Space Marine Metagame

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

Preds can eat las cannons to the front armor all day long. They gargle with las cannon fire at night for that extra minty-freshness. And for the points that you spend on one squad of Devs, I can spam 3 Dakka Preds.

 

At least Devs still has a place as Long Fangs in a Space Wolves army.

 

Listen to this man I run 3 preds all day

[minigun762]

To be fair, you can't stunlock a squad of Devs. More then anything that is the drawback of armor, you don't need to kill it you just need to keep it from shooting.

[Giga]

To be fair, you can't stunlock a squad of Devs. More then anything that is the drawback of armor, you don't need to kill it you just need to keep it from shooting.

Stunlocking a predator or two takes a whole lot of anti-tank firepower directed their way, which is a really good thing seeing as even two combipreds cost only 240 pts total, meaning the rest of your army is much safer to advance.

 

Devs, on the other hand, can be pwned in a whole lot of other ways. Not to mention they just aren't as cost-effective as predators.

[minigun762]

I wouldn't say that it takes a whole lot of firepower.

 

But then again I think various armies have various amounts of long range firepower they have access too. Chaos Marines for example have a harder time justifying their limited firepower towards a Predator instead of something more important.

[Giga]

Well, look at it this way;

 

The predator has front AV13. It's smart to keep this front AV turned towards all the bigger guns the enemy might bring to bear.

 

So, effectively, an opponent needs high str shots to be able to glance/penetrate a predator. Missile launchers, autocannons, plasma, assault cannons, and melta out of 2d6 range all require you to roll high to do anything to a predator. Other mainstay long-range shooting units that can glance/penetrate rhinos and razorbacks (chimeras for example) can't do anything to AV13.

 

Combine this with the fact the predator(s) will usually be in your deployment zone, hence far away from close combat/melta range, and possibly will be able to claim cover saves.

 

Now, add target saturation to this. Let's say you've got some combination of LR with th/ss termies, vindicator(s), big scoring bike squads, mm attack bike squadrons, mm/hf speeders squadron(s), big sternguard units, or just a couple of tactical squads in rhinos camping objectives.

 

Suddenly, that predator or two are extremely well protected by target saturation. In fact, it's safe to assume an opponent will ignore them for as long as 2-3 turns, and quite likely even longer, simply because you got a bunch of other huge threats coming towards him.

 

In this way, the combination of AV13, other threats in your army, and the not so great threat-level of predators, means the preds are going to be safe from an opponent's attention for a few turns, if not the whole game. Usually, the sheer luck factor involved in firing a str8-9 gun at AV13 will convince most players it's smarter to just shoot at a razorback/rhino.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dev squads, on the other hand, suffer from any shooting, really, and killing them is way easier psychologically. Take any high str ap3 pieplate (battlecannons, demolisher cannons, etc.). Even if devs are in cover, this is likely to kill quite a few if it hits. On the other hand, all it takes is a small scatter for the same pieplate to hit a predator at half-strength, causing no damage whatsoever.

 

Likewise, devs suffer from all sorts of cheap long-range anti-infantry firepower. Chimeras, razorbacks, biovore pieplates etc. all can put cheap casualties on a dev squad simply by forcing saves. Simply put, as far as firebases are concerned, devastators don't really have a place in the current marine metagame. One needs only look at winning tournament lists, and they'll see that, for the most part, these lists are devoid of devastators. Predators aren't way more popular, of course, but they're still a considerably better option for both anti-tank and anti-infantry.

[Bannus]

The predator has front AV13. It's smart to keep this front AV turned towards all the bigger guns the enemy might bring to bear....will usually be in your deployment zone, hence far away from close combat/melta range, and possibly will be able to claim cover saves.

This works in some games/scenarios.

 

If you have enough terrain to make the game interesting - a Pred deployed this far back will have LOS issues with many targets across the battle field.

 

What Devs are vulnerable to (i.e. Deep Striking/Falnking units), a Pred is also vulnerable to. Yeah, that AV13 front armor is tough, but the rest of the tank is just as easy to penetrateas a common Rhino.

 

I'm not saying the Devs are better than Preds or vise versa - only thatthey both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

++Edit++ To expound more (ran out of time)

 

One "trap" I refuse to put myself into is automatically assuming one unit will always be a superior selection to another. Any unit can prove useful if applied appropriately. I will always stand by this assertion.

[Giga]

If you have enough terrain to make the game interesting - a Pred deployed this far back will have LOS issues with many targets across the battle field.

And so will devastators.

