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.

Are you the gatekeeper of discourse?

 Niiai wrote:
You are not contradicting a lot of what I am saying.

Claiming that they will always be within range and can always shoot twice is just a claim it is not demonstrated.

Yes you can reserve 2 squads, and they come in on turn 2 while bikes are available turn 1.

Yes they have the distinct advantage that they are gravis. Are there any stratagems I am misisng? If you are running them you have worse BS and can not shoot twice. Attack bikes have the distinct advantage that they are attack bikes.

When you say D2 is more avilable then D3 what are you refering to? Number of weapons entries in codexes or number of weapons fielded in the battlefield? Because only the later is relevant. 8th edition had a lot of smash captains, they are D3. Worse vs attack bikes, better vs eradicator. If people grab a lot of eradicators then having D3 ranged damage weapons will help a lot. Helblasters can do this. Redemptor dreadnoughts can do this. Also, eradicators will probably be matching up against eradicators quite often. Bikes match up against eradicators better because the ekstra wound might help you out, and the ekstra range means you can shoot first.

While this is not to say eradicators are not good. They are quite good. They certanly winn out vs devestators. It might just seems like attack bikes in many situations are better.

you could also take a look at a 44" battlefield with deployment zone and take their 24" range min in account. You claim that people would willingly Split single or dual shot antitank weapons away from a singular target is also just that, a unfounded claim that runs contrary to any use of AT weaponry in the game atm.
Eradicators don't care about movement, they automatically double tap if they chose a singular target, i recomend you reread total obliteration because only advanceing is excluded, further only the multimelta is affected and the heavy version of the melta rifle, and even that is with the current no penalty stacking a at most minor disadvantage.

Not Online!!! wrote:

you could also take a look at a 44" battlefield with deployment zone and take their 24" range min in account. You claim that people would willingly Split single or dual shot antitank weapons away from a singular target is also just that, a unfounded claim that runs contrary to any use of AT weaponry in the game atm.
Eradicators don't care about movement, they automatically double tap if they chose a singular target, i recomend you reread total obliteration because only advanceing is excluded, further only the multimelta is affected and the heavy version of the melta rifle, and even that is with the current no penalty stacking a at most minor disadvantage.

Pretty much this. The only time Eradicators are going to be outperformed by other MM platforms is if the former is being utilized by a complete moron. There's also the consideration that the heavy melta rifle does a minimum of three damage per shot. Five if it's in close. That's enough to vaporize anything that isnt a vehicle from maximum range every single time. It makes the weapon absurdly viable across a whole host of target profiles, and again forces other units out of consideration across the army.

 Niiai wrote:
Are you the gatekeeper of discourse?

No, but its a very reasonable concern given the ceaseless cavalcade of threads you seem to be opening right now. Especially in the context of topics that are better discussed in better locations on this board.

I do not follow your logic. Eradicators are best discussed in the eradicator thread, no? Also, the old thread I could not find and the information is old. People have new experiences with the codex. We also know the moderators encurage having seperet threads instead of realy long once.

You also seem to be the gatekeeper of how many threads one can have open. I for one do not recognise any gatekeepers authoraty unless their name is Zuul and work for Gozer the Gozerian. And even then it is more of a pragmatic recognition.

I am not certain why you are so coserned with posts on a forum. Most forums have gone the way of the dodo after facebook eclipses that nieche. Any activaty is good activaty in my book.

Eradicators are surely punching way way above their point cost. That is self evident and should require no demonstration.

How do they compare to other melta options? Fairly well, but not oppressively so, which is the second part of the problem.

When GW finally understands the reason why vehicles and monsters are no longer selling, they will have to reign in not only eradicators, but all melta options, because they created a huge problem (which spans further than the SM dex).

I'm not really sold on the anti-bike logic here. Yes, you can bring Eradicators on from reserves. But yes, that means turn 2. Which if you are going second, is potentially quite bad.

If you are going the MM+Heavy loadout, you are also hitting on 4s. Admittedly with 8 shots doing loads of damage this isn't the end of the world - but it is worse than 3s. You can argue the heavy rifles make up for this with their additional damage, but the bikes could get into 12" range. Being able to LOS-block and then move out, while potentially staying in buff-aura range is also a significant plus over wandering on from a board edge.

