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.

Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.

Yep.

Some thoughts on the reanimator though.

At this point it needs to bring back 6 models with its ability to be equivalent to just taking more warriors. That means 36 necrons would need to die on average. This seems like a large figure, but it is achievable when buffing just a single unit due to models coming back.

If the reanimator does nothing, but rez 6 models it is a wash, BUT the reanimator itself is still on the table. It is also 6 wounds at T5 3+ making it roughly similar in durability to the models it replaces. Add in that it has 6 S6 AP2 shots and 4 S5 AP2 melee attacks it makes for a pretty decent support unit especially when paired with Reaper Necrons.

So, if the reanimator can hide for a bit (nice and skinny) and then join the fray mid battle when anti-tank is reduced and if it rezzes 3 or 4 models it likely has paid for itself and more. If it takes anti-tank on the chin early then it is a bigger loss overall.

Except I’d always use a Reanimator on Immortals, as they’re my hitty units. Warriors don’t really need it.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.

Not that I'm going to defend Eradicators at 45 points, but as others have pointed out it's worth looking at what is on either side of them.

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good. It's that tanks are just absurdly squishy for their points by comparison.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Except I’d always use a Reanimator on Immortals, as they’re my hitty units. Warriors don’t really need it.

No argument there. Immortals makes the math a little nicer since they'd only have to save 4 to 5 models, but realistically 2 or 3 to be potentially worth it.

The Newman wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Eradicators and the Reanimator are both units that can't really be fixed without changing their datasheets. Just tweaking their points is always going result in a situation where they're either too cheap or too expensive because their core abilities are so problematic.

Like, with the Reanimator I'm not even sure the army really needs it as a unit anyway. You don't super rely on tougher units to be reanimating and units like Warriors don't require it at all to be tanky unshiftable tarpits for opponents to deal with. However, if you actually get a +1 to RP on warriors it's incredibly strong and that's why the hoops the Reanimator has to jump through are so ridiculous. Making it too cheap also leads to a situation like old-RP where suddenly that rule becomes oppressive at lower points levels.

Not that I'm going to defend Eradicators at 45 points, but as others have pointed out it's worth looking at what is on either side of them.

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good. It's that tanks are just absurdly squishy for their points by comparison.

So maybe there should be a general price drop for most vehicles (pretty much anything without an invul and not a dreadnought) along a price increase for multi-meltas and melta units like eradicators. Say about 10% each way, that way melta isn't nerfed into the ground and vehicles become less squishy in general.

If you rise point cost of melta, rise the point cost of units carrying them, make tanks cheaper, and I assume that marine tanks stay the same cost, and we aren't suddenly seeing 65pts dreads with MM running around the tables, the marines would be in a rather rough shape, when other armies start getting their rules for 9th. Not to mention tha armageddon that would happen, in an edition or two, when GW finaly phases out all the non primaris models, and suddenly those eradictors are along side the ATV the only anti tank marine have worth taking. Because I really don't think GW is going to make primaris tanks cheaper or give them +4 invs.

I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

That would work against melta and other AT weapons, but wouldn't affect small arms, unless you're going to let that ability reduce damage to 0. It would also require adding the rule to a lot of units, and gw generally only does that with new editions/codexes.

@Karol: Of course you'd reduce prices for loyalist vehicles as well. Repulsors and Land Raiders are already overpriced.

The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would work against melta and other AT weapons, but wouldn't affect small arms, unless you're going to let that ability reduce damage to 0. It would also require adding the rule to a lot of units, and gw generally only does that with new editions/codexes.

@Karol: Of course you'd reduce prices for loyalist vehicles as well. Repulsors and Land Raiders are already overpriced.

So all this would change is that we would suddenly see swarms of land speeders with multi meltas and dreadnoughts with meltas .

IMO the best way to deal with it is to assume that this edition melta is the king of weapons, and not plasma, and that it will probably change in 10th ed. And God helps us, if in mid edition GW decides to change it, because the way they over compansate we are going to see 4 shot str 6 ap3 plasma and melta having its range cut by half, or getting the extra shot at half range only.

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.

