Devastators for Deathwing Support?

[syypher]

I like LRs but personally would rather have another squad of DW Termies over the cost of 1 LR:C. So I've been thinking of other Heavy Slots to use for DA and I really like Devastators as a static firebase. However compared to other SM Codex's our ML's (I would run them as all ML Devs) are quite expensive. Does anyone have any problems with this or is this just normal? Don't other SM armies take Dev ML's at only 10 pts a pop? ML seems quite expensive for 20 pts...

[EPK]

A great dialogue can be found regarding this subject in this thread actually -

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=219707

 

Yes, our MLs are more expensive, but only 5 points (SM Devs cost 15, not 10 - a full SM tact squad gets one for free), but you work with what you've been given.

 

I have no real experience running pure DW but I do use Devs in a multiwing setup. Sure they are more expensive, but they are still durable. I'll often take a 10 man, 2ML, 2LC and combat squad them so they can "split fire" and aren't all vulnerable to one round of shooting/assualting... not that SMs can't do that.

 

As you can see from that thread, our cheap Typhoons can be a could option when your list has more Mech.

[Brother Kovash]

I'm currently using a devastator squad also, with 2LC and 2HB. Once I get another box I'll be running either 4LC or 4HB depending on what I'm up against. I prefer the heavy bolters over plasma cannons against horde armies because nowadays every spreads their troops out, so you get more bang for your points with HBs.

[cernunnos]

I have been thinking about devastators myself recently, they are pricey but I think they do have benefits you don't see repeated elsewhere in the list.

 

I think their main strength is the ability to target multiple enemies for one heavy slot. For example a devastator squad with 4 missile launchers and a Razorback with twin linked lascannon can target 3 enemy transports a turn. In a mech environment where suppressing transports is important this is a big tick in their favour. Predators may be a cheaper and more mobile platform for heavy weapons, but you do only target one enemy per heavy slot.

 

An alternative thought is to try and work it so the combat squads can work together. A 2 Multimelta combat squad in a rhino and a covering combat squad with 2 plasma cannons, can be used to tackle heavily armoured mech. The multimeltas get in range to stop/crack open the transport, while the Plasma cannons can target the disembarking passengers. Again to have one heavy slot able to both threaten a transport and its hopefully disembarked occupants in one phase of one turn is impressive.

 

My main reservation about Devastators is the boltguns. You pay a high price for ablative wounds, and it seems a waste not to have these firing. By equipping a squad with 4 heavy bolters and a drop pod you have a unit where all guns can target the same type of enemy. The drop pod would be useful to deploy the squad in boltgun range of the enemy. Tactical squads do of course provide anti light infantry firepower with their boltguns, but the heavy bolters increase the number of shots and the strength as well as denying 4+ saves.

 

In terms of my general list design philosophy, I tend not to worry too much about points cost and instead focus on what the unit is capable of achieving and whether it fits into my overall strategy. Only then do I see if its role can be replicated in a better or cheaper way. Whilst devastators are expensive compared to other marine books I wouldn't rule them out on that basis before examining just what they can bring to the list and whether there is anything better at it.

[breng77]

IN DA I can never see buying a 10 man squad of Devs. Though I really hate ablative wounds (I don't like tactical marines either) let alone having basically 6 such wounds in one squad (or 3 in 3 combat squads.)

[syypher]

So I'm kind of getting the feeling that Devs in a pretty much pure DW army is the way to go as far as getting further range support. I read that other thread and it seems like that was the way to go. I don't run much mech nor do I plan on going LRs. I'm in the group of people that would rather put another squad of Terminators + CML for almost the same cost as a LR. I also don't really want to run much armor so I can mess with my opponents anti-tank capabilities.

 

Landspeeders have awesome pluses, one being the "wall off" technique where you place it in front of vehicles to block them from moving but most people will just ram you out of the way :/ Devs with Razors can at least give walls and provide some good mobile LOS.

 

Leaning heavily towards Devs unless anyone says otherwise >_>

[Vodunius]

So I'm kind of getting the feeling that Devs in a pretty much pure DW army is the way to go as far as getting further range support.

 

Somewhat off-topic but once upon a time (Heresy era EPIC list in WD126 - the only canon source for Ironwing) a Deathwing company consisted of one mandatory platoon of Terminators plus two additional platoons that could be Teriminator, Assault and/or Devastator.. so if you wanted you could always paint them up as Deathwing and call them mega-old-skool :D

[Isiah]

Vodunius that's an interesting reference. Thanks for posting that up.

