Can we talk about Eradicators?

[Riddlesworth]

I've read a LOT about how over powered, undercosted, bonkers ridiculous Eradicators are, how giving them 6 man squads meant that 18 would be in every competitive list.

 

And yet, while vehicles (the best targets for melta weapons) got a decided boost this edition;

- the presence of secondary objectives meaning that vehicle heavy lists start the game with a VP disadvantage - every kill gives up VP

- moving into the mid board is a big deal so hanging back with shooty tanks is limited

- board control is a lot easier to achieve with multi model units than singular vehicle/monsters

- melta CRUSHES vehicles/monsters

 

Take a look at competitive analysis on sites like Goonhammer. Vehicles are rare, one to two big monsters in a list, either horde of single wound infantry or elite multi wound infantry/bikes. With ctan shards following ghazal with the "3 wounds per phase" thing, I expect other lords of war to follow suit

 

The marine dreadmash list might appear at some point, but for now eradicators merely feel highly efficient against multiwound infantry ather than game breakingly overwhelming.

 

Am I wrong?

[USNCenturion]

It’s hard to know at this point. As others across the forums have said, we are only 2 codices and 2 supplements into 9th edition. We don’t know how the rest will shake out, what big FAQs will bring, or what new meta will be uncovered.

 

Knights and Tyranid monsters and Tau/Eldar vehicles may shift the dynamic again. I can’t see a preemptive tone-down of eradicators at this point; they don’t even have a kit to sell yet.

 

Just have to be patient, wait, and see.

[XeonDragon]

I've only played with eradicators in 4 (tournanment) games, so take what I say with a grain of salt. 

 

I think they overrated. Opponents know what they *can* do, and good opponents take appropiate steps to limit their impact e.g. screening, baiting a large unit as a target for them to distract you into taking that down whilst they nab objectives, or simply vaporising it/ripping it apart at all costs.

 

They did good work in 2 games for me. In one game they didn't do a single point of damage before being wiped out. In another they did some work, but not much (opponent was very savvy with movement, terrain, wrapping them up with weak melee units etc). 

 

I've actually found assault hellblasters (the 3-shot str 6, ap-4, d1 varients) a bit of a 'dark horse' unit. They've actually done more anti-tank and monster work for me in game than my eradicators, maybe even more than plasma inceptors. I've found putting a master-crafted weapon on the sergeant (so  str 6, ap-4, d2 base) really boosts their output. Sure, if you overcharge they blow up and die, but they usually do the job and, at least in my limited experience, get a better chance to do the job than the eradicators.

 

THAT SAID... maybe they are getting to do the work because my oppoent is focused on that unit of 3 eradicators instead of the hellblasters?

Edited November 19, 2020 by XeonDragon

[Karhedron]

- the presence of secondary objectives meaning that vehicle heavy lists start the game with a VP disadvantage - every kill gives up VP

I feel this point is over-stated by a lot of players. There are a lot of secondary Objectives that yield VPs quite easily. I always weigh up Secondaries against "Deploy Scramblers". Sure it is action based but for 3 actions you get 10VPs. Most armies can achieve this without too much effort.

 

To my mind, a secondary Objective needs to be worth at least 10VPs before it is worth taking. That means an army with 3 or less big vehicles or 5 or less light vehicles is not really disadvantaged by "Bring it down" because your opponent could easily take other Secondaries to get equal or more VPs.

 

Heck, if you run all infantry then you are either running hordes (which are vulnerable to "Thin their ranks") or Elite MSU (which is vulnerable to Attrition). IMHO, you should build your choice of secondaries around what you know your army can accomplish rather what your enemy might bring. Choosing secondaries based on killing a specific type of enemy unit is only really worth it if you opponent is spamming something. I think that "Bring it Down" and similar secondaries are there to act as a deterrent to spam armies rather than stop people taking those types of units at all.

[Alcyon]

I think they perform about as well as you'd expect. Hellblasters are better for the points for anything below T7, and Eradicators are better point for point than pretty much every other marine anti-tank option, not surprising given you have to deliver them within 12" for maximum effectiveness and not every chapter can do that. The fact that they're T5 3w with access to Transhuman is big, but you're usually running them as units of 3 as anything else is overkill with the special rule. 