I agree having to focus fire with the Eradicators isn't a major limiter - because in 40k stuff tends to be healthy or dead - but some times you will end up with vehicles on a few wounds with a full barrage feels like overkill - and there are limitations on "just shoot at it with everything else". In that situation being able to split fire with the bikes without a significant loss of shots is a plus.

Basically multiple things can be good at the same time. Eradicators are crazy - but the fact GW has decided Marines should get MMs on a range of other undercosted platforms is equal madness.

At the same time, I don't really think there is a list out there where Eradicators are bad. The GSC example is about as close as it gets - and you could still plug the Ridgerunners. Heavy weapon teams aren't a terrible target either.

I mean depending on set up, and with probable aura buffs, a standard unit of Eradicators kills 4-5 acolytes a go before any defensive buffs for around a 30% return. Its not lol-game breaking damage, but its hardly awful. There are units that do half that.

Tyel wrote:
I'm not really sold on the anti-bike logic here. Yes, you can bring Eradicators on from reserves. But yes, that means turn 2. Which if you are going second, is potentially quite bad.

Assuming that the only way to run Eradicators is by reserving them is serious folly. Furthermore, the problem isnt that bikes arent good (they are). It's that there isnt enough of a benefit to running them over Eradicators to justify the loss of function and increased points cost.

Tyel wrote:

If you are going the MM+Heavy loadout, you are also hitting on 4s. Admittedly with 8 shots doing loads of damage this isn't the end of the world - but it is worse than 3s.

The flat +2 damage more than makes up for it on the turns you're maneuvering, and on the turns that you dont need to move they pull even further ahead. Factor in rerolls and the accuracy penalty is even less of a non-issue.

Yeah, the GSC list is a descent example. The bikes would probably perform better there as the bolter fire and close combat potensial would actually be a huge part of the damage output vs guardmen stats. If you are BA or SW that melee option becomes even better.

Mind you eradicators would be good because of 3W T5, but bikes are better in that situation.

I do not know the sisters codex have any melta deliveranse? I know they are all flamer/heavy flamer/bolter/melta/multimelta. Do they have anything that can be compared?

There more I read this conversation I would think Heavy Vepon version of helblasters will do well. S9 D3 is great!

 Niiai wrote:
Yeah, the GSC list is a descent example. The bikes would probably perform better there as the bolter fire and close combat potensial would actually be a huge part of the damage output vs guardmen stats. If you are BA or SW that melee option becomes even better.

You realize that Attack Bikes and Eradicators have identical melee profiles right? And that if you're actually punching with either something has gone horrifically wrong?

 Niiai wrote:

There more I read this conversation I would think Heavy Vepon version of helblasters will do well. S9 D3 is great!

They're really not, and the reason why is Eradicators and other low cost melta platforms. 33 points for a single Plasma shot that has to be overcharged on a T4 W2 platform...or 45 points for 2 super-melta shots on a T5 3W platform? Yeah I know which one is going to get played.

Sterling191 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

you could also take a look at a 44" battlefield with deployment zone and take their 24" range min in account. You claim that people would willingly Split single or dual shot antitank weapons away from a singular target is also just that, a unfounded claim that runs contrary to any use of AT weaponry in the game atm.
Eradicators don't care about movement, they automatically double tap if they chose a singular target, i recomend you reread total obliteration because only advanceing is excluded, further only the multimelta is affected and the heavy version of the melta rifle, and even that is with the current no penalty stacking a at most minor disadvantage.

Pretty much this. The only time Eradicators are going to be outperformed by other MM platforms is if the former is being utilized by a complete moron. There's also the consideration that the heavy melta rifle does a minimum of three damage per shot. Five if it's in close. That's enough to vaporize anything that isnt a vehicle from maximum range every single time. It makes the weapon absurdly viable across a whole host of target profiles, and again forces other units out of consideration across the army.

 Niiai wrote:
Are you the gatekeeper of discourse?

No, but its a very reasonable concern given the ceaseless cavalcade of threads you seem to be opening right now. Especially in the context of topics that are better discussed in better locations on this board.

Glad someone finally said it. Not like everyone is/was thinking it.

I didn't see the earlier threads on Eradicators, and I'm following this one with interest.

I would be sad if this thread were squashed.