 

 

 

I think one must think of the dynamics of running Devs as part of a Deathwing-heavy army. They are a largely static unit unless you buy a transport for them (and then they waste turns not firing). They are also non-scoring. A 10-man dev squad with 4 missile launchers and a tllc Razor will cost you 325 points (I think). For that I'd rather have an extra scoring DW squad, or actually, two dreadnoughts. With termies and dreads everything can move and fire to max capacity and assault, this is the DWs major advantage. Anything that dilutes that ability is taking lot of tactical flexibility away from the force.

 

I'm not saying Devs are a definite no in this situation, just pointing out something that I think is an important consideration :mellow:.

 

Cheers

I

[RayJ]

But you're not buying a 10-man squad, and you are only needing to waste turns firing in 1 out of 3 games. Even then, it's probably only your first turn (which you can't see far enough to shoot due to night fighting anyway).

 

I also agree that Devastators aren't going to be the best for every Deathwing army, but you are going to be hard pressed to find an option that fills their role without giving your opponent some clear target priority help.

[syypher]

Ok I changed my title of the thread...It was Devastators for Heavy before but after thinking about it what I'm looking for is really what I should include as my support for my Deathwing army.

 

After mulling it over with my friend and reading a few threads Devastators keep popping up. But I don't think I really like that choice as they are too expensive for what they bring. I think having Ravenwing Bikers with 2 MM and and attack bike with a MM is the best way to go. Sure they can only scout 12" since no Turbo but I can still Teleport a squad of Deathwing (probably the one with Bel) up 18" and strategically shoot side army of vehicles with his squads CML as well. This also brings me 3x Melta options for any vehicles I want to try to pop before I get into CC.

 

I think I'll be taking the biker squads over Devs. They are also faster and more mobile gun platforms. They also keep to the lack of mech target saturation that devs bring. And they have good anti-infantry in Twin-linked bolters and bolt pistols. Also for S4 or lower they are great at tying squads down.

[IanSturrock]

RW bikes are awesome -- they are some of my favourite units in the game, a big part of why I picked DA as an army (though being an old Space Hulk player and so liking Deathwing was at least as big a factor), and formed the core or a large part of pretty much of all my DA armies pre-FAQ.

 

A dual-wing list is certainly powerful, and synergises well in some respects, but I don't believe it has the staying power of a terminator/devastator list. Bikes are very fragile, always. You can mitigate this fragility somewhat, but only somewhat. With TH/SS giving you a decent save against almost everything on your termies, and with the bikes being such an immediate threat to almost everything your opponent has, the bikes will be the main targets for things like plasma guns, multimeltas, and meltaguns (particularly since the latter two can instant-kill your attack bikes), as well as the missile launchers that would be going towards the devs in a termie/dev list. RW bikes are easy kill points for your opponent. 5-man Dev squads in cover are a lot harder to kill than 3-man or 1-attack-bike RW units zipping in for close-range melta shots.

 

The FAQ also actually reduces a little of the synergy of a dualwing list (though it's still a huge improvement over a pre-FAQed dualwing, don't get me wrong!). A DW unit with a cyclone missile launcher and 2-5 storm shields has a lot less need to arrive precisely where you want it than a DW unit with assault cannon and 3-4 storm bolters. The cyclone missile launcher threatens most of the board, rather than wanting to sit just shy of 24" from its target, so whether you deep strike or start on the board you're still effective. Plus, the storm shields mean our new termie squads don't need to worry so much about cover or LOS-blocking terrain, again reducing the need for teleport homers.

 

I've been struggling with ways to write a DW/RW list that really synergises well, any more. Do you want one RW squad for the homers, and just rely on DW to do everything else (lots of chainfists)? Two or three RW squads, so you can be reasonably confident that at least one of them will show up in time and on the right side of the board if you have to outflank (I'd be inclined to say 'no' -- I think that reserving everything can work with a pure RW army, but splits your forces too much with a dualwing; you want all your DW squads shooting cyclones from Turn 1 onwards)? Mostly RW squads, with just 1-2 squads of DW to do that classic rolling up the flank thing? Maybe... but that's really RW with DW support rather than the other way round.

 

For a non-mechanised list, the devastators -- with their ability to get cover, and threaten most of the board from long range, and (if need be, when you look at your opponent's army) get seriously effective "bubble wrap" in the form of a squad or two of DW, are simply so much more durable than RW as to be simply more effective. RW's big strength is the alpha strike, and you dilute that with every DW army you add to your RW army. Without *lots* of bikes, and *lots* of attack bikes, there's too much risk that your RW show up, miss with most of their meltas, destroy a weapon on a land raider and immobilise a predator with the two meltas that hit, then get wiped out.