 

I think the main problem, if there is one, is that the number of shots they put out makes them decent at what Hellblasters do (hitting multi-wound infantry) so marine players bring a squad or two along with Inceptors and pay little price for it if their opponents bring no vehicles or T8 at all. If they only put out, say, 3 S10 shots at D6+2/4, then they would be much more of a meta call and it would be possible to spike a tournament here or there with a Knight or vehicle-heavy list if people stopped bringing them as much and were just relying on S7/8 2 damage plasma.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Fire Dragons used to be a thing big whoop.

[Ishagu]

Eradicators aren't as powerful as the hyperbolic ramblings around the Internet might suggest, although they are certainly a very good unit.

 

It's actually possible to emulate their output on more mobile, arguably more scary units from the codex.

 

Also it must be said that we don't know how this edition will be shaped after a few more codex releases. I'm always of the opinion at the start of an edition that we shouldn't worry about anything. I say this because GW have already written the 10 next codex books. They know how the game will look 18 months down the line and we don't.

 

I also recognise that it can be frustrating because the rules are updated gradually, faction by faction. On the other hand the game is in constant flux which is also exciting.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Agreed Ishagu that is very level headed well said mein friend

[Medicinal Carrots]

Eradicators and multi-meltas are your best bet against monsters and vehicles, good against 3+W models (like Gravis, any bikes that get close, nurglings, etc), and good but less efficient than plasma or grav at killing 2 or fewer wound models. They're a specialist tool that is also effective against some more general targets, much like plasma last edition. And while vehicles are less common, you still need to have an answer for them when an opponent does bring them.

 

Are they the end all be all of a marine list? No. Are they effective and highly efficient at what they do? Yes. Going up 5ppm would not be unreasonable.

 

All that said, I personally wouldn't take more than 1 squad of Eradicators at 2k. I prefer to keep heavy slots open for things like grav Devs, and bring Attack Bikes for a second and possibly 3rd melta squad.

[XeonDragon]

Well said Carrots. I've found that, despite the gravitic amplification strat going the way of the dodo, grav devs are excellent at tackling marines and gravis units. Even a single grav amp in a tatical squad is awesome. 4 shots at AP-3, 2 damage is just tasty and compares very favourably to heavy bolter and plasma for the points cost.

 

I'm with you. I am comfortable with one squad of eradicators. Anymore and I think you are moving away from a TAC list (which is what I try and build). 

[Dracos]

I'll be packing two units of 5 in my Raven Guard tournament list. I can only afford it because I'm taking two units of Assault Inceptors instead of Plasma. If they go up in points I'll likely swap my Aggressors for a third squad of 5 Blade Guard using MoA.

 

I'm also taking two units because Primaris choices are limited for monsters and tanks. I just can't get behind Plasma without a babysitter and I'm not a fan of units that need babysitters. 

 

I also believe they are totally over-hyped and over-rated. We had a similar discussion in a previous thread

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/367201-eradicators-over-hyped/

[Relic]

If someone thinks eradicators aren't pointed "very aggressively" - well they likely also think think the apothecary, bladeguard and the rites of war Warlord trait are all fine and dandy!

 

Lets be honest with ourselves..SM went from jacks of all trades to masters of all trades!

[Riddlesworth]

If someone thinks eradicators aren't pointed "very aggressively" - well they likely also think think the apothecary, bladeguard and the rites of war Warlord trait are all fine and dandy!

 

Lets be honest with ourselves..SM went from jacks of all trades to masters of all trades!

 

They absolutely are pointed very aggressively. That's not the point I'm raising. The point I'm raising is 9th ed so far is not a vehicle or monster heavy edition due to the requirements of 9th ed missions (note, this and strategic reserves is also a big reason Salamanders jumped to a top tier supplement), so don't feel so overwhelming oppressive on the table. No doubt the presence of such aggressively pointed melta (and melta in general) is shaping the lists that are being built and the meta will swing around dependent on new books as they get released. 

 

This thread isn't about the other units but:

- The apothecary is fine if they don't get a discount on the revive strat.

- Bladeguard are undercosted by maybe 5 points.

- Rites of War is......OK? at 2k points you get 4 warlord trait choices (2+1+1). If you're running chaplain or apothecary, they suckl up 1 each. Off the top of my head across the supplements available I can think of at least 4 traits i'd take before rites of war, dependent on the role of the warlord. If an obsec unit is holding an objective, you don't throw obsec at them, you clear them out with shooting and combat.

[Mandragola]

I do find Eradicators problematic. It's partly the unit itself and partly the direction they indicate the game going.