Also I agree with Tyel that bikes have that inherent mobility advantage, and that the heavy Eradicator advocates seem to be ignoring the -1 to hit that bikes no longer have on heavy weapon shots.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Also I agree with Tyel that bikes have that inherent mobility advantage, and that the heavy Eradicator advocates seem to be ignoring the -1 to hit that bikes no longer have on heavy weapon shots.

No, we're not. It's a non-existent issue because the addition of the flat +2 damage more than cancels out the accuracy malus. Goonhammer ran the numbers on it. I'll quote their conclusions, while the link is here should you want to deep-dive

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-eradicators/

The difference is simple; 5 more points gets you 2 more damage at the expense of needing to take a -1 to hit penalty when moving. The chart below shows a variety of outcomes for a typical T8/5++ target, and the results indicate that even with a movement penalty the heavy melta rifle will average more damage at the expense of doing no damage 40% of the time as opposed to 30% for the assault version. The biggest benefit of using the melta rifle is that it’s an assault weapon and so players have a bit more range, but Games Workshop decided to change Total Obliteration so that it only works if the unit did not Advance. The heavy melta rifle is simply the superior option.

The numbers and distribution get even more favorable for HMRs as you decrease toughness on multi-wound models like Gravis, Crisis Suits or other T5-7 units that are typically taken in squads. Flat damage modifiers are exceptionally powerful bonuses when dealing with damage distribution profiles.

Spoletta wrote:
Eradicators are surely punching way way above their point cost. That is self evident and should require no demonstration.

How do they compare to other melta options? Fairly well, but not oppressively so, which is the second part of the problem.

When GW finally understands the reason why vehicles and monsters are no longer selling, they will have to reign in not only eradicators, but all melta options, because they created a huge problem (which spans further than the SM dex).

There really is no such thing as self-evident. Eradicators are overpowered in the context of other AT options and the point values of their targets. Context always matters and demonstration is always required. That being said, it's very easy to demonstrate the strength of eradicators. That doesn't mean its non-existent.

Just for sake of augment, is there a strat or chapter trait, that could potentially give Eradicator's Character targeting?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just for sake of augment, is there a strat or chapter trait, that could potentially give Eradicator's Character targeting?

In a highly niche scenario, maybe. Deathwatch used to have (this strat no longer exists due to the new Index FAQ) the ability to allow one unit to target a Tyranid Synapse model regardless of Character protection. I had a lot of fun in friendly matches with a buddy at the FLGS sniping his Broodlords across the table with missile launchers. Whether that stratagem returns for their supplement in 9th is anybody's guess (I'd personally bet against it, but that's mostly because I bet against GW giving Deathwatch anything fun). I dont believe that any other chapter had anything analogous in their supplements, nor does any exist in the new 9th marine codex that I'm aware of.

They are fundamentally undercosted, that's the glaring issue. It would be pretty easy for GW to bring Eradicators in line. Just make them at least 60 points each. At the very least.

If not that, then removing Total Obliteration entirely from the datasheet would go a long way

Cynista wrote:
They are fundamentally undercosted, that's the glaring issue. It would be pretty easy for GW to bring Eradicators in line. Just make them at least 60 points each. At the very least.

If not that, then removing Total Obliteration entirely from the datasheet would go a long way

The problem is that total obliteration is their "fix" for how flawed melta is in the 8th/9th paradigm. They could have made it better at penetrating invulns. They could have made it wound tough targets easier. But instead, we get MOAR shots. If you take this rule away, they become near useless, the same as other melta-based units. The slight damage increase they gave melta (D6+2 is only one pip better than D6 rerolled on average) does not fix its efficacy problem. Low RoF, high quality shots are a serious gamble in 8th/9th, and they aren't priced as such.

Jesus, I forgot about DW. Imagine being able to just willy nilly slot between 1-3 of these into any squad. Now that would be ugly. 3 bikes, 3 intercessors, and 1 of the flyers and 3 guys with 3 wounds each, fall back and charge, advance and shoot, and possibly character targeting. Althought all of this is speculative, I think the DW book might be a horror show.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus, I forgot about DW. Imagine being able to just willy nilly slot between 1-3 of these into any squad. Now that would be ugly. 3 bikes, 3 intercessors, and 1 of the flyers and 3 guys with 3 wounds each, fall back and charge, advance and shoot, and possibly character targeting. Althought all of this is speculative, I think the DW book might be a horror show.

