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.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.

League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.

I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.

Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Calm down fangirl, Riot very much tends to make characters stronger on release, and tones them down afterwards (If they prove to be too strong).
Which is one of the main reasons why heroes aren't available in ranked immediately

Champions are available in ranked as soon as theyre released.

Riot is terrible at balance.

The majority of the champions are undertuned and will never be touched again. About 25 other champions are viable top tier options. Each newer champion released regardless of whatever WR they demonstrate have too many abiltiies. I think this new champion cowgirl with swords and guns has 6 activations of her Q with each being a new ability. Champions with point and click ability denial...(makes 60% of all champions unplayable because most champs require to land an ability first to land their combo) really all kinds of reason.

Riot makes a fun game and it is competitive with the top 25 champions. The comparison I'd make to 40k would be.

8th ed space marines were like pre rework attrox and 8.5 made them the unstopable attrox we have now is typically ban or play in 50% of games or more. He is totally beatable. He just has all the tools he needs to compete at that lvl now - were before - he suck and was just a crappy version of tryndamere.

In regards to eliminators compared to LOL balance. Yeah...every champion is released overtunned. It is good business. They want to sell the champion before the weirdos without saved blue essence can buy them for free. GW doesn't do this...they literally just don't know they are overturning a models rules.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Riot is terrible at balance.

The majority of the champions are undertuned and will never be touched again. About 25 other champions are viable top tier options. Each newer champion released regardless of whatever WR they demonstrate have too many abiltiies. I think this new champion cowgirl with swords and guns has 6 activations of her Q with each being a new ability. Champions with point and click ability denial...(makes 60% of all champions unplayable because most champs require to land an ability first to land their combo) really all kinds of reason.

Riot makes a fun game and it is competitive with the top 25 champions. The comparison I'd make to 40k would be.

8th ed space marines were like pre rework attrox and 8.5 made them the unstopable attrox we have now is typically ban or play in 50% of games or more. He is totally beatable. He just has all the tools he needs to compete at that lvl now - were before - he suck and was just a crappy version of tryndamere.

In regards to eliminators compared to LOL balance. Yeah...every champion is released overtunned. It is good business. They want to sell the champion before the weirdos without saved blue essence can buy them for free. GW doesn't do this...they literally just don't know they are overturning a models rules.

releasing champion on the stronger side also endure they will see meaningful playrate so they can balance accordingly. An hour on live servers sees more testing of a champion's balance than months of in-house testing.

And no, not all champs are released OP.

The difference between LoL and 40k is that LoL's updates are quick and free whereas 40k takes months and you gotta pay for it. In that regard, LoL > 40k

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

Multi Melta was bad - It wasn't so bad it needed double the shots though. The melta rule changing probably would have been enough. Personally I think it should just have a rule that it wounds vehicals and monster on a 2+ and that would have been fine. Double the shots is insane. It is going to need to increase to 30-35 points to be fair.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,

Not Online!!! wrote:
The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,

Not Online!!! wrote:
The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.

Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,

Not Online!!! wrote:
The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.

Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.

Terminators have 2 wounds, you don't know what Terminators are going to cost when the SM codex gets updated. How about combi-melta Terminators as they are now? You get twice the range and double the shots in return for having -1A +1S AP-1 in melee, that's a bad exchange for the Terminators and 2+ Sv is not so hot in an elite meta. SM have better buffs and abilities than CSM, if Eradicators had to pay even 1CP every time they double-tapped you'd have a point, but it's free and they are OP right now, CSM Terminators are not.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

Well saying they get double the shots of the Multi-Melta is disingenuous when it was revealed not long after we had rules for Eradicators that Multi-Meltas were getting two shots.

And quite frankly not even taking that into account, they're not exactly excelling compared to other usable Anti-Tank anyway. Anything they're better than is usually more durable too. Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,

Not Online!!! wrote:
The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Obliterators aren't good either unless you stack an impossible amount of buffs on them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.

If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

Wrong statement is wrong.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

Wrong statement is wrong.

Please name all the usable Melta units that appeared for 8th then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.

If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.

Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"

 vict0988 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?

That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?

Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.

Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?

Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.

That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.

If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.

but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,

Not Online!!! wrote:
The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.

Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.

Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.

