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.

It will be interesting if mass DW eradicators is better than mass DW aggressors - which was an obvious meme list, and yet either no one ran it, or it didn't work. I guess you might want some dedicated anti-tank rather than just hundreds of S4 AP- shots.

Tyel wrote:
It will be interesting if mass DW eradicators is better than mass DW aggressors - which was an obvious meme list, and yet either no one ran it, or it didn't work. I guess you might want some dedicated anti-tank rather than just hundreds of S4 AP- shots.

Sometimes quantity is a quality all its own.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


i gotta ask, did you expect, something better out of GW?
Because the fact that GW feths up such rules makes such units even more of an issue then they were allready...
And "that gak will fly" until GW deems it necessary to release a CA

I don't know if they fethed it up. Some people seem to think it's a meme list. With so few bodies and no SIA it isn't flexible and it's also slow. DA terminators seem scary, too, but then its 43/47 ppm for a 5 man. A couple of those plus support gets to half the army pretty fast.

I know that these are individually strong things, but that's not the whole picture. Once I spend more time digesting Necrons I might feel differently.

the point is not the power of the list, it's an obvious skew, an oppressive skew even, but anything that is even just bringing regular TAC ammount of bodies can deal with it.
The issue is the oppresiveness amalgated out of the DW rules and the eradicator.

In essence, that list might lose most of it's match ups but against factions that rely upon vehicles as a core part of their factions identity it will not be a fun matchup. Even if the list is UP.

Tyel wrote:
It will be interesting if mass DW eradicators is better than mass DW aggressors - which was an obvious meme list, and yet either no one ran it, or it didn't work. I guess you might want some dedicated anti-tank rather than just hundreds of S4 AP- shots.

Probably didn't work. "mass" slow 45ish point models missing ObSec, isn't very massive. Aggresors were incredibly good at their one trick, but the really only had the one.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Points would do it, but it would have to be a big hit. They need to be 60 PPM minimum with their current rules. That would make a six man squad 360 points, a unit that can kill a 360 point tank in a single round of shooting should at least be as expensive as the tank. But if we're doing rules, I'd say losing double tap would do it, but maybe be too much.

The problem is gw always makes things worse by adding more rules. When I first saw the stats for the heavy meltas I thought "Holy crap!", then I realized that since they were heavy weapons they would always be hitting on 4s if they moved. Then I saw the strategem that makes any infantry unit that moved count as standing still.

At 60 points they’re almost the same as a MM speeder with three times the movement, ignoring Heavy, and T5 6W 3+.

Good point, you've finally convinced me, multi-melta land speeders are far superior to eradicators. And they need a massive points hike. Now.

Without knowing exactly which strat you’re talking about, the one I THINK you’re talking about they can’t advance.

Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.

If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.

Marines probably have enough good stratagems that you want to be using that you won't design a list that has to 'waste' CP on making heavy Eradicators count as stationary when your most likely going to outflank them onto the board.

The Heavy versions might do more but do you need more? Seemed to me like Eradicators were already doing enough.

 Ordana wrote:
Marines probably have enough good stratagems that you want to be using that you won't design a list that has to 'waste' CP on making heavy Eradicators count as stationary when your most likely going to outflank them onto the board.

The Heavy versions might do more but do you need more? Seemed to me like Eradicators were already doing enough.

In my head, I was already using them with Guilliman (if/when I was using them), not outflanking. Stick some Aggressors out front, some Eradicators in the back/on the flank, Grandpappy Smurf (rerolls + +1" to charge and advance) and Tiggy in the middle(-1 to hit, and/or Tactical doctrine this turn. each for one unit) , now that Aggressors don't have to avoid Advancing to preserve the double tap, its an even easier decision. Of course, now I have to figure out what kind of shenanigans I can use to get them (Aggressors and Grandpappy) to charge and/or Heroically Intervene after an advance/before my next turn (if possible). I'm wondering if it would be mean to add a Chief Apothecary. If they fix Apothecaries being able to heal MONSTERs like Guilliman, I'll stop wondering. If I really want to go overboard, tack on a couple Victrix Guard so he can't even be sniped or otherwise targetted by shooting. But probably not, that's already pricey enough.