What Devs are vulnerable to (i.e. Deep Striking/Falnking units), a Pred is also vulnerable to. Yeah, that AV13 front armor is tough, but the rest of the tank is just as easy to penetrateas a common Rhino.

Every unit in the game is vulnerable to deep striking/flanking.

 

Again, if an opponent is using his termicide, outflanking attack bikes, droppodding sternguard with combimeltas, droppoding dreads, droppoding zoanthropes, burrowing tyranid prime, DS-ing soulgrinder, teleporting obliterators, etc. to destroy a 85-120 pts tank, then that is a good thing, since that means they're destroying a support element of my army, rather then focusing on killing the stuff that will actually win the battle for me.

One "trap" I refuse to put myself into is automatically assuming one unit will always be a superior selection to another. Any unit can prove useful if applied appropriately. I will always stand by this assertion.

It's good thinking, and certainly very valuable during the early stages of testing a new codex.

 

However, I myself have personally had a lot of field testing of the 5th ed vanilla dex. My own experience playing with and against devastator squads, as well as the experiences of others and the empirical evidence presented on the internet (how many tournament-winning lists have devs in them?), pretty much confirms that devs are an inferior firebase choice. Likewise, by the same logic, I came to a conclusion that combipredators are way better firebase elements then devs can ever hope to be.

 

Needless to say, all of this here is my own opinion. I'm just arguing my point, not trying to convince anyone that devs are rubish and should never be taken. :lol:

[Arikel]

If you can set up and elevated shooting platform (like a ruin or building), dev's can get better los that way, I suppose pred's could set up on a hill but they may not get a cover save on top of one.

[DarkGuard]

If you can set up and elevated shooting platform (like a ruin or building), dev's can get better los that way, I suppose pred's could set up on a hill but they may not get a cover save on top of one.

 

What he said. One thing Dev's have other Preds/ Speeders/ TFCs etc is the ability to deploy high up with area cover saves. This greatly increases their shooting ability and damage resistance. TFCs and Preds can't deploy high up and so will likely have some obstruction, while Speeders can deploy high up but will only get cover from moving flat out.

 

Devs can also fight back against any Outflankers more efficiently than Preds, with 360 line of sight and combat abilities.

 

I'm not saying that Devs are a better or more efficient choice, I agree with Giga that for what they can do, combi-preds or typhoons or rifleman dreads are better choices then devs for threatening light armour. However, devs do have some advantages over those choices that cannot be ignored when picking them for an army.

[Bannus]

If you have enough terrain to make the game interesting - a Pred deployed this far back will have LOS issues with many targets across the battle field.

And so will devastators.

But with Devastators, you have the option of deploying them further forward (which I often do) because they have no weak side armor and allow the other elements of your army to sweep past them as they advance. The further forward you deploy a Predator the further to one die or the other it has to go to protect that weak side armor.

 

Every unit in the game is vulnerable to deep striking/flanking.

 

Again, if an opponent is using his termicide, outflanking attack bikes, droppodding sternguard with combimeltas, droppoding dreads, droppoding zoanthropes, burrowing tyranid prime, DS-ing soulgrinder, teleporting obliterators, etc. to destroy a 85-120 pts tank, then that is a good thing, since that means they're destroying a support element of my army, rather then focusing on killing the stuff that will actually win the battle for me.

I guess it is a matter of the amount of "resistance" you want to have. Deep Striking/Flanking units will consider a Predator as a 'speedbump' that needs only a few well-placed shots to take out and then move on to the next unit in priority. A Devastator Squad is a squad of Space Marines in power armor. They are much harder to uproot - especially if properly dug in. Between the two, it takes far more resources to remove the Devastator Squad than the Predator.

 

It's good thinking, and certainly very valuable during the early stages of testing a new codex.

 

However, I myself have personally had a lot of field testing of the 5th ed vanilla dex. My own experience playing with and against devastator squads, as well as the experiences of others and the empirical evidence presented on the internet (how many tournament-winning lists have devs in them?), pretty much confirms that devs are an inferior firebase choice. Likewise, by the same logic, I came to a conclusion that combipredators are way better firebase elements then devs can ever hope to be.

I'm surprised that this trend is not being countered by army builds in your area by beefing up the anti-tank capabilities of the opposing armies.

 

Needless to say, all of this here is my own opinion. I'm just arguing my point, not trying to convince anyone that devs are rubish and should never be taken. ;)

Likewise for Predators. I'm just pointing out that 40K is really a more sophisticated form of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" and if everyone expects you to bring a rock, it may be better to have a pair of scissors instead. :P

 

The Metagame tends to generate cookie-cutter armies. It is that predicatability that ultimately is their downfall.