Terminators have 2 wounds, you don't know what Terminators are going to cost when the SM codex gets updated. How about combi-melta Terminators as they are now? You get twice the range and double the shots in return for having -1A +1S AP-1 in melee, that's a bad exchange for the Terminators and 2+ Sv is not so hot in an elite meta. SM have better buffs and abilities than CSM, if Eradicators had to pay even 1CP every time they double-tapped you'd have a point, but it's free and they are OP right now, CSM Terminators are not.

The points on a terminator are not changing much if at all. Anyways we are complaining about cost...if all the cost is changing in 1 month...what is all this discussion about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Impossible amount of buffs to make obliterators good is the buffs that every choas army takes...You don't even need to take tones troops to make it work anymore ether. You get 15 CP for using 1 detachment. Choas has no right to complain about space marine units. You can buff 1 choas unit to kill half a marine army in 1 turn.

I say this as a choas player myself. Abuse your large units and get maximum effect out of your spells and stratagems...which are a lot better than the space marine ones mind you.

40 plasma hitting on2's reroll 1's with no overheat wounding on 2's...GTFO.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"

Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.

When a new unit is released and it's also very powerful on papaer it doesn't cause annoyance if it's added to a faction that struggles or is okeyish. Because overall there may be some balance gained by enhancing a faction with a new powerful release, which is healthy for the game. If marines get new mediocre units rulewise no one would really complain, people aren't annoyed that marines get tons of releases, they're annoyed that they get tons of help, even when they don't need it.

I think it's irrational to complain about releases that don't affect the meta. What's the matter with new bad marines units? They're shiny new toys to paint and collect and don't shake up the meta in favor of an army that is basically always competitive.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

as much as I disagree with Slayer, this is true.

People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.

If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.

that's bs and you know it. the minute an "OP" is released there is INSTANT & SUSTAINED complaining. People are still bitching about Chaos 3.5.
as has been stated in this very thread, an OP unit is OP irrespective of codex it comes out of.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"

Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.

When a new unit is released and it's also very powerful on papaer it doesn't cause annoyance if it's added to a faction that struggles or is okeyish. Because overall there may be some balance gained by enhancing a faction with a new powerful release, which is healthy for the game. If marines get new mediocre units rulewise no one would really complain, people aren't annoyed that marines get tons of releases, they're annoyed that they get tons of help, even when they don't need it.

I think it's irrational to complain about releases that don't affect the meta. What's the matter with new bad marines units? They're shiny new toys to paint and collect and don't shake up the meta in favor of an army that is basically always competitive.

It's never acceptable to add imbalanced units, having a poor codex doesn't excuse it as youre not fixing the issues with the dex by papering over the cracks.

I can assure you people would complain about marines getting anything released as happens with literally every release. Rules wise or not a large group will complain.

It's just as rational to complain a unit is bad as it is too good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

as much as I disagree with Slayer, this is true.

People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.

If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.

that's bs and you know it. the minute an "OP" is released there is INSTANT & SUSTAINED complaining. People are still bitching about Chaos 3.5.
as has been stated in this very thread, an OP unit is OP irrespective of codex it comes out of.

Slayer has a point here sadly, the people who complain about marines in general get to team up with the people who are verg involved with game balance. The first group feel justified and become more vocal on behalf of the latter who are usually a minority.

Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"

Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.

Now we are getting it.

There's a problem with pricing models as though they were buffed all the time. Obliterators are the best example because they're priced like they have a bunch of outside buffs they might not necessarily get. This is a bad way to go about it, as the model is not being priced on its own merits but the merits of other factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.

You're looking to imply Eradicators are any good in melee, which is honestly so hilarious I can't even take you seriously.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"

Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.

Now we are getting it.

There's a problem with pricing models as though they were buffed all the time. Obliterators are the best example because they're priced like they have a bunch of outside buffs they might not necessarily get. This is a bad way to go about it, as the model is not being priced on its own merits but the merits of other factors.

a buff should never be required for a unit to do its job or be balanced into its basic points/abilities. now if you make it additional points/strat, then it makes sense. Is every marine unit costed with Might of heroes in mind? is every Nid unit costed like its including kraken? I sure as gak hope not.

Dudeface wrote:


It's never acceptable to add imbalanced units, having a poor codex doesn't excuse it as youre not fixing the issues with the dex by papering over the cracks.

I can assure you people would complain about marines getting anything released as happens with literally every release. Rules wise or not a large group will complain.

