Switch Theme:

What am I missing with Eradicators?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Grey40k wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:

I could give 2 gaks how good they are


So what the heck are you doing in a thread talking about balance?

He's tired of people not thanking him for playing the most overpowered unit in the game, I was wrong, you're right Racerguy go ahead and use some of the most OP units in the game with one of the best 8th edition sub-factions even if your opponent is using trash units with a trash faction, why should you care? How dare I or anyone else complain, we should just forge a narrative around how we are NPCs and don't deserve to use our Monoliths or Canoptek Reanimators. Given that he doesn't mind Eradicators being OP I am sure he would be okay playing against a 120 pt Monolith, who cares what's the cost is? Is it really going to win any games if I bring three 120 pt Monoliths?
Tyel wrote:
Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)

Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.

I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.

As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.

The TTS meta is slowed down by not having the new models right away sometimes, that means proxying (which you think is kind of lame), it's not really that different from RL. It's easy to band-wagon on TTS if the models are available and people are not constrained at all by price of FW models, but people on TTS are often very attached to their factions and own them in real life as well. If you play in RL exclusively your opponents will still have to build and paint their armies. If you play on TTS you can just require all your opponents to make a custom paint scheme they need to follow so that the they will be unable to test different units.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




TTS is, from a consumer perspective, much better suited for the competitive setting.

GW milks competitive players hard via rule changes and other shenanigans. Probably not those at the very top, who either get sponsorhips or have developed ways to get cheap minis (active in 2nd hand, 3d printing, recasts, mini sharing in teams). Instead, they milk the "average" competitive player. I guess GW aspires to turn the game into MtG, which is a dream come true from the perspective of the company.

The issue I see is that if GW keeps pushing hard the gamey competitive element, often at the expense of the hobby, they might hurt sales overall it out in favor of TTS or videogames. As I said, for top competitive players the hobby side is not that important very frequently (just look at the tons of 3 colors airbrushed of competitive armies out there).

Although MtG does it, so maybe it is actually possible. It won't be good of us players, though.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

TTS is hindered from a competitive standpoint in that, frankly, 40K is not nearly as good of a competitive game/e-sport as something like Starcraft, Wargame, or Company of Heroes. Having the game designed to play out on a physical tabletop with physical models imposes a number of constraints which, once you're in a wholly digital space, no longer apply.

Even for players who don't care at all about the social or hobby sides, part of the appeal of miniatures gaming is the use of miniatures- or more abstractly, the physical component to the gamespace. I own TTS and find it a fun way to play 40K with distant friends, but it's a borderline-irredeemably clunky experience and I can't see it catching on with players who have no investment in the tabletop.

Same deal with MTG, really. There are plenty of ways to play it online. They haven't appreciably displaced physical cards, from what I've seen.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Tyel wrote:
Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)

Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.

I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.

As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.


I'm assuming from context TTS is some sort of computer program that runs 9999 Warhammer 40K simulations like you see them doing with John Madden on Sunday Night Football to predict scores and results? That could be painful for people who like to see variety.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey40k wrote:
TTS is, from a consumer perspective, much better suited for the competitive setting.

GW milks competitive players hard via rule changes and other shenanigans. Probably not those at the very top, who either get sponsorhips or have developed ways to get cheap minis (active in 2nd hand, 3d printing, recasts, mini sharing in teams). Instead, they milk the "average" competitive player. I guess GW aspires to turn the game into MtG, which is a dream come true from the perspective of the company.

The issue I see is that if GW keeps pushing hard the gamey competitive element, often at the expense of the hobby, they might hurt sales overall it out in favor of TTS or videogames. As I said, for top competitive players the hobby side is not that important very frequently (just look at the tons of 3 colors airbrushed of competitive armies out there).

Although MtG does it, so maybe it is actually possible. It won't be good of us players, though.