 

Late 8th edition was already extremely lethal, with devastating damage handed out early on in games, often giving one side or other an unassailable lead. A lot of the design of 9th seems intended to counter this problem, and that's good.

 

But units like Eradicators dial that lethality up even higher. They're intended to fire once, blow up something more expensive than them, and then die. Eradicators clearly aren't the only unit like that right now but they're probably the most obvious.

 

The result is to make it extremely difficult to run vehicles in 9th for lots of factions, including marines. We've just had a big preview of the Gladiator on WHC, but who wants to field one of those when an Eradicator squad half its price has the same firepower, and when blowing up a 12-wound vehicle with no invulnerable is so trivially easy? Vehicles do nothing for you in 9th edition missions, so why take them? Well it's easy for Marines not to - we've got a ton of alternatives. It's not so easy for an army like IG, Tau or Nids (and monsters are in kind of the same boat as vehicles).

[Karhedron]

Yup, Main Battle Tanks are in a pretty bad place at the start of 9th. The only vehicles/monsters worth taking are those that are cheap enough to spam or those with some kind of special rules to boost their survivability (Invulnerable save, -1 to Damage etc).

 

Everything from the Predator up to the Baneblade is going to struggle at the moment. Maybe new codices will address this but the introduction of the Gladiator suggests GW haven't clocked this problem yet. Is the solution to drop their points or give all vehicles an across-the-board buff to durability in the same way they boosted their firepower with "Big guns never tire"?

[Ishagu]

A single guardsman with a Melta could destroy any vehicle in one shot back in 7th edition (outside of super heavy tanks). We still took some vehicles.

 

Eradicators aren't a severe problem, however a list that lacks variety of units could indeed struggle against them. But Eradicators wouldn't even be the only issues at that point. MM Attack Bikes could be equally scary, as an example, or cheaper units of Sisters armed with Multi Meltas, etc.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Ishagu

[Mandragola]

A single guardsman with a Melta could destroy any vehicle in one shot back in 7th edition (outside of super heavy tanks). We still took some vehicles.

 

Eradicators aren't a severe problem, however a list that lacks variety of units could indeed struggle against them. But Eradicators wouldn't even be the only issues at that point. MM Attack Bikes could be equally scary, as an example, or cheaper units of Sisters armed with Multi Meltas, etc.

Not sure what the point of talking about this guardsman is. Sure, he might have killed a vehicle, but he probably wouldn't have. On balance, the risk of that happening to your tank was low enough that tanks were viable.

 

That has changed with the arrival of Eradicators and units like them - yes, including attack bikes. As I said in my post:

Eradicators clearly aren't the only unit like that right now but they're probably the most obvious.

Eradicators are an example of an extremely lethal unit with relatively low durability. It's a unit that, on its own, could reasonably expect to wipe itself (or various other more expensive units) out in a single shooting phase.

 

I think this is highly problematic. If we extended this across a whole army, one side could potentially table the other in a single turn. That's obviously not going to happen with decent terrain and stuff, but it creates some big problems. So whereas in 7th and most of 8th you wanted to keep the enemy >12" from your tanks, now you need to keep them >24" away - and the board is now smaller.

 

So basically the end result of all these changes - to the missions, board sizes, the Core keyword and extremely lethal AT units - is that vehicles and monsters don't look viable in 9th. Armies that rely on them are therefore in trouble. My three Repulsor Executioners are trash tier right now, and that's ok because I can afford to field other stuff. But not everyone can afford to write off something like that, and not every army has an alternative.

[Karhedron]

I agree that Eradicators are not the only problem but as a shiny new unit that most people will have access to via Indomitus, they are the most visible offender at the moment.

 

The problem is that very high damage output units like this skew the meta. MBTs were already struggling with survivability by the end of 8th and this has exacerbated the problem. It is odd that GW chose to boost vehicle's firepower and mobility in 9th while doing nothing to help their durability.

[Relic]

The combination of highly efficient AT in eradicators, the ability to bring back models via the apothecary, bladeguard counter punch efficiency and a Warlord trait that makes core units in a very efficient deathball obsec is an issue I think. The combinations make marines masters of a few different aspects, nevermind jacks of all trades. You can easily build a marine army from the recent releases with a few additions and have a very powerful force that can overwhelm opponents in a standard pickup game.