Literally none of this is possible for Deathwatch anymore. Our Kill Teams are now a means to make an end around on FoC and model limitations. Nothing more.

Cynista wrote:
They are fundamentally undercosted, that's the glaring issue. It would be pretty easy for GW to bring Eradicators in line. Just make them at least 60 points each. At the very least.

If not that, then removing Total Obliteration entirely from the datasheet would go a long way

Agreed. Either lose TO and drop them a smidge in points, or keep TO and drastically increase them.

I was thinking about that same thing last night. GW has swung from times where 1 melta hit had like a 50% chance of blowing up a tank and tank players felt bad at losing models to 1 shot constantly to melta weapons averaging 1 damage and then players wondering wtf was the point of putting a melta in a tactical squad if you need 10 squads at 12” to blow up that single rhino before it delivers an assault unit to your face.

Clearly something in the middle is best, but they’re trying to fix it with more shots in a game where nothing stops you from putting AT shots into other targets, like expensive infantry, as well. They needed to make AT more consistent vs armor and monsters without it being oppressive vs everything in the game. Eradicators are too good vs armor too, but that’s less of an issue if they were useless vs no tanks and it was too risky to spam them. Now the only risk of spamming is how fast your list gets nerfed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as I said in the marine thread, yes they need to lose TO or go up in cost (and I’m assuming GW wouldn’t remove their rule right after printing it even though it goes against Aggressors losing the same thing...) but the other marine options are rather a point ceiling unless the whole marine lineup goes up. You can’t raise an Eradicator much past 55pts or everyone will just take the attack bikes. If you’re talking 60+ you’re hitting up against the land speeder and atv as well.

bort wrote:
I was thinking about that same thing last night. GW has swung from times where 1 melta hit had like a 50% chance of blowing up a tank and tank players felt bad at losing models to 1 shot constantly to melta weapons averaging 1 damage and then players wondering wtf was the point of putting a melta in a tactical squad if you need 10 squads at 12” to blow up that single rhino before it delivers an assault unit to your face.

Clearly something in the middle is best, but they’re trying to fix it with more shots in a game where nothing stops you from putting AT shots into other targets, like expensive infantry, as well. They needed to make AT more consistent vs armor and monsters without it being oppressive vs everything in the game. Eradicators are too good vs armor too, but that’s less of an issue if they were useless vs no tanks and it was too risky to spam them. Now the only risk of spamming is how fast your list gets nerfed.

AT guns need hit penalties vs infantry-sized targets. But then they also need to be able to do their job vs tanks/monsters. Which they can't really outside of eradicators. Part of the shock of eradicators is melta being effective again. People got used to never having to plan for melta, because it was awful. The other part, of course, is the point cost. I bet they costed it before they gave it the double shot ability, and then just tacked it on when they realized how terrible 3 melta shots for 120 pts is.

Look, Melta should be a Assault D3 weapon. It's a flamer basically. It's not a focused beam of energy like a LasCannon wich should be d6. Or a dedicated Anti-tank missile like Krak. It should be capable of both, but it shouldn't be the single greatest anti-tank weapon bar none. It should be a short ranged assault weapon with good damage, and a single shot. I think Lascannons need to be d6, where a 1-2 counts as a 3. It's a single shot, and should have an equally worth it possible out come. High risk, high reward.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Look, Melta should be a Assault D3 weapon. It's a flamer basically. It's not a focused beam of energy like a LasCannon wich should be d6. Or a dedicated Anti-tank missile like Krak. It should be capable of both, but it shouldn't be the single greatest anti-tank weapon bar none. It should be a short ranged assault weapon with good damage, and a single shot. I think Lascannons need to be d6, where a 1-2 counts as a 3. It's a single shot, and should have an equally worth it possible out come. High risk, high reward.

Melta has been presented as such basically forever. And functioned and such until 8th. There needs to be a payoff for such terrible range, or to be a very cheap upgrade.

Yeah, I started back in 2nd edition and meltas have always been billed as the premier AT weapon and the short range was supposed to compensate for them being superpowered (though game rules rarely worked that way leaving meltas useless for much of the game's history, and super strong the remainder).