It's just as rational to complain a unit is bad as it is too good.

40k has never been and never will be 100% balanced, GW's aim is to sell models not to provide a perfect balanced game. And I'm settled with that as long as the game stays reasonably balanced. Like 8th edition pre-SM codex 2.0. Even the current 9th barring the most competitive primaris marines armies.

Now if a new release is getting incredible rules because GW wants to push sales I can accept that, as long as the average meta doesn't suffer from a faction that bullies everyone else. That's why I made the necron eradicators example; they'd still be overpowered, sure, and overpowered stuff is always bad, but they wouldn't cause the same amount of problems they do if they are added to the current top tier faction.

That's why I believe it's ok to react in a different way if new overpowered unit belongs to the current top tier faction or not. Especially if that factions constantly receives helps. Overpowered units should never exist, we all agree to that, but they do exist the amount of annoyance is caused by the actual impact they have on the meta. Not by their rules in a vacuum.

Obliterators should cost similar to something statted similar. Custodes terminators come to mind.


An oblit is almost the exact same stat block as an allarus terminator. I think only base difference is -1WS/BS and 1" of move. This would put the base model at 57pts.

The weapons are different and the strats they can access are different though.

Allarus get a free grenade launcher and a Castellan axe for 10 pts.

Oblits get their fist for free and their fleshmetal gun. I would like to think that the weapons on the oblit are worth 20 points at least (probably 25 total).

So compared directly an oblit should cost 77-82pts apiece.




Eradicators vs custodian guard with pyrithe.
the guard have BS/WS 2+, +1 str, and a 4++.

Thats probably worth 7-8pts over erradicators base cost.

Weapons are a 2 shot 24" melta vs a 1 shot 12" melta and a guardian spear in melee. This is pretty equal in value overall.

Pyrithe guard are 55 pts apiece, so an erradicator should be at least 47-48pts base.


If you keep them at 40pts apiece, drop the range to 18".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

Wrong statement is wrong.

Please name all the usable Melta units that appeared for 8th then.

Is the question in 8th only? Then formulate that statement correctly.

They are not melta units. They are blaster units who get an extra 6" range and can reroll the damage in half range.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Obliterators should cost similar to something statted similar. Custodes terminators come to mind.


An oblit is almost the exact same stat block as an allarus terminator. I think only base difference is -1WS/BS and 1" of move. This would put the base model at 57pts.

The weapons are different and the strats they can access are different though.

Allarus get a free grenade launcher and a Castellan axe for 10 pts.

Oblits get their fist for free and their fleshmetal gun. I would like to think that the weapons on the oblit are worth 20 points at least (probably 25 total).

So compared directly an oblit should cost 77-82pts apiece.




Eradicators vs custodian guard with pyrithe.
the guard have BS/WS 2+, +1 str, and a 4++.

Thats probably worth 7-8pts over erradicators base cost.

Weapons are a 2 shot 24" melta vs a 1 shot 12" melta and a guardian spear in melee. This is pretty equal in value overall.

Pyrithe guard are 55 pts apiece, so an erradicator should be at least 47-48pts base.


If you keep them at 40pts apiece, drop the range to 18".

Actually realistically the 4++ and ws and bs 2+ is worth a lot more than 8 points. A 4++ for a crisis suit is straight up 8 points. +1 to hit in melee and shooting gotta be worth at least 4 points plus they also have a 2+ save That is worth a lot too...standing in cover it gets a friggen 3+ against ap-2 and still gets a 3+ save against ap -1 in the open.



The pyrite spear dude should cost a lot more than the eradicator and he does...It's a 5 to 10 point discrepancy at best. If you include 9 of them in your army...ALL YOUR HEAVY SUPPORT SLOTS. You can buy yourself a scout squad with all the OP savings you got...

Honestly I am all for the 18" range - They will be too expensive if they go over 45 points.

 vict0988 wrote:

https://mobalytics.gg/blog/lol-tier-list-for-climbing-solo-queue/
https://champion.gg/champion/Yone/Middle

Buddy, both of those sites (especially champion.gg) are meme sites with a low to mid tier elo slant. Champion.gg pulls data from platinum 5 and up, and to be blunt any stats lower than Diamond 1 to Masters aren't even worth talking about. Below that the skill levels are so disparate it bluntly does not matter, and champions who are excellent at beating the gak out of bad players (like Garen) overperform. In fact, glancing at that tier list that is indeed a good tier list for "climbing", which is to say climbing from low elo. Champions like Garen hit a wall where people no longer play into your strengths and let you take over the game, where his incredibly basic kit can't adapt to the game pace. There's a reason riste, probably the highest profile NA Garen player, eventually gave up trying to maintain challenger as a Garen player for the good of his mental health.