 

Marines aren't lacking in anti infantry firepower either. Only thing the army doesn't do well is hordes..and even then some might argue the army can do a version of that.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The problem with tanks keeps coming up, I don't think the answer is invuls for all, or even a limitation on wounds taken per turn. Because fluff wise, a Meltagun should be able to take a chunk out of a tank.

But is it something else, like vehicles ignoring the first x amount of AP? 

[phoenix01]

Also it must be said that we don't know how this edition will be shaped after a few more codex releases. I'm always of the opinion at the start of an edition that we shouldn't worry about anything. I say this because GW have already written the 10 next codex books. They know how the game will look 18 months down the line and we don't.

 

I also recognise that it can be frustrating because the rules are updated gradually, faction by faction. On the other hand the game is in constant flux which is also exciting.

So what you're saying is our reaction to the fraction of the factions that have seen action in this edition needs correction.

[Mandragola]

There are various mechanisms they could use. A penalty to wound or a reduction in AP would be one. Maybe -1 to wound, and then +1 to armour save if the wound roll becomes 7+ (as you'd still wound on a 6). Points drops are probably in order for quite a lot of tanks too.

 

Edit:

 

Also it must be said that we don't know how this edition will be shaped after a few more codex releases. I'm always of the opinion at the start of an edition that we shouldn't worry about anything. I say this because GW have already written the 10 next codex books. They know how the game will look 18 months down the line and we don't.

I also recognise that it can be frustrating because the rules are updated gradually, faction by faction. On the other hand the game is in constant flux which is also exciting.

So what you're saying is our reaction to the fraction of the factions that have seen action in this edition needs correction.

 

We haven't seen every codex, it's true. But we can look internally at the Marine book and see what we'd take against other marines. If other marines are going to bring Eradicators, attack bikes, melta devastators and so on, I don't think I want to bring Repulsor Executioners.

 

I guess maybe there'll be something in the Nid book that makes Eradicators terrible, so people stop taking them and I can field my Executioners. I don't think that's particularly likely.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Mandragola

[Karhedron]

The problem with tanks keeps coming up, I don't think the answer is invuls for all, or even a limitation on wounds taken per turn. Because fluff wise, a Meltagun should be able to take a chunk out of a tank.

 

But is it something else, like vehicles ignoring the first x amount of AP?

It's a tricky one. One possible solution is an across-the-board price drop for tanks and Monsters in the next CA but that just means more guns and dials up the lethality issue. I agree that melta weapons should scare tanks since that is what they are designed to kill. The problem is that they are perhaps now a bit too good at it for their points whilst not being bad against other targets.

 

The Multimelta has received 2 direct buffs this edition. It's average damage output at close range has gone up from 4.5 to 5.5 and it has twice as many shots. Eradicators get the first buff and can simulate the second provided they do not split fire. MMs on vehicles also received a secondary buff in that they can now move and fire without penalty while Eradicators are Assault which adds up to about the same thing. MMs went up from 17 points to 25.

 

To take the case of the MM attack bike, for a 47% increase in the cost of the gun, they have gone almost 250% in killing power! As a bonus, they increased ROF now means they are not wasted shooting at multi-wound infantry either.

 

I don't have a perfect solution. A price hike for MMs and Eradicators might help. Another idea for vehicles that are supposed to be tougher is to borrow a rule from Infiltrators. Maybe a "Ceramite Armour" rule that allows them to ignore the first failed save each turn.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Lowering points costs doesn't really fix the issue, (it would help, and certain tanks are waaaaay too expensive, looking at you Land Raiders and Repulsors.)

The issue is simply that now that tanks die. Duty Eternal has helped Dreadnoughts, but I think that almost every vehicle needs something to reflect the fact that a Space Marine taking a hit from a lascannon should not have the same impact, re: armour as one hitting a Predator! Which is what the current AP system does.

[Mandragola]

Getting rid of the second shot for multimeltas might help quite a lot. It does seem like kind of a weird decision. It results in (presumably) unintended consequences, like making units with multimeltas twice as good as those with normal meltas. Who'd now take a unit of dominions when you could have retributors, for example? And units that have multimeltas, such as the immolator, suddenly had their damage output doubled.

 

You basically have all these vehicles and units that were designed around multimeltas having one shot, but now they have two. Those units are sort of arbitrarily twice as effective as they were expected to be. Meanwhile things like the guns on Armiger knights end up looking pretty average.