I'd just be glad we didn't see 40K online, where you play a SM captain (or Hive Tyrant, etc) and team up with your buddy the libby, your guildie the Devastator, and his buddy the Vanguard Vet to go adventuring on a Necron Tomb World.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 14:02:14


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
Grey40k wrote:
Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.

Want to see some cheese in action?

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/726260380

At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.

Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.

If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.


At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.

Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.

Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.

So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
This board sometimes, I swear.

Are we in acknowledgment that that CM plus Lt is a common competitive thing? And that Space Marine re-rolls are a competitive thing? And that a CM and Lt bubble can affect a LOT more than the single unit in question here?

Ffs.


I don't agree in the broad application. If you have only one CM on foot there are only so many places he can be. If I can get the Eradicators to pop up on the other side of him there won't be any rerolls. The game doesn't play as simply as before where things that wanted rerolls always got to be next to the CM and you suffered no scoring consequences for doing so.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Otoh it isn't like earlier editions where there's uncertainty in executing an outflank wombo-combo. If the enemy has a critical asset vulnerable to Eradicators, the CM will be there to meet them because the player has planned to kill that asset.

I agree he may not be if the player hasn't planned around it, but the SM player is in total control of the situation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 14:10:33


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.

Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.

Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.

Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.

They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).

Honestly, Eradicators are too efficient when compared to their cost. Not very efficient when compared to their slot in the detachment. That's more because SM have too many quality units fighting for those slots.

I mean, they're REALLY good. REALLY REALLY good. There's a reason they're taken in many lists, not just competitive ones. And slagging tanks was the realm where Primaris was barely passable in. Well, can't have the blue boys being shown up in any phase or situation, thus Eradicators were born.

The best defense against Eradicators is "pray your opponent isn't a jerk with them". Probably not the best indicator of a balanced and fair unit, lol.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Purifying Tempest wrote:
You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.

Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.

Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.

Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.

They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).

Honestly, Eradicators are too efficient when compared to their cost. Not very efficient when compared to their slot in the detachment. That's more because SM have too many quality units fighting for those slots.

I mean, they're REALLY good. REALLY REALLY good. There's a reason they're taken in many lists, not just competitive ones. And slagging tanks was the realm where Primaris was barely passable in. Well, can't have the blue boys being shown up in any phase or situation, thus Eradicators were born.

The best defense against Eradicators is "pray your opponent isn't a jerk with them". Probably not the best indicator of a balanced and fair unit, lol.


Out of curiosity, what is competing with eradicators in heavy support at a competitive level, in your opinion?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




At a competitive level? Nothing. They're too underpriced (or just have incompatible rules with balancing) that everything else just gets laughed at.

Previously? Eliminators and Repulsors were pretty popular.

In the future? Devastator squads are probably going to make a bit of a comeback.

But right now? We live in the age of the Eradicator.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
Grey40k wrote:
Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.

Want to see some cheese in action?

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/726260380

At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.

Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.

If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.


At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.

Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.

Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.

So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?


There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Purifying Tempest wrote:
At a competitive level? Nothing. They're too underpriced (or just have incompatible rules with balancing) that everything else just gets laughed at.

Previously? Eliminators and Repulsors were pretty popular.

In the future? Devastator squads are probably going to make a bit of a comeback.

But right now? We live in the age of the Eradicator.


Agreed, thanks for the clarification.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
Grey40k wrote:
Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.

Want to see some cheese in action?

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/726260380

At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.

Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.

If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.


At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.

Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.

Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.

So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?


There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.

Then maybe I should rephrase the question: Should any unit comprised of T5 3+ 3W infantry whose weapons are assault instead of heavy be able to do that for 120 points? Do you think eradicators are too cheap?
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
Grey40k wrote:
Re rolls, no re rolls, they are very oppressive. And unlike things like the silly grav pot, they do not depend on strats. So GW cannot claim it was some unintended synergy that made them release the unit at its current points. It was plain greed and they MtG approach to balance; but we aren’t playing with cards but expensive miniatures that are also time consuming to paint. At this point I think TTS is a better platform for 40k than the real thing.