I wish we had an apothecary like the marine one, being able to resurect a whole paladin or an attack bike is a big thing. Am not even sure if an apothecary isn't better in some cases, then a regular Lt run as a counter unit.

Karol wrote:
I wish we had an apothecary like the marine one, being able to resurect a whole paladin or an attack bike is a big thing. Am not even sure if an apothecary isn't better in some cases, then a regular Lt run as a counter unit.

What's a paladin? I don't recognize that from any of the Marine Codexes. Resurrecting an Attack Bike is an iffy thing, he's got to be near the unit to do it, and I think - now/eventually/next week/whatever you want to call it - only the Chief Apothecary can do it. And the Indexes for the other chapters make even that doubtful - Brother Corbulo still only heals D3, and can't resurrect - the Deathwing and Ravenwing Apothecaries only heal D3 not the Flat 3 or whatever we've been told. Of course as yet more wonkiness the -Wing Apothecaries also give the 6+ FNP so maybe they did a little bit of both on the Indexes until the Supplement comes out.

Also what is a "counter unit" in the manner you're using it?

then a regular Lt run as a counter unit.

Breton wrote:
What's a paladin? I don't recognize that from any of the Marine Codexes. Resurrecting an Attack Bike is an iffy thing, he's got to be near the unit to do it, and I think - now/eventually/next week/whatever you want to call it - only the Chief Apothecary can do it.

ehhm no? any apothecary can do it. its a 1CP strat used at the END of the movement phase. So you can zip back with an ATV and revive a 85 points, 8 Wound model.

Breton wrote:

Karol wrote:
I wish we had an apothecary like the marine one, being able to resurect a whole paladin or an attack bike is a big thing. Am not even sure if an apothecary isn't better in some cases, then a regular Lt run as a counter unit.

What's a paladin? I don't recognize that from any of the Marine Codexes. Resurrecting an Attack Bike is an iffy thing, he's got to be near the unit to do it, and I think - now/eventually/next week/whatever you want to call it - only the Chief Apothecary can do it. And the Indexes for the other chapters make even that doubtful - Brother Corbulo still only heals D3, and can't resurrect - the Deathwing and Ravenwing Apothecaries only heal D3 not the Flat 3 or whatever we've been told. Of course as yet more wonkiness the -Wing Apothecaries also give the 6+ FNP so maybe they did a little bit of both on the Indexes until the Supplement comes out.

Also what is a "counter unit" in the manner you're using it?

then a regular Lt run as a counter unit.

Appocothory is 6+FNP aura plus heal d3 wounds on a wounded model and can use 1CP strategum to bring back a model at full wounds.

Or as anyone with any sence will do upgrade him for 25 points
Cheif has 6+FNP aura plus heal upto 3 wounds on any wounded model, cannuse the sttategum for bringing back a model at full wounds for 0CP.

AKA someone at GW decied that being allowed to use a 1CP strategum for free 4 times and changing D3 to flat 3 was only worth 25 points.

RedNoak wrote:

Breton wrote:
What's a paladin? I don't recognize that from any of the Marine Codexes. Resurrecting an Attack Bike is an iffy thing, he's got to be near the unit to do it, and I think - now/eventually/next week/whatever you want to call it - only the Chief Apothecary can do it.

ehhm no? any apothecary can do it. its a 1CP strat used at the END of the movement phase. So you can zip back with an ATV and revive a 85 points, 8 Wound model.

That's right, I forgot they made it a strat, I don't have the book, or the leaked stuff yet, just the FAQ's and Index'es put out by GW. How does the Apothecary zip back with an ATV?