Do we really want it to take 64 Thunder Hammer hits to kill a Land Raider?

As compared to 288 AP-1 Bolter hits.
192 AP-2 Bolter hits.

Because that actually makes D1 better than D2, D3, or Dd3 against a Land Raider, because you're not wasting points on a stat that does nothing. Hell, even Dd6 only averages to 2 damage. That'd make a Missile Launcher only about six times as effective as a Bolt Rifle during the Tactical Doctrine.

Id rather see vehicles and monsters get a weight class keyword (light, medium, heavy, juggernaut) and come with an ignore ap 0/1/2/3 rule or something similar, and adjust AT weapons around the tier of vehicles they are designed to fight.

Would make heavier vehicles more resistant to D2 low ap weapons while still allowing proper at to hurt them.

Damage reduction is a terrible solution to ridiculous damage inflation.

If GW is really committed to this new game where 130 point squads are shooting 6 D6+2 damage shots...the solution isn't damage reduction, it's just raising the amount of wounds vehicle have.

Now the real solution is taking back the mental decision that the game needed to be even more deadly than it already was. But that's clearly not going to happen. So the next best solution is inflating the wounds characteristic to go with the inflated damage characteristic.

Quick question:

Have LRs ever been considered Super Heavies? In the lore they are as large as Baneblades.

They already cost the same, give LRs 28 wounds and give Baneblades a price decrease. Call LRs Superheavy and make them cost cp instead of points.

I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.

 JNAProductions wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I don't think adjusting the points is the answer, I'd say something like Duty Eternal across the board for all Vehicles/Monsters with really tough units like Land Raiders and Monoliths are supposed to be having a -2 instead of a -1 is closer to the right answer. Something to make engaging tanks with small arms and light/medium machine gun fire a losing proposition.

not a bad idea TBH. A Land Raider outta be pretty much impervious to all but the heaviest weapons given that's it's whole schtick.

Do we really want it to take 64 Thunder Hammer hits to kill a Land Raider?

As compared to 288 AP-1 Bolter hits.
192 AP-2 Bolter hits.

Because that actually makes D1 better than D2, D3, or Dd3 against a Land Raider, because you're not wasting points on a stat that does nothing. Hell, even Dd6 only averages to 2 damage. That'd make a Missile Launcher only about six times as effective as a Bolt Rifle during the Tactical Doctrine.

Ideally I'd like to see such weapons not be able to damage these targets at all.
But if you insist that your non-AT weapons should still be able to affect such targets? Then yes, you should have to invest a stupid amount of effort .

What? But damage reduction effects don't affect 1 Damage weapons.

Basically you just make anti-tank weapons worse at killing tanks with the pay-off being... Overcharged Plasma is less good?

I think the simplest fix for Tanks is to give them a special rule against small arms that they roll TWO dice for their armor save and pick the best.

Thus a Krak Missile would be better at punching into a Rhino or Land Raider than a Tactical Doctrine Bolt Rifle would.

Either add another Tag like "Blast" to weapons that denote them as "Anti-Tank" which bypasses the double armor rule; or just apply the double armor roll to S4/5 or less weapons to make it apply fairly simply.

They should have just increased AT targets wound count making dedicated AT weaponry the best way of dealing with them. (While still moving the AT weaponry to the higher average more reliable profiles we've seen)

It seems like instead they heard High rate of fire mid Str/D weapons are the best AT weapons and cranked up AT weapons alone. Not fixing the problem and making AT targets worse without adjusting their points.

All the current problems are tied to melta, so instead of changing everything everywhere, maybe that it would be better to just fix melta.

I would actually be fine with the current damage output of melta. It is supposed to be devastating. It isn't supposed to be long range though. When the perk of multimelta was that it had longer range it was fine. Now that is an actual MULTI-melta, then there is no reason to keep that range. I would drop multi meltas to range 16", same for both versions of the eradicators melta. At that range it can be killy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.

If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.

If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.

But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy. Lasguns that actually damage Land Raiders is a fairy tale.