Want to see some cheese in action?

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/726260380

At around the 1 hour mark nick n brings the pod and kills 2 tank commanders at 27’’ range...allowing for so much counterplay from his opponent.

Current board tables are scary small and melts range is plenty. Aggressors and eradicators are plain OP And every single competitive player is aware of it.

If you don’t care about whether something is OP or not because you play using some house rules and gentlemen agreements, then you have no business discussing balance.


At about 1hr 7, 1 unit of eradicators come in from reserves with captain support, he gets 6 hits, 6 wounds using the best possible combination of traits for them (which we can be fairly sure won't be in the same form as they are now) and remove a leman russ, doesn't say it's a commander at that point so idk.

Either way, anyone getting hit and wounded by 6 s8 ap -5 d:d6 shots is going to hurt, even if it is statistically unlikely.

Anyone not a successor salamanders literally can't do what he did there, a pure iron hands force firing from 24" with a captain does 10ish wounds, still too many but a bit more reasonable.

So can we agree that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, AP-4, D:d6 shots? And that no 120 point unit should be able to dish out 6 S8, Ap-5, D:d6 with +1 to wound just because of what particular subfaction they belong to and what turn it is?


There's actually a few that can now, any multimelta heavy weapons units ala retributors or devastators that can do that. I'm not sure what price you'd give a unit of 5 sisters with 3 multimeltas, but more than 120 might be asking too much despite them being able to fire with +1 damage and +12" range with a strat.

Then maybe I should rephrase the question: Should any unit comprised of T5 3+ 3W infantry whose weapons are assault instead of heavy be able to do that for 120 points? Do you think eradicators are too cheap?


Eradicators are too cheap, but the configuration theyre used in for competitive play is a head and shoulders above the standard unit even. Long range marksmen, master artisans or w/e the name is salamanders take a too cheap unit and make them especially obnoxious.

Other set ups for erdicators can probably be tweaked/massaged with points but that 1 combo can't imo. But then we know the salamanders chapter tactic is changing as is therefore master artisans.

Honestly 150-160 for them without those combo of chapter tactics and doctrines seems OK imo.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Ice_can wrote:
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.


Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.

5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.


Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.

5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.


5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Grey40k wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.


Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.

5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.


5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.


Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

vict0988 wrote:
Grey40k wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:

I could give 2 gaks how good they are


So what the heck are you doing in a thread talking about balance?

He's tired of people not thanking him for playing the most overpowered unit in the game, I was wrong, you're right Racerguy go ahead and use some of the most OP units in the game with one of the best 8th edition sub-factions even if your opponent is using trash units with a trash faction, why should you care? How dare I or anyone else complain, we should just forge a narrative around how we are NPCs and don't deserve to use our Monoliths or Canoptek Reanimators. Given that he doesn't mind Eradicators being OP I am sure he would be okay playing against a 120 pt Monolith, who cares what's the cost is? Is it really going to win any games if I bring three 120 pt Monoliths?
Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:
Not really on topic - but I do wonder if Tabletop Simulator will hurt 40k. Or at least exaggerated the difference between competitive/casual players - or people who play to win/solve the gaming aspect, and people who want to collect, build, paint etc. (Or people who play but for some reason don't care about whether a unit is good, bad, indifferent etc.)

Because it seems to me TTS could - if people played it enough - allow meta evolution to really move forward - almost, but not quite, to the pace of computer games. You can theoretically test list variations over and over again. I guess this was always theoretically possible with proxies or pieces of paper, but that's kind of lame.

I guess the issue is player base. Both how many are actually wiling to play on TTS, and how many really care enough to focus on builds in this way.

As for the above - yes, 6 S8 AP-5 D6 damage wounds will hurt anything. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for Eradicators to get 27" range, or 24" really, and they certainly shouldn't cost just 120 points.