BrianDavion wrote:


a good nerf for eradicators would be to clarify that
"one target" means a SINGLE target, not a unit. which would drasticly reduce firepower against infantry squads.

yes, because the biggest issue with Eradicators was how effective they were against infantry squads, not the fact that 9 of them with some upgrades or 12 with no upgrades but in melta range was 1 shotting a fething Stompa. Not saying a stompa is remotely good but 40 T8 wounds and costs about 1k points and 360pts of Eradicators 1 shot it with some weapons upgrades, no buffs, no chapter bonuses or reroll auras. (if 5 for heavy and 10 for MM is correct the 9 Eradicators would cost 420pts, killing almost 1k a turn in Stompas) 3 Eradicators, NO weapons upgrades were doing enough to 1 shot an Ork Buggy each turn, not even in 1/2 melta range.

3 eradicators can 1 shot a deff dread,
6 eradicators with just heavy upgrades can 1 shot a Gorkanaut, or 6 without upgrades but in melta range.

This isn't balanced, its ridiculously OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
[

SemperMortis wrote:
3 Aggressors get 36 shots against horde for 24 hits and 12 wounds. Against boyz thats 10 dead Boyz. 135pts kills 80. That is pretty damn good, if its in tactical turn its 96.

In CC Those 3 aggressors get 13 attacks on the charge at S8 AP-3 Flat 2 dmg. hitting on 4s.

3 Meganobz get 12 shots, for 4 hits and 2 wounds against Ork boyz for 1.68ish dead boyz.

In CC those 3 meganobz get 9 attacks at S10 -3AP D3 dmg hitting on 4s. if you want to get rid of their shooting entirely and give them a a pair of Saws each they go up to 12 attacks.

So the Space Marines go to anti-horde unit is as good as my Ork Elite melee unit.

bAlaNcEd

The problem there isn’t the Aggressors, the problem is your Orks and melee in general. They screwed melee over, and are still trying to figure out how to fix it.

The problem there is that GW has increased the deadliness of ranged combat dramatically while nerfing how damaging CC is while at the same time not increasing the durability of CC units, especially my ork units. How hard is it really to get rid of a Meganob, T4 3W 2+ save? Only way to give them an invuln is to pay for an HQ to escort them and it only works with ranged weapons.

Aggressors are just a wonderful example of how badly GW has screwed up. Here is an incredibly points efficient shooting unit, capable of slaying hordes, but we are also going to make them incredibly deadly in CC vs tough units/vehicles and durable as holy hell because we can't have SM players not winning.

What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.

SemperMortis wrote:

What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.

No easy transport, limited access to invuln/FNP, and limited deepstrike options.

The supplements that favor Aggressors of a type (UM,SL) don't have infiltrate (WS,RG). The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units. Salamanders have a 6+++ available, but realistically you're not putting all you're Aggressors in that bubble.

MANZ otherwise can get a 5++ (ranged), 6+++, easy access to a transport, deepstrike, swipe from a transport, the best version of reroll charges, still (at present) have fight twice, access to run & charge, and D3 killsaws (which when previously discussed makes 3 of them kill just about 4 aggressors).

Now I'm not excluding transhuman and other stuff available to Aggressors for the purpose of deceit. You asked about Aggressor weaknesses and I put them up against MANZ strengths. We agree that Aggressors are good. We don't agree that MANZ are bad by comparison.

MANZ IMHO aren't really comparable to agressors anyway, they're more an Ork terminator then an Ork Agressor (and yes IMHO they should be given a third wound when the new Ork 'dex comes out)

And it should also be noted that the 18" range and the desire to stay immobile is the main weakness of Aggressors. Not sure if it's enough to counteract their efficiency but yeah.

Now, if orks got an aggressor equivalent i'd be pretty happy. Like a lovechild between flashgitz and meganobs. Or just flashgitz in mega armour. Wait why isn't that a thing already? They'd probably just call it snazz armour with megagunz.

cody.d. wrote:
snazz armour with megagunz.

My god I love it... I shall dedicate the next spider my gf makes me destroy to tzeench to make it happen..

cody.d. wrote:

Now, if orks got an aggressor equivalent i'd be pretty happy. Like a lovechild between flashgitz and meganobs. Or just flashgitz in mega armour. Wait why isn't that a thing already? They'd probably just call it snazz armour with megagunz.

Oh wow that's awesome.

Actually my friend used to run that in 2nd ed. A bunch of Nobz in Mega Armor with Lascannons.

Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.

I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.

(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)

Breton wrote:

Tyel wrote:
It will be interesting if mass DW eradicators is better than mass DW aggressors - which was an obvious meme list, and yet either no one ran it, or it didn't work. I guess you might want some dedicated anti-tank rather than just hundreds of S4 AP- shots.

Probably didn't work. "mass" slow 45ish point models missing ObSec, isn't very massive. Aggresors were incredibly good at their one trick, but the really only had the one.

the eradicators would be obsec actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.

I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.

(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)

The secret is that devastators are actually, themselves, OP. And have been for about a year. GW just keeps switching the most OP way to play with them depending on their guns, so everyone using the drop grav devs kinda got boned now that melta devs are the new hotness, and there's not as much a reason to make the transition when eradicators are just better. Supress eradicators and melta devs would dominate almost as much though, yes.

This is not a good thing

Niiru wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.

I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.

(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)

how did they squat deathwatch? I know they lost SIA but that's hardly squatting them

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.

I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.

(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)

how did they squat deathwatch? I know they lost SIA but that's hardly squatting them

Without a major overhaul, deathwatch are just a cheap gimmick of giving obsec to weird units like outriders. They have nothing else.

Frag cannons are nerfed hard and still 15pts. Shotguns are actually better... But require giving up your melee weapon. Vets kill team can't even take a black shield anymore.

You're better off fielding your marines as any other army. There's no benefit to deathwatch unless you like the fluff, and everything that's fluffy has been removed or made unplayably bad.

Without a bottom-up overhaul, they're dead.

BrianDavion wrote:
...how did they squat deathwatch? I know they lost SIA but that's hardly squatting them

As of right now Deathwatch are approximately comparable to playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. You can buy a 20pt 2W Deathwatch Veteran who can have a 30"/AP-1 boltgun, or you could buy a 20pt Intercessor that has almost the same statline/weapon. You could use Mission Tactics to reroll 1s to wound against things of a specific battlefield role, or you could get Lieutenants that work on everything. You could reroll 1s to hit against Xenos books, or you could just sit by your Captains and reroll 1s to hit against everything.

They're not 100% pointless compared to other Chapters right now (SIA has non-Kraken options, ObSec Storm Shields are nice, and Mission Tactics does work on non-Core units table-wide), but they're pretty close.

BrianDavion wrote:
MANZ IMHO aren't really comparable to agressors anyway, they're more an Ork terminator then an Ork Agressor (and yes IMHO they should be given a third wound when the new Ork 'dex comes out)

They're already 3W. Nobz and all their equivalents were 2W since ages so the megarmour gave them a 3rd wound in 8th, like the terminator armour gave marines a 2nd wound. Now they should be 4 or 5 W. Or get T5. TWC are 4W and they've always had the same number of wounds of meganobz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units.

Do keep in mind that Psychic Fortress is now a 6" 5++ invuln save. So all marines have access to the 5++ if they bring a libby along. Your point still stands though

Vilehydra wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units.

Do keep in mind that Psychic Fortress is now a 6" 5++ invuln save. So all marines have access to the 5++ if they bring a libby along. Your point still stands though

This is what annoys me most right now. GW considers that 5++ is a thing anybody should or could have and not have to pay practically any premiums for it... except for the armies that were initially designed to have an invuln save as their main trait (daemons, thousand sons etc), for which the invuln was baked into the cost of the models and still carries over until now.

There used to be a time where the only time you could find an invuln save outside HQ was rubric marines or daemons. It was their thing, and why they cost as much as they did. Especially rubrics, which had a 4++ save and an ap3 gun under the old rules (and paying points for it as they should), which ended up these days with a 5++ save and an ap-2 weapon, both of which literally everybody now can have without having to pay any premiums at all.

Side note: the very fact that most units kinda need to have an invuln save to even be around these days says a lot about the balance of offense vs defense in this game.

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.

For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.

The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.

So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.

If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.

Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...

(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)

So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?

Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.

I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.

(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)

how did they squat deathwatch? I know they lost SIA but that's hardly squatting them

One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.