[H.C.118]

Never Mind...

 

What was here probably didn't make much sense anyways.

[Giga]

If you can set up and elevated shooting platform (like a ruin or building), dev's can get better los that way, I suppose pred's could set up on a hill but they may not get a cover save on top of one.

What he said. One thing Dev's have other Preds/ Speeders/ TFCs etc is the ability to deploy high up with area cover saves. This greatly increases their shooting ability and damage resistance.

You need tall buildings/ruins for this, and you need these to be positioned in such a way that you actually want to deploy your devs there.

 

In dawn of war deployment this is completely irrelevant, too, as you'd need 2-3 turns of moving and running for the devs to get inside a ruin and climb the floors (around here, we consider climbing one floor = 3" movement).

But with Devastators, you have the option of deploying them further forward (which I often do) because they have no weak side armor and allow the other elements of your army to sweep past them as they advance. The further forward you deploy a Predator the further to one die or the other it has to go to protect that weak side armor.

There's rarely any need to deploy a predator forward, from my own experience. Again, most of the time, opponents shooting at the predator rather then at my speeders or rhinos actually suits me.

Deep Striking/Flanking units will consider a Predator as a 'speedbump' that needs only a few well-placed shots to take out and then move on to the next unit in priority.

Speedbump? Naw, these DS-ers/flankers won't live to tackle another target. They will only get to shoot once - on the turn they arrive - and then they will die in my own turn simply because their threat level is normally very high and will force me to take them out to prevent them from destroying something else in the next turn. I don't remember a single occasion when that droppoding sternguard squad, or that outflanking attack bike squadron, or those termicide dudes, lived longer then a single turn against me. It's not boasting, it's simply how things invariably play out at my LGS.

 

Devs, though they're marines, still only get 4+ cover saves from AP1/2/3 stuff, meaning you start losing them fast to failed cover saves, meaning you need ablative wounds, meaning you spend a lot of points on a shoddy unit.

I'm surprised that this trend is not being countered by army builds in your area by beefing up the anti-tank capabilities of the opposing armies.

Devs die to anti-tank stuff just as well as they die to anti-personnel stuff. The predator dies only to assault and anti-tank stuff. Having a bunch of lascannons will help you down that predator, but they'll also be horrifyingly efficient against devs too (ignoring their saves, hence forcing them to cover save on 4+, is a good option if you need them dead).

 

Also, going mass anti-tank in an all-comers list (the type of list I play 99% of the time) is a bad idea, simply because sooner or later you're gonna set up against that green horde, or massed new nids, or footslogging IG, etc.

[greatcrusade08]

on the whole Preds > Devs argument.. i can see why Giga assumes this, but a good opponent will always find a way to make you think twice.

ill have to agree with Bannus on his assertions that neither choice is inherantly better, its all about the usage.

 

I have developed a tactic which has seen my lowly scouts take on and destroy huge numbers of tanks, whilst this same tactic can be used against dev squads, it doesnt always guarantee the same success.

I run a LSS with MM

5 scouts with combi-melta and meltabombs.

 

If i get first turn then it almost guarantees dead vehicles.. Use scout move to be withing 12", first turn move to 1" from enemy vheicles and disembark (can be used to take out multiple vehicles if your lucky.. Fire melta weapons, if the tank still stands charge and get auto hits with meltabombs..

Auto hits and against AV10 auto pen with meltabombs (snake eyes is a glance).

In my last game i had a really poor game with dice rolls, but one 5 man scout squad took out two predator annihalators this way. (dont need good dice rolls)

[H.C.118]

I have to try that move sometime. But it can easily be shot to pieces if the enemy steals the initiative.

[greatcrusade08]

Risk = reward, the intiative roll is 1 in 6 so doesnt happen often..

if it does happen just dont use the 24" scout move, use the scout move to find cover or remove LOS..

[bt2278]

Risk = reward, the intiative roll is 1 in 6 so doesnt happen often..

if it does happen just dont use the 24" scout move, use the scout move to find cover or remove LOS..

 

I may be wrong, but the roll to seize the initiative happen's just before the first player would begin his turn... so after the scout move.

[greatcrusade08]

I may be wrong, but the roll to seize the initiative happen's just before the first player would begin his turn... so after the scout move.

 

Ive always done it after deployment and before scout moves???