[shabbadoo]

Don't other SM armies take Dev ML's at only 10 pts a pop? ML seems quite expensive for 20 pts...

 

It seems expensive because it is expensive when compared to the current codices. C: DA is a 4E codex, not a 5E codex, and has standard 4E era weapon prices. C: SM 4E had the same weapon prices, but the Devastator Squad didn't come with a Veteran Sergeant as standard like the DA version does(though he could be upgraded to a Veteran for 15 points and so the base cost would be the same as for C: DA). The C: SM 4E version multi-melta costed 5 points more, and the plasma cannon costed 10 points more actually, so when C: DA 4E came out it was the DA who were then the cheeseballs.

 

Under 5E the format has changed once more, and so it happens that DA currently have the short end of stick as they wait for their own codex to get a 5E update.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

I would favour a five man squad with four missiles. Then give them a lascannon Razorback if you want to. 250 points is about the cost of a Terminator squad, but it gives you more firepower, and the ability to split fire via the Razorback shooting one target and the squad the other. Although this is more fragile than a terminator squad, they do have a 48 inch range and the ability to hide in cover. Throw your terminators into their teeth and they won't know who to shoot first.

[Bartali]

@ IanSturrock - Good post.

 

3++ and YTTH seem to be mostly posting DW/RW lists since the FAQ was released, but like you, I'm not so sure about them. The RW in those lists are expensive suicide squads, and entirely wasted points against non-mech heavy lists, or against anyone who bubble wraps their valuable tanks.

Do we also need melta ? If you're pumping out a large amount of missiles a turn, which crucially can target multiple units, you should be able to supress most armour lists without using melta. Land Raiders shouldn't be an issue, as 5 Assault Terminators out of Raider aren't scarey when you've got 20+ Terminators walking around the board.

 

I'm not sure about Devs yet either though, in that they don't add an extra dimension to a list, just increase the number of missiles being pumped out a turn.

[breng77]

I think mobility is the key part of the added RW, things like contesting objectives later in a game are great for an all foot list. As for not worrying about the occupants of a LR, that really depends on the mission, if a troop choice can embark in one and take an objective then, killing them might become a necessity.

[Brom MKIV]

Devs dont synergize well with deathwing and the new wargear rules have not improved them. In fact I would argue that the FAQ made them effectively worse due to our 20 pt 2 shot cyclones on scoring terminators. Adding a move or fire unit to a relentless deep striking army is more of a limitation especially at our cost. Now, if they were to cost say, 115 pts rather than 170 and could split fire they would ok ;).

[RayJ]

Foot Deathwing is NOT a deep striking army. You should only be deep striking at most 2 squads on the enemy's lines, but typically just 1. The majority of your force is intended to be on the table and firing suppression from the get-go. By starting more units in reserve, even with the ability to throw them on turn 1, you give your opponent an easier time picking targets on his first turn.

 

As for the price of the Devastator squad, get over it, and run the math on unit effectiveness. Make sure to run numbers at all ranges between 6 and 48 inches. Yes, bikes do MUCH better at tackling heavy armor, have more mobility, and higher base toughness. They don't, however have an easier time getting cover, and are always putting themselves in positions close to the enemy whee they can easily be retaliated against.

 

Bikes CAN be the correct choice for many armies, but if you include them you must fundamentally change how the list plays. Devastators, however, allow you to maintain the status quo with your Deathwing operations. It's better for inexperienced players because it's less to remember. It's got advantages for veteran players as well, but the biggest bonus is the long-range suppression fire.

 

Here's the comparison for those who really want to know:

 

Devastators: (5-man squad)

1 Pistol & Chainsword

4 Missiles

5 Wounds

Toughness 4

Static

Great threat range

Effective vs medium armor & all infantry

Durable in terrain

7 attacks when charged

12 attacks when charging

Cost: 170 points

 

Ravenwing Attack Squad (4-man squad)

1 Pistol & Chainsword

2 meltaguns

1 multi-melta

1-4 twin-linked bolters

5 Wounds

Toughness 5

highly Mobile

medium to short threat range

Effective vs all armor & all infantry

Vulnerable to terrain

7 attacks when charged

11 attacks when charging

Cost: 190 points

 

I'd venture to say that the two squads are comparable in their effectiveness. Outside of melta range (6-12 inches) the Devastator squads will be more effective due to larger number of high strength shots. While the threat radius a bike is lower due to shorter range, their high mobility boosts that back up and it can effectively be about 75% that of the devastators in the ideal conditions. Over the coarse of the game, the bikes can threaten more board space, but have to deal with terrain and being closer to enemy fire.