The TTS meta is slowed down by not having the new models right away sometimes, that means proxying (which you think is kind of lame), it's not really that different from RL. It's easy to band-wagon on TTS if the models are available and people are not constrained at all by price of FW models, but people on TTS are often very attached to their factions and own them in real life as well. If you play in RL exclusively your opponents will still have to build and paint their armies. If you play on TTS you can just require all your opponents to make a custom paint scheme they need to follow so that the they will be unable to test different units.


First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.

See that's what grownups do, compromise.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Racerguy180 wrote:
First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.

See that's what grownups do, compromise.

I did not accuse you of jumping on any bandwagon, merely for downplaying how clearly OP Eradicators were to your own benefit. But I was wrong to call you out for doing that, I mixed you up with other posters with views other than you own. Have fun when you eventually get back to playing.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Dudeface wrote:
Grey40k wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.


Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.

5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.


5 sisters with 3 multimelta are far weaker than 3 eradicators; I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.


Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?


Sister have the 6++ and also potentially a ignore -1AP, but 3 wounds each and Toughness 5 is powerful in comparison, Sister are also much weaker it attacked in melee - S3, 1A and WS4+. Not sure they are that much easier to hid - the new models are quite hefty.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:

Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?


Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 17:53:00


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Also that's not current rules or point's for those Devistators.

5 marines at 18 points plus 3 multi melta's at 20
Comes to 150 points. Thats a fair amount more than three eradicators for probably still a weaker defensive statline.


Is it? 10 t4 3+ vs 9 t5 3+ isn't that far apart, plus you get some extra bolters and more melee.

5 sister retributors with 3 multimelta is exactly 120.

The Massive advantage of W3 is the waste of D2 shooting, which is going to become just avout everyones default going forward now.

But even if you say it's much of a wash thats 150 points worth not 120 AKA eradicators are massively undercosted even in comparison to their own codex's new buffed unit stats.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Grey40k wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?


Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.


We also don't know how broken the Eradicator Strat/s will be if we are adding those in.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Mr Morden wrote:
Grey40k wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

Not at all, but they have the same if not better damage output, are easier to hide and transport. Yes the die easier, but they accomplish just as much in terms of output. How many points more is that defensive profile worth?


Without strat support, salamander (the new hotness) eradicators are better than sister retributors in terms of damage output, and sister strats for eradicators are pricey.


We also don't know how broken the Eradicator Strat/s will be if we are adding those in.


Or if they actually get toned down between now and then.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Racerguy180 wrote:
how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".

if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.

If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?

If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?


Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.

There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.

Now, as far as they main topic.

3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.

3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).

Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.

Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.

Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




SemperMortis wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".

if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.

If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?

If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?


Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.

There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.

Now, as far as they main topic.

3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.

3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).

Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.

Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.

Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?


Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.

You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 18:43:42


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

Purifying Tempest wrote:
You know... Eradicators got me thinking about "how to kill Space Marines" - the silly article from WHC the other day. You want to know what didn't pop up and should have? Dark Reapers.

Though they didn't show up probably because of a lot of lingering salt.

Starshot missiles will take care of pesky Gravis Armored models.

Starswarm missiles will handle the rest.

They don't have the massive volume to carry the entire army to victory, but I think they become a really nice answer to Gravis armor in particular. All the while, being at a very comfortable range away from those nasty Gravis threats (Aggressors and Eradicators).



In 9th, with the prevalence of terrain, they're pretty lacklustre. Their range is largely irrelevant, and they don't have enough shots in a unit to really put a big dent into anything much. They're also more expensive than terminators, for a T3 body and no invulnerable save, so they die to a stiff breeze. They're one of the better craftworld infantry units... but right now, that isn't saying an awful lot, craftworld infantry is mostly garbage. 20-35 points, for the defensive statline of a 5pt guardsman.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

SemperMortis wrote:
Spoiler:
Racerguy180 wrote:
how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".

if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.

If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?

If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?


Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.