A multi-melta that hit its target dead on in 2nd was almost unsurvivable as a vehicle. Just an example. Vehicles were rare for other reasons, though.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus, I forgot about DW. Imagine being able to just willy nilly slot between 1-3 of these into any squad. Now that would be ugly. 3 bikes, 3 intercessors, and 1 of the flyers and 3 guys with 3 wounds each, fall back and charge, advance and shoot, and possibly character targeting. Althought all of this is speculative, I think the DW book might be a horror show.

Except none of this can be done with the new Deathwatch Index. Kill Teams can no longer advance and shoot assault weapons without penalty. They can no longer fall back and shoot, nor can they fall back and charge. They do not get character targeting bonuses. They no longer have Special Issue Ammunition on anything but Firstborn Veteran boltguns. They cannot slot Eradicators into anything but a minimum 5 man Heavy Intercessors unit, making the first Eradicator in that squad the 6th man.

GW has completely killed the Kill Team for Deathwatch. They're only good for changing the Force Organization slot of a unit, or in some cases exceeding the minimum squad size. They have completely and mercilessly destroyed the faction, just in time for the release of a throwaway Supplement.

The only thing DW brings for Eradicators is the ability to bring 5 of them either alongside 5 mandatory Heavy Intercessors to act as ablative wounds or have them split off with Combat Squad to act as an Obsec Troops version of Eradicators.

Yes, I am immensely disappointed in how they massacred Deathwatch.

Ancible wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Jesus, I forgot about DW. Imagine being able to just willy nilly slot between 1-3 of these into any squad. Now that would be ugly. 3 bikes, 3 intercessors, and 1 of the flyers and 3 guys with 3 wounds each, fall back and charge, advance and shoot, and possibly character targeting. Althought all of this is speculative, I think the DW book might be a horror show.

Except none of this can be done with the new Deathwatch Index. Kill Teams can no longer advance and shoot assault weapons without penalty. They can no longer fall back and shoot, nor can they fall back and charge. They do not get character targeting bonuses. They no longer have Special Issue Ammunition on anything but Firstborn Veteran boltguns. They cannot slot Eradicators into anything but a minimum 5 man Heavy Intercessors unit, making the first Eradicator in that squad the 6th man.

GW has completely killed the Kill Team for Deathwatch. They're only good for changing the Force Organization slot of a unit, or in some cases exceeding the minimum squad size. They have completely and mercilessly destroyed the faction, just in time for the release of a throwaway Supplement.

The only thing DW brings for Eradicators is the ability to bring 5 of them either alongside 5 mandatory Heavy Intercessors to act as ablative wounds or have them split off with Combat Squad to act as an Obsec Troops version of Eradicators.

Yes, I am immensely disappointed in how they massacred Deathwatch.

Deathwatch very much seemed like a patch for power armor until marine 2.0 dropped in 8th. It was clear very early how awful marines were, and DW seemed like a way to boost those sales.

Since I’ve already off topiced to old meltas, way back when Fire Dragons used to have melta guns. I think 3rd nerfed them down to the str6 fusion guns because GW realized how obscene a moderately priced unit full of melta guns was. ...Which they seem to have forgotten when they created the Eradicator.

bort wrote:
Since I’ve already off topiced to old meltas, way back when Fire Dragons used to have melta guns. I think 3rd nerfed them down to the str6 fusion guns because GW realized how obscene a moderately priced unit full of melta guns was. ...Which they seem to have forgotten when they created the Eradicator.

Well, we just had an entire edition where melta was godawful. Melta was quite effective in 2nd.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Also I agree with Tyel that bikes have that inherent mobility advantage, and that the heavy Eradicator advocates seem to be ignoring the -1 to hit that bikes no longer have on heavy weapon shots.

No, we're not. It's a non-existent issue because the addition of the flat +2 damage more than cancels out the accuracy malus. Goonhammer ran the numbers on it. I'll quote their conclusions, while the link is here should you want to deep-dive

I don't think its a non-existent issue, because there is a clear difference between walking 5" forward, and motoring 14" forward. Especially if you were previously hiding behind LOS blocking terrain in case you didn't get turn 1.

The heavy rifle is obviously excellent against 3 wound models - because flat 3 wound weapons are relatively rare.
But rolling disproportionately low on 4s is going to happen more often than 3s. And especially 3s rerolling 1s if you can arrange that.