 

Don't look at just cost when making your decisions. For crying out loud, Ravenwing are more overcosted compared to other bikers than our Devastators are. What's more, our devastator squad is cheaper than the Ravenwing squad, so you have to shave something else out of the list theoretically to make them fit.

 

Both options are just fine. Pick the one that matches how you are going to play your army.

[breng77]

There is no 4 man RW squad the attack bike is always a separate unit.

[EPK]

There is no 4 man RW squad the attack bike is always a separate unit.

 

I assume he realizes that, I think he's just commenting on the size and includes the AB because of it's output. I suppose you can actually mark that down as a plus for the bikes as it adds to target saturation... however, I have seen this being a big downside in KP matches, most notably the missions with recycling units - that AB is easy points.

[breng77]

It is a Plus for target saturation and mobility, a down side for KP and Durability (you cannot stick a wound on the attack bike to keep other bikes alive)

[Brom MKIV]

Foot Deathwing is NOT a deep striking army

Yes but it CAN be. That is my point. It is an option that is sometimes preferable to an alpha strike or when objectives are very hard to reach. idk maybe you dont play with the same amount or size of terrain that I do though. On our boards devastators are not very good as LoS is very limited. If you play on wide open plains then maybe they are a better option for you. I am not arguing the effectiveness of bikes vs. devs (although I do prefer bikes), I am simply saying devastators dont bring anything cost effective to the table that deathwing doesnt already have on a SCORING RELENTLESS body.

[syypher]

This is interesting. Expected more people to be on one or the other side of the debate between bikes and devs as dw support. Instead its fairly split to depending on what your playing against.

 

I think looking at devs compared to other codex shouldn't be the way we rate them as I originally had been doing. Instead I should look at it more objectively to what I need them for, support, and which works with my list best for that role. Probably leaning toward devastators. At higher pts over 1500 I'd probably run both.

[RayJ]

Yes but it CAN be. That is my point. It is an option that is sometimes preferable to an alpha strike or when objectives are very hard to reach. idk maybe you dont play with the same amount or size of terrain that I do though. On our boards devastators are not very good as LoS is very limited. If you play on wide open plains then maybe they are a better option for you. I am not arguing the effectiveness of bikes vs. devs (although I do prefer bikes), I am simply saying devastators dont bring anything cost effective to the table that deathwing doesnt already have on a SCORING RELENTLESS body.

 

Objectives are not hard to reach. 5 turns of movement is 30 inches. Since objectives are set up before deployment, you have plenty of opportunity to get your Deathwing there without deep strike. Deep strike is better suited for applying pressure on the enemy, and as such only needs to be done with 1 or 2 squads. I will agree that there may be some isntances where deep striking more will be beneficial, but those should be few and far between.

 

As for your tables having too much LOS blocking terrain, you may want to look at that. 4-5 pieces of decent height LOS blocking terrain is fine (be they ruins, buildings, rock formations, big hilss etc). That should be about half of your terrain. the other half should be low-lying area terrain (forests, swamps, craters, wrecks). Doing that gives a battlefield that is fair for everyone. You do have some LOS blocking pieces in the middle to limit firing lanes, but you should be able to have at least a couple avenues of decent fire. This lets both gunlines and assault armies fight on an even footing.

 

Sure Devastators don't being anything 'new' to the table that Deathwing doesn't already have. But they bring more of stuff that is very important on a package that increases target saturation. The point should be that the devastators make a nice target for your opponent because they put out twice as many shots as the terminators and are a little less durable. That way as your terminators approach, target priority becomes even harder on your opponent. Bikes won't have that same effect.

 

As I said before, bikes work fine, but are for a fundamentally different army. I think you're just selling devastators a little short.

[Bartali]

Foot Deathwing is NOT a deep striking army

Yes but it CAN be. That is my point. It is an option that is sometimes preferable to an alpha strike or when objectives are very hard to reach.

 

9 times out of 10 you'll want to deep strike one squad max. There will be some times though that reserving everything will be a good tactic. If I was going second against something like a good IG or Tau shooty list I may consider reserving everything for example

[IanSturrock]

Even then, reserving everything is rough. You come on piecemeal, and if you elect to have the one advantage of arriving from reserves -- i.e. shooting without getting shot at -- you are all clustered up from the deep strike & so a perfect shot for blast weapons.