of shots, 33% less wounds, T4 vs eradicators T5, and half the range. 150 points for the squad, 30 points or 25% more than eradicators. Figure that "balance" out.

You mean a unit nobody would dare use? How is that valid for comparison?

Kind of telling that a unit in another book with the same armament and function is "a unit nobody would dare use" while the Eradicators are either wildly broken or just all right depending on who you ask.

I don't see a Fire Dragon problem with Eradicators.

In fact, Eradicators have finally given a Fire Dragon solution.

Thanks to Primaris marines all running the same gear, I can finally get my eldar counts-as Marines without any trouble.

And Marines are brutally and overwhelmingly supported, so I'll never be waiting on Eldar adjustments again.