Do you want to know how often Garen has been played in Challenger NA in the last month? Four times. Yone by comparison has a much more respectable 266 games, and Sett the "tier 3 champion" over three hundred. I also can't help but notice Lilia being relatively spammed (and no her 45% win rate does not matter considering challenger by default has a low sample size).

And that's just NA. In Korea Garen has literally not been played a single time in the last month in challenger:

https://www.op.gg/statistics/champion/

But they, probably the most competitive region still, sure seem to play Sett with him being the second most-played champion in that elo. Yone is admittedly not being played as much as he is in NA so I might have been wrong about him.

But anyway, generic stats sites don't tell anywhere near the full story, since they pretty much all by default show plat+ stats. And like I said, that tier list is decent if you want something to help you climb out of silver or gold or whatever, not so much if you actually want to hit challenger (Garen is incredibly hard to play in truly high elo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.
.

Sett was top tier on release with like a 54-55% win rate (extremely high for a new champ) my man, and when Voli wasn't he was very quickly made top tier.

And you can find exceptions all you want, but that's generally all they are: exceptions to the rule. For a legitimate exception, albeit going back a little while, when Illaoi was released she wasn't top tier and pretty much never has been, but that's because her kit is fundamentally weak, or at least binary.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.

League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.

I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.

Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)

Void, most people are not challenger players, that's the point of challenger, it's not for most people. Are Eradicators terrible at top levels or bottom levels of 40k play? Anyways we shouldn't talk about skill or we'll invite the 40k doesn't involve skill crowd. Challenger players have enough IP that they are not going to pay money for the newest champion anyways, challenger is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.

You're looking to imply Eradicators are any good in melee, which is honestly so hilarious I can't even take you seriously.

Is that you claiming that Land Speeder Tempests are good in melee? I said one wasn't much worse than the other, I wasn't aware that LSTs were amazing melee units, I was just comparing two units. It's clear that Eradicators are pretty bad in melee, although they'll beat an equal number of Ogryn if they are in Assault Doctrine, it also takes 24 Flayed Ones (336 pts or 2,8 x the value of 3 Eradicators) to kill 3 Eradicators in melee, it takes 32,4 Eradicators (1296 pts or 3,9 x the value of 24 Flayed Ones) to kill 24 Flayed ones in melee if they are in Assault Doctrine. How many melta shots do Flayed Ones make again? "It must be somewhere around half as many as Eradicators because they punch a bit harder in melee right?" "Wait, what do you mean Flayed Ones don't get meltaguns?"

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.

Wrong statement is wrong.

Please name all the usable Melta units that appeared for 8th then.

Is the question in 8th only? Then formulate that statement correctly.

I mean you DO remember me being a big fan of suicide melta right? Termicide, Scout Missile, etc. I think it's obvious the statement was talking about last edition.

Quasistellar wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.

League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.

I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.

Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)

I think it's safe to say that it is a new era of LOL. Cant say exactly when it started but probably like...yasuo?

Just look at Yasuos kit.multipart passive...gets a shield that recharges from ulting or moving/doubles crit chance q that stacks into a long range aoe knock-up with practically no cast time - w gap closer that does damage and resets on new target - e blocks any ranged projectile for like 3 seconds from a selected direction - ult locks down any knock up target and grants 50% armor pen...

COME ON MAN - compare that to like pre rework pantheon and its like...WUT?

Skill is such an important factor in LOL though. like miliseconds matter. So an OP champ at high lvl is not the same as an OP unit in 40k. put faker on anything and he will destroy you with jukes. So reliability becomes the most important factor for high teir play...not just steam face roll OP 1v5 carry ability like a yi or a yas or an irelia does if they get slighty ahead. It is a frustrating game because of this...because they allow champs to get out of hand in order to try and shake up competitive play. They just gonna keep picking olaf and lee sin for days though because they are reliable at what they do.