I'd like vehicles to be tougher, but without adding more dice rolling, more wounds or mechanics like those abilities that reduce damage. I'd simply cut ALL re-rolls, including from CPs, except maybe but just a few relegated to specific signature units, like Tankbusta, I'd also remove ALL the fire-twice abilties (inlcuding options like sisters' cherubs) with no exceptions and some of the combos that enhance some firepower to be overly devastating. Increase the points cost of some weapons if there the need to do it and that's it.

The problem is caused by the fact they've completely arbitrarily given MMs 2 shots (and Eradicators effectively 2 shots) without a points increase. So combined with the change to melta rules, they are just ludicrously lethal - offering easy 100%+ returns on normal dice, and 150-200% on above average or buffed up dice.

You could argue all vehicles without invuls were already too weak in the meta of buffed up las cannons, krak missiles, anything really - but this is what has snapped things completely.

As a result of the change an MM is now about 3 times as good as a lascannon for 5 more points. Its 10 points less than a double las, which is clearly crazy.

To vaguely balance this stupidity, GW is now forced to go through all the other factions and boost their comparable guns too (or not, cue obvious imbalance). We should see with Dark Eldar very soon.

So what you’re saying is anti-tank weapons should be less good at taking out tanks?

The Newman wrote:

On one side Devastator Marines with Multimeltas are 7 points cheaper so for the cost of 4 Eradicators you can have 4 Devs with MMs plus the Serg and a Cherub which is just about on par and can split fire without losing half it's hitting power, and also have T1 Deep strike and much cheaper transport options for what that's worth.

On the other side for 10 more points you have MM Attack bikes with an extra wound, 9" more movement, and a stormbolter that also can move and shoot and split fire without penalty.

As bad as they look (especially compared to the AT options in Xenos factions, that's just a travesty) the issue isn't really the Eradicators, Marines have other options that are almost as good.

and this is the point why the problem is not going away with points and will get even worse over time

for the scale 40k as a game is, there is limited design space for units and now Marines have 3 identical units with a very narrow line for the "right" point costs for each of them with the result that 1 unit will always be better than the other two depending on the current core rules/scenarios

the issue with 40k an Marines is that there are several units for the very same batttlefield role and you cannot balance them internally any more and the solution that GW has for that problem is to release more units because people only buying the new ones because they look better won't get into that problem any way

and this problem also carry over to all those community-rules that try to fix 40k, without reducing the number of units that do the same

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.

If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.

we already were at that point in 40k game design with the result that we got heavy Anti-Infantry weapons that were better at killing tanks than the Anti-Tank weapons

problem with GW here is that no matter what the initial idea is, they throw it away after the 3rd Codex because they are bored from the rules and think the new faction need something new & different to be exiting and they have some crazy ideas that need to be used somewhere

it would already help if they were able to keep one basic design over a full edition and not changing it twice (so even if at the beginning of 9th vehicles would be wounded by everything without the Anti-Tank Keyword on a 6+, at the end everyone would have either an Anti-Infantry weapon with the AT Keyword or some Auras/Buffs would overwrite it by adding default +2 to wound or killing without a "to wound" roll needed)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what you’re saying is anti-tank weapons should be less good at taking out tanks?

In brief, yes.

In very crude terms, I think all-comer guns should get *on average* 25% returns on everything. Specialised weapons should get say 10% returns on the wrong targets, and 45% or so on the right targets.

The general lethality in 8th went up and up to the point you'd probably add 10% on top of this base, and then another 10% for usual synergy.

The issue today is that MMs give 100% returns on average dice. Increasingly significantly if in 12" range or when buffs are applied. Which is completely out of whack with other weapon interactions in the game.

 Blackie wrote:

But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy.

I think you've missed the fact that this is EXACTLY what melta weapons are supposed to do.

"A model with the VEHICLE keyword can reroll failed armour saving throws against attacks with a damage characteristic of 1."

Would that work as a universal rule?

Attacks with a damage characteristic of 1 are not the problem. MBH aren't even anywhere near eradicators in efficiency, but ever since the multi-melta change I didn't have to roll for the missile launchers even once. Next to nothing in the game survives getting hit by 3 multi-meltas at half range.