There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.
but why should anything that's from tournaments(spamming units, wombocombo gotchas)trickle down to fun metas? all that serves is to make fun metas more tourney like, which as far as I can tell, isnt wanted? the only people who want that are people playing in tournament metas.

kinda weird when the most fun games I've ever had I've been at a disadvantage i.e. unbalanced.

I still dont understand why 3 models are soooooo OP? o wait when you take 3 full squads(spamming) they're an issue.

But if you guys are so competitive im sure you can figure out a way to deal with it? cuz isnt that the point of feth you lists, either deal with it or dont? Do you just concede when you see them in your opponents list? Or is it that in needing to prepare for this one unit you need to skew the rest of your armys list for it? which would then make it more difficult to deal with other factions?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/04 19:03:55


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
how so? it sure seems these problems arise from the type of play that fosters such "gaming".

if you're scared of single squad of Eradicators, I really dont know what to tell you. If your scared of someone spamming 3 full squads, that's a game type(feth you lists) problem. How do you deal with such a ridiculously OP unit? Probably the same way you deal with any other, prepare for it or dont.

If your saying you don't have the capability to deal with it, then that may be a problem. which will probably be addressed by the codex'. Until then, I guess either suck it up and fight on...or dont.(which is always an option). Did you refuse games against Taudar, Gman Razorbacks, Castellans? Or did you play against them?

If your saying you have the capacity to handle it, I fail to see how they're a problem?


Racerguy, i'm sure you are a chill guy and a lot of fun to play against, but your mindset of For Fun only games and house rules is completely irrelevant to the point of this entire thread.

There is a large and vibrant community of competitive players and tournament players. But even ignoring that, discussing balance is just good for the game. Every edition, heck, every release there are guys similar to you who argue against balance and nerfs/buffs because "who cares, just house rule" or some other similar argument. And there isn't anything wrong with that in your own meta i'm sure. However, in the competitive meta it is important and that will even trickle down to your friendly meta by simply making games more balanced which is a lot more fun. Saying units don't need to be balanced is just bad for the game in general.

Now, as far as they main topic.

3 Eradicators are 120pts. Ignore ALL buffs. That is equivalent to 7 Ork Tankbustas. Same range same strength. Against a T8 3+ Vehicle this is the results.

3 eradicators get 6 shots for 4 hits and 2 wounds which do 7 damage on average.
7 TankBustas get 7 shots for 2.33 hits, rerolls = about 4 hits, 2 wounds which do 4 dmg on average (3 dmg each, but vehicle gets a 5+ save).

Those 3 Eradicators are significantly better vs infantry and are faster and much harder to kill. 9 T5 3+ wounds Vs. 7 T4 6+ wounds.

Start adding in buffs and the results become even more lopsided because Orkz basically don't get shooting buffs.

Now, i do believe personally that TankBustas are slightly over priced, but not by a significant amount (in my opinion). But even if you gave them a 2 or 3ppm price cut they would still be nowhere near as good as Eradicators. So then the argument becomes, are Tankbustas significantly over priced 5+ppm price cut needed (PLEASE! LOL) or is it just possible that Eradicators are heavily under priced?


Well that maths is off, you missed DDD so it's 5 hits, 2.5 wounds, gives you 5 damage, so still worse but not that far off.

You can give orks a strat to proc the ddd on a 5+, you can give them a +1 strat with 1 klan, you can make them fire twice. Does this offset doctrines and salamander buffs? Probably not goven it has an inherent cost. Then again tankbustas get the luxury of firing out a transport.
You get an average of five hits, yeah.

But if you're giving the Orks their Stratagems, you should compare to what Eradicators can use-I'm pretty sure they can at least get RR1s to-hit with a strat.
+1 to-hit with Freebootas requires you to have killed another unit already, and is mutually exclusive with Bad Moonz firing twice.

And if you fire from a trnaspot, as written right now, you don't get to reroll hits.
You don't get DDD.
You don't get any Klan bonuses.
Not to mention, a Trukk is probably not as survivable as the Eradicators, and a Battlewagon is real expensive.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: