6th ed Tactica: Devistators

[Jupiter]

Hey All,

 

I'm a big fan of devastators, and I was motivated to write up this tactica article on them today. I would like to go ahead and edit it/put it up as a .pdf online, so I figured I would post what I've come up with here first to get feedback.

 

If anyone wants to read through it, that would be awesome. I'm an avid gamer but by no means a GT champion, so I'm sure I overlooked some points.

 

 

Here it is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6th Edition Tactica: Devastators

By Ryan Collins

 

 

 

Intro

Devastators have long been a favorite unit of mine, for thematic, tactical, and hobby reasons alike. Not much is "cooler" in the 40k universe than a squad dedicated to cascading the enemy at range in a fusillade of the heaviest firepower available. Devastators prove an excellent asset on the tabletop as well, allowing you to easily control fire lanes and provide substantial adaptable threat at range.

 

Contrary to many players’ beliefs, devastators are incredible flexible and can be designed to handle nearly any tactical situation. I'll attempt to show that over the course of this tactica; if you want to cut to the chase and see the configurations I'm talking about, you can scroll down to the section titled "Example Units".

 

With the transition from 5th edition into 6th edition a mere two weeks behind us, I have come to the conclusion that 6th edition will treat devastators exceedingly well on the tabletop, making them even more of an asset than ever before. But why?

 

6th Edition Changes

To answer the question of why devastators will be a more viable choice in 6th than ever before, we first have to look at what applicable rules have changed from 5th to 6th. While any number of rules changes regarding infantry will technically effect a devastator squad's performance, there are several that jump out fairly obviously.

 

Snap Fire: For a squad chock-full of heavy weapons, being able to fire heavy non-blast weapons on the move is a really big deal. And by "really big deal," I mean game-changing. No longer must you sacrifice a round of their primary functionality -- shooting! -- to move or redeploy them to a new position. Sure, you can't snap fire blast weapons, but this is still a huge advantage for any devs squad, particularly those that elect to take close range heavy weapons like multi-meltas.

 

Overwatch: Despite not being able to overwatch with blast weapons, the ability to shoot heavy weapons at an assaulting opponent will prove to be a major deterrent for potential assaulters in 6th edition. Particularly nasty in overwatch are multi-meltas, heavy bolters, and lascannons. While overwatch isn't an ability the marine player can use of his own accord, but it does add some survivability through defensive capabilities to the unit.

 

Wound Allocation: I'll be honest, at first I didn't think I would like the closest-first wound allocation protocol as it applied to game situations, but I have to admit that it has grown on me quickly. The new system has added an novel tactical overlay to a given game situation: when moving your units, where will the highest ranged threats be shooting from? And where should I position my special weapons/characters/etc to make sure I keep them safe while still keeping them effective? Or, when shooting: are there any targets that have exposed high-priority models? These questions might seem a little oblique when addressing devastators, but I assure you that when you get an extra victory point for that one opportunistic lascannon shot killing your opponent's warlord on the last turn of a tight game to squeak out the win, you'll appreciate what I'm talking about with this one. A good general can easily deploy/position his devastators to anticipate sneaking some broadside shots later in the game at high-priority-high-value targets.

 

Vehicle Survivability: While the jury is still out on the exact implications of the new Hull Points system, it's safe to say that it has changed every army's (maybe except necrons…) approach to tackling vehicles. It seems that many marine players agreed on the competitive choices for anti-armor duties in 5th edition being the autocannon -- and usually 2 twin-linked, mounted on a rifleman dread -- for light vehicles and transports at range, and the melta/multi-melta for taking down big stuff from up close. However, it seems to me that the field of competitive options will be broadening significantly in 6th edition. I'll get more into this later, but the main point here is that devastators are now more viable for anti-armor duties than ever before, given the right equipment.

 

Flyers: The initial reaction towards flyers from any number of online forums has been fairly alarmist, and their concern is understandable. In 6th, we will have to ensure that every list has some way of dealing with flyers, whether that be with another flyer, skyfire weaponry taken on a fortification, or with massed high strength AV fire. While the devastators aren't the first two in the least, they do excel at one thing: pumping out a mass of high strength shots at range. Plus, with the potential/presumed addition of flakk missiles to the marine Missile Launcher (sometime in the future, maybe?), Missile Launcher devastators will be seeing triple duty on the table!

 

Big Guns Never Tire: This Eternal War mission isn't a huge boost for devastators, but it does give you a 1/6 chance of a random mission allowing your devastators to camp out on an objective and count as scoring, freeing up yet one more of your tactical squads to go speeding around in their rhinos to capture the others.

 

Night Fighting: This is the only obvious rule that really hampers devastators effectiveness. The 50% chance of having night fighting for the first turn of any Eternal War scenario means that your devastators won't be able to see beyond 36", which is often just enough to leave them out of range of that key enemy transport you need to knock out on the first turn.

 

Devastator Basics

Before we start looking at specific roles and kits for devastators, let's look at some basics. For the codex-entry-level option, you're essentially paying for 5 marines with bolters, one of whom can fire at BS 5 each turn. Pretty crazy, right? The unit has the option to break into combat squads at 10 men, to boot. However, up to four devastators can take a Heavy Bolter, Multi-Melta, Lascannon, Plasma Cannon, or Missile Launcher. Additionally, the squad can be bulked out to a maximum size of 10, and can be mounted in a Drop Pod, Rhino, or Razorback, just like most other power armor squads. Finally, Matt Ward gets a good laugh by allowing the sergeant to take a slew of mostly worthless upgrades, very few of which will ever see their way onto any halfway-competitive list. Most notable here is an option for an egregiously expensive storm bolter Thanks, Matt, we're all really glad our devastator sergeant can get an additional bolter shot at 24" range; not that he should really ever be within range for that shot in the first place, but I digress. To summarize the basics of devastators:

 

Pros: Long range; wide variety of weapons options allowing them to tackle nearly any target; not too many other highly-competitive Heavy Support options vying for slots on the Force Organization Chart.

 

Cons: Relatively fragile, even if given a full compliment of 5 "meat shield" marines (more on that next); weapons upgrades are expensive (the minimum cost for a "viable"/competitive unit is 150 points).

 

Common Sizes and Formations:

There are a few popular and effective ways to field devastators, namely:

 

On Foot, unified: First, and most obviously, is taking the squad on foot and keeping them together; you can add ablative wounds (i.e. extra bolter marines) to taste and as your points allocation permits. There are some staunch defenders of the min-max camp who would claim that a full compliment of 10 devastators is the only way to go on foot like this, but I differ from their stance in general. I prefer to take a couple of extra marines depending on how many points I have to spare, because I've found that enemies often underestimate devastators and, as such, don't tend to assign as high a target priority/fire at them as often. Even when they do, you'd be a fool not to have them in cover or supported by another unit like a dreadnought/predator/etc (more on this later), so a few spare wounds is plenty. However, the two main advantages of 10-man dev squads are that you can pad a total of 6 wounds onto the unit before you start dropping your expensive heavy weapons, and that it gives you the option to combat squad, which leads me to…

 

On Foot, combat squadded: This is probably tied for the first most common formation for devastators in 5th edition. Devs' access to a wide array of heavy weaponry for one FOC slot is simultaneously a blessing and a curse: they have the propensity to tackle nearly any target, provided the proper equipment, BUT by taking a mixture of weapons in your squad you progressively dilute their effectiveness against any one target type (EG vehicles, MEq, GEq, etc). Not good! The solution to this problem for the intention-challenged list writer is to take a 10-man squad with heavy weapons designed to tackle either one of two main target types. During deployment, you then choose to combat squad the unit, splitting two heavy weapons and three basic marines each into two independent -- and, might I add, suboptimal -- devastators squads, all for one FOC slot! Take a rhino for the unit, assign it to one of the combat squads, and you can fire both of your heavy weapons from the firing points while still remaining safe inside a rhino. This definitely isn't a bad plan if you really need to bulk up on ranged support against a number of target types but you might not have the points/FOC slots/etc to pull it off in full. My main criticism against this formation (and why I personally don't field it often) is that

 

Mobile: I'll be talking specifically about this configuration at length later, because it's the formation I see as being the preeminent gold-standard for 6th edition devastators. However, for a brief spoiler, the obvious assumption is that it would be foolish to mobilize a unit which is optimal in a static, long ranged role. Your intuition would be leading you astray. Just because you take a transport for the unit doesn't mean they have to be embarked/deployed/ride around in it! There are several huge advantages for taking a transport on your devastators. Since I'll be talking about transports specifically later, the sparknotes here are that transports allow redeployment of your valuable devastators and that they can provide cover/security. Finally, in the case of the razorback, it can elect to take another heavy weapon (independent of the squad) which has a nearly multiplicative synergetic effect on the devastators efficacy over the course of a game. Both of these advantages are well worth the points in my book.

 

Drop Podded: This is certainly the least popular formation for devastators, and for good reason. Devastators are a ranged powerhouse, but they often get shot/assaulted off the table quickly at close range. Drop Pods get your units closer to the enemy. These two statements should make it pretty obvious that, in general, drop pods are a poor choice for devastators. CAVEAT: there is one big situational advantage to taking a drop pod. Devastators have access to up to four multi-meltas and one combi-melta in a 5-man squad. Unlike tactical squads, where you need to hit the maximum squad size before you can get access to heavy weaponry, devastators can be used as a stand-in suicide armor buster when mounted in a drop pod. The drop-pod anti-armor tactic was a relatively popular choice in 5th edition, and I expect it to become even more viable with snap fire being able to compensate for an exceptionally bad deep strike scatter roll. I would also argue that devastators do this job much better for a number of reasons than the traditional suicide-squad choice, sternguard vets. First, they are considerably cheaper than sternguard (incremental melta upgrade costs notwithstanding) and, as mentioned before, don't compete with much aside from predators or the occasional land raider in the heavy support section of the army list. Conversely, sternguard are expensive, notoriously high-target-priority units for your opponents, have many more tactical uses, are situationally adaptable (heck, they're even half-decent in assault!), and only have access to two multi-meltas before they have to start relying on combi-meltas. The final nail in the coffin for this debate, as far as I can tell, is the competition for slots from the elites section of the army list; namely terminators, dreadnoughts, and yet more sternguard. An elites choice wasted in a Space Marines army -- such as a suicide anti-armor sternguard drop podding unit -- is a prime opportunity lost. Thus, devastators are the obvious choice for this role. Drop pods, especially on suicide units, bring along a couple perks of their own as well. Equip the pod with a locator beacon and deep strike your assault terminators, land speeders, or vanguard vets reliably right behind the enemy. Or, if you know you'll be facing an heavily-mechanized opponent, take a 10-man squad with 4 multi-meltas and combat squad, allowing you to (in theory) wreck two tanks on turn 1, should you get lucky! But before you get too excited about related combos, I'll be the bearer of bad news: you can't combat squad before deploying using a drop pod deep strike; i.e. you can't leave a ranged anti-tank combat squad backfield and deep strike the other half with multi-meltas as a suicide unit. If only, but I suppose even Matt Ward has his limits.

 

Devastator Weapons

When choosing weapons upgrades for devastators, there are three main rules of thumb:

 

1) Always take all 4 heavy weapons. If you want more bolter marines -- which you probably don't, trust me -- you can take tactical squads, which are scoring to boot. (Exception: drop pod suicide unit, as described previously)

 

2) Take a combination of weapons with a specific target in mind, such as heavy bolters and missile launchers for GEqs, or lascannons for ranged heavy armor penetration, etc. (Exception: if you're fielding a 10-man squad with the expectation of combat squadding, you can -- but don't have to -- choose weapons with a set of two main target types in mind)

 

3) Take a combination of guns that fits well within your list (i.e. there are no "ideal" combinations/kit-outs; choose weapons that synergize with other units or fill holes in your list)

 

With those rules out of the way, let's get onto discussing specific weapons. For each, I'll provide a brief discussion, give it a 6th-edition-specific "5-star rating™", and summarize the other heavy weapon options that compliment each other -- "Synergize" -- and don't work so well together -- "Antagonize". Note that some weapons won't be listed in either category for a given weapon, because they are independently effective together, like the multi-melta and the plasma cannon, and suffer no synergetic or antagonistic effects. I'll be discussing sergeant loadout independently later.

 

The ratings roughly translate qualitatively as follows:

1: Always a poor option

2: Suboptimal option

3: Situationally effective option

4: Fairly reliable option

5: Fantastic option

 

Keep in mind that I added the final word, "option," to each rating intentionally. Each weapon option is just that: an option. There are objectively "better" options, and there are objectively "worse" options. It's one of the joys of writing your one's own list, because only the player can decide what role his devastators will need to fill on the table to compliment the rest of his force.

 

Heavy Bolter: Unfortunately heavy bolters didn't get much more viable in 6th than they were in 5th. With S6 or greater now being the consensus optimal range for light anti-armor capability (read: assault cannons), S5 on a heavy bolter just won't cut it. However, they're fantastic for tackling light armored infantry of all varieties, and are pretty nasty in overwatch fire. Nothing says "leadership check" like 12 S5 AP4 shots on a unit of fragile eldar aspect warriors! They're the non-template weapon of choice for targeting horde infantry like slugga boys, guardsmen, or hormagaunts, too. [Aside: I'm in the camp that you'd be better off still with spamming assault cannons across your list or taking double Heavy Flamer speeders for anti-horde duties, but that's a different article entirely.] If you're really dead set on working them into your list, I'd recommend looking at taking them on attack bikes, assault cannon speeders, or predator sponsons before putting them on devastators. Despite being effective against the bulk of the troops choices in 40k, Heavy Bolters cost too much (the same as multi-meltas and missle launchers!) to really be worth it over other options.

6th Edition Rating: 2/5

Synergize: Missile Launchers

Antagonize: Multi-Meltas, Lascannons

 

Multi-Melta: While the multi-melta was the preeminent anti-armor weapon in 5th edition due to the +1 chart bonus for AP1, this is no longer the case. They're still effective, sure, but given that glancing hits no longer result in vehicle damage chart rolls, and that AP2 gives +1 to AP1's +2 to the chart, the multi-melta is losing some ground to weapons like Lascannons and even Plasma Cannons. Another major drawback for the multi-melta is its measly 24" range. Some marine players seem to work well with moving multi-meltas into positions where they will get good use out of them, but I have always found it a bit of a challenge, especially on squads like devastators that have fairly little else to do aside from fire heavy weapons. Granted, snap fire will be a boon for the mutli-melta in 6th edition since players will be able to get their multi-meltas inside of the coveted 12" radius of their target, picking up the precious melta armor penetration bonus. While I'm personally not a fan of multi-meltas, I could see a decent use of two multi-meltas and two of a longer-ranged armament with a rhino/razorback in a 10-man squad; two multi-meltas in a transport would be reliable and mobile enough to make the most out of your melta weapons, while the longer-ranged combat squad could fill a similar role to traditional devastators. The lower points cost means you can get them for just as much as a heavy bolter or a missile launcher, which is an added bonus in favor of the multi-melta. Finally, multi-meltas are the key to the suicide anti-tank drop pod unit as described previously, providing them with one undisputed niche role for devastators.

6th Edition Rating: 3/5

Synergize: None

Antagonize: Heavy Bolters

 

Missile Launcher: The missile launcher is the king of the traditional competitive devastator squad. Devs armed with four missile launchers were commonplace in 5th edition, and don't expect anything to change soon. Heck, even the 2012 Adepticon final round was between missile-launcher heavy "long fang spam" space wolves (essentially souped-up devastators) and (surprise)Grey Knights. SImply put, the missile launcher is the single most cost-effective option for devastators, period. They're cheap and extremely versatile: they can tackle infantry, tanks, and -- presumably, once we get the option for flakk missiles -- flyers, and they work best en masse. All of these factors give the missile launcher the preeminent position among the options available to devastators. Piling blast templates on an enemy unit can be a great way to whittle down their numbers quickly and, coincidently, has gotten more reliable based on the new 6th edition wound allocation method, such that you don't have to worry about which individual models your templates hit. Missile launchers, due to their flexibility, can work well with nearly any other combination of weapons, whether it be primarily anti-tank with lascannons, anti-infantry with heavy bolters, or a mix of stacking blast templates with plasma cannons. The only caveat I will add here is that you can't snap fire blast weapons, so think twice about your objective before you put them in a heavy bolter/multi-melta squad You just can't go wrong with missile launchers, so much so that they should be considered as the "default" option if you don't know what to give your last one or two devastators in a squad. I'd like to think that the missile launcher is fully emblematic of the famous description of tactical marines: "jack of all trades, master of none".

6th Edition Rating: 5/5

Synergize: Heavy Bolters, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons

Antagonize: None

 

Plasma Cannon: The plasma cannon has always held a special place in my heart. They didn't commonly see action on the field in devastator squads given the common paranoia of "gets hot!", but it's not an unbased fear since the plasma cannon upgrade is the second most expensive a devastator can take. Despite "gets hot!", I expect 6th edition will treat plasma cannons much better than its predecessor for a number of reasons. First, AP2 has become such a valuable commodity for tackling the toughest infantry units such as terminators and TEqs (terminator equivalents) because power weapons no longer automatically ignore armor saves. AP2 combined with a small blast template is a nightmare for any TEq squad on the board. Additionally, S7 and AP2 both are reasonably effective stats for taking out light-to-medium vehicles, but you're better off leaving the big stuff to lascannons or melta weapons. The points cost and reduced range are both deterrents, but they pale in comparison to the destructive potential the gun has acquired in 6th edition.

6th Edition Rating: 4/5

Synergize: Missile Launchers, Lascannons

Antagonize: None

 

Lascannon: The writers of 6th edition have obvious that the Lascannon is the big kid on the block for wrecking vehicles of all kinds in a hurry. Lascannons have gotten three main buffs in 6th edition: vehicle hull points, AP2, and snap fire. Lascannons can put up glancing hits and scrub hull points with ease on most vehicles at S9, meaning you will no longer be plagued by poor rolling leaving your opponent with a shaken chimaera after a couple lascannon shots. Additionally, now that AP2 provides a +1 on the vehicle damage chart, the lascannon's propensity for racking up penetrating hits won't go unrewarded. Finally, snap fire allows a lascannon-equipped devastator situationally to edge into a vehicle's side armor arc for that precious lower armor value (rear armor on a leman russ, anyone?). Given the magnitude of the shot at hand, the lascannon takes priority on the sergeant's signum buff over every other weapon on almost ever circumstance. Despite being the premium choice for anti-armor, they've also received a (relative) buff for taking out TEqs or anything with a 2+ armor saved to the power weapon nerf. While lascannons are incredibly powerful, they're heinously expensive on devastators and don't synergize well with heavy bolters or multi-meltas due to strength and range discrepancies, respectively. If you're tight on points, you can pick up a twin-linked one on a dreadnought for 10 points less, or, if you're desperate, on predators or land raiders (if you're already fielding one of another variant).

6th Edition Rating: 4/5

Synergize: Missile Launchers, Plasma Cannons

Antagonize: Heavy Bolters

 

The Sergeant:

The sergeant in a devastators squad primarily serves two roles: as an ablative wound and as a signum carrier. The signum is an incredibly powerful tool, allowing one of your devastators to shoot at BS5 for the turn. Sadly, many players forget to use it. While it's not a huge jump from BS4 base to BS5 with the signum, it can be a lifesaver for that one multi-melta or lascannon shot, so don't forget to use it! As I mentioned in the "devastator basics" section, he has a wide range of weapons options, and some are situationally quite useful. However, it's important to remember that the sergeant should be seen primarily as an ablative wound, so you should expect him to die over the course of an average game. I'll cover each upgrade briefly below, mainly to describe the situations in which you would want that particular upgrade:

 

Chainsword: Devastators are a ranged unit, so keep them that way. Pass on this one every time.

 

Combi-Melta: This is the one choice that really makes a lot of sense situationally, particularly in the suicide drop pod multi-melta squad as previously described. As a rule of thumb, give the sergeant a combi-melta if you're going to take more than one multi-melta. It's not much of a points sink, especially considering he can use the signum on himself to make that one shot all the more worthwhile!

 

Combi-Flamer: This upgrade would make sense on a unit taking closer-ranged weapons, like multi-meltas, plasma cannons, or heavy bolters. In a multi-melta squad, you're better off with a combi-melta. As for deciding between combi-plasma or combi-flamer, it really depends on the composition of your heavy weapons, the rest of your list, your intention for the devastator unit, and your enemy. As a tangential aside, a single combi-flamer would be a minor assault deterrent for some opponents, for what it's worth. Most of the time I'd probably pass on both the combi-flamer and the combi-plasma, but it's up to you.

 

Combi-Plasma: More shots at AP2 is never a bad thing, especially in a pinch when you have a mob of meganobz bearing down on you. Like the combi-flamer, this is really dependent on the rest of the devastators squad and your opponent. This synergizes well with, not surprisingly, plasma cannon heavy units.

 

Storm Bolter: This is the single most expensive storm bolter available to marine-kind. Every time you take this upgrade, somewhere an innocent infant dies. To make matters worse, the sergeant should always take a wound over heavy weapons whenever possible, so I can practically guarantee that these points will be wasted. The price you're paying to get 1 additional bolter shot at 24" is never worth it, especially with the newly-improved 6th edition rapid fire rules that apply to his stock bolter.

 

Plasma Pistol: You're better off with a combi-plasma. It's cheaper and has more range. Case closed.

 

Power Weapon: See "Chainsword".

 

Power Fist: Power fists are a big points sink, so if you're going to buy them, it's wiser to put them on units you expect/want to get into combat where the fist can earn its points back. Given that devastators are a ranged unit, it seems a little counterintuitive, but it has the potential to be devastating (pun) in the drop pod suicide squad. Even then, I'd personally take melta bombs AND a combi-melta for 10 points less. Still, the choice is up to you.

 

Melta Bombs: The "poor marine's power fist," melta bombs are a great budget option for that suicide drop pod unit. If you survive long enough to assault in turn two, that is…

 

Transports

Counter-intuitively to the casual player, transports are a very viable option when fielding devastators for three main reasons, as suggested much earlier. These three reasons can be summarized as: defense, situational mobility, and offensive synergy. [Note: for sake of argument, I'll only be discussing rhinos and razorbacks, as drop pods have already been covered]

 

1) Transports (in particular, Rhinos) are a cheap way to provide mobile and positionable cover for devastators. Since you prefer your devastators to stay stationary, a Rhino can move around the squad as necessary, blocking assaults or providing cover saves for the devs from any one particular threatening direction. If worse comes to worse, devastators can embark on their Rhino and use the two fire points to still provide -- albeit, not as much -- support firepower downfield all while being totally protected in the belly of the transport. If you are looking for a way to bolster your devastator's defensive capabilities and survivability, a Rhino is the way to go.

 

2) Secondly, later turns of games frequently leave devastators falling out of their optimal range or no longer having priority targets in their original firing lane. In 6th edition, a rhino or razorback can quickly redeploy a devastators unit up to 24" (6" embark, 12" movement, 6" flat out) while only sacrificing a single turn's shooting phase, although the following turn the devastators will be required to snap fire. This capability is easily underestimated, especially by the armchair general free of memories of numerous "if only I had a lascannon on the side armor of that vehicle over there…" moments. This additional mobility is useful for escaping from a contested position if your devastators are in danger, as well. Finally, the scenario, Big Guns Never Tire, counts heavy support as scoring for the sake of capturing objectives, so having late-game mobility on a scoring unit you can safely leave backfield is enormously helpful.

 

3) But perhaps by favorite use of transports for devastators is specific to the razorback. I favor long-ranged devastators, but one of the main problems of being at range is having ideal targets easily obscured or out of range, leaving your target choices limited. With this in mind, it's often helpful to have one or two weapons in a devastators squad that, on paper, could tackle a different unit type from the intended target. You could dilute the potency of your devastator squad by taking, say, a lascannon in a unit of heavy bolters, but there is a more effective method:

 

A razorback can provide both of the aforementioned advantages that come with devastator transports AND can take a gun to compliment/synergize with your devastators squad. This is twofold useful in situations where you only have a single choice target, say a land raider, and your devs have heavy bolters and plasma cannons. If you take a TL-plasma & lascannon or a TL-lascannon razorback, you will be able to compensate for higher armor values than your plasma cannons could normally and reliably mitigate. Additionally, in a situation where your firing lane is saturated with high-priority targets, having a razorback which compliments your devastators squad kit-out allows you to split your fire between targets, thus landing the optimum shots on their respectively-optimum targets.

 

Tackling Flyers

Until we hear any word from GW about availability of flakk missiles, devastators really only have one trick up their sleeves to reliably hit fliers. A signum is required, and it goes as follows:

 

Normally, "zooming" flyers require the shooting unit to snap fire, normally reducing them to BS1. However, a sergeant's signum raises a single model to BS5. This might seem contradictory, but Page 2 of the rulebook reads: "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." This is followed by a note on page 9, which reads, "When these things happen, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur." Thus, unless you are forced to shoot at an opposing flyer during your opponent's turn, you will be able to use the signum to take one shot (preferably a lascannon, of course) at BS5, even if the flyer has just zoomed in your opponent's turn!

 

Deployment

Deployment is a difficult subject to cover exhaustively. However, for many players, deploying ranged support units is intuitive: you need a good field of view, preferably overlooking critical positions or objectives. However, at the same time, you want to be protected by cover or other allied units. Instead of going through meaningless hypotheticals and "general principles," I've decided to instead present a protocol for deploying devastators, as follows:

 

When deploying devistators, identify any number of attractive board placements for your devastators. Next, for each potential board placement, go down this list [in order] and satisfy as many as you can consecutively. The deployment position that satisfies the most of these criterion is likely to be an optimal location.

 

1. Line of Sight: does the deployment position provide a good line of sight over a large area of the board?

2. Priority: Is that deployment position critical for another unit or another part of your strategy? If so, will your devastators obstruct those unit(s)?

3. Cover: Can you deploy safely in cover? If not, can you position your transport or other units to effectively provide cover?

4. Firing Lane: Does the field of view from the deployment position cover any critical areas of the board, such as objectives, main causeways of movement, or critical terrain? If another support unit proximate to the devastators were to be threatened by an enemy unit, could you support them by redirecting your fire?

5. Security: Are your flanks or rear exposed? Could your opponent outflank/infiltrate a unit that would wipe your devastators off the board early in the game? (Remember: devastators are relatively fragile and expensive)

6. Mobility: Will be it easy to mobilize from the deployment position, should you need to redeploy or evade an oncoming enemy unit?

7. Other considerations under your discretion, given the primary and secondary objectives of the scenario.

 

Of course, each table and each scenario will vary drastically from one game to the next, so in the end it's up to you to decide what makes the most sense situationally.

 

List Building with Devastators

When taking devastators, much like any other unit, you must first decide if you are going to use them as an integral part of your build or if you plan on including them as a support unit for other, more important subgroups of your overall list. Once you've decided the role the devastators will play in your list, you are faced with the challenge of kitting them to fit their role.

 

Below I've included a variety of, in my estimation, situationally viable choices for devastators. Each unit has a detail for its equipment, transport, and upgrades, it's total points cost, and a quick commentary on the bent and variants of each unit.

 

Example Units

Missile Spam Utility [150 Points]

• 5 Devastators, 4 Missile Launchers

This is the quintessential economy-competitive tournament option. It's pretty self explanatory, although you could add additional marines or a rhino to increase survivability. The main point here is to keep the unit cheap for the catch-all firepower it provides, so don't go too overboard.

 

Anti-GEq Utility [251 Points]

• 6 Devastators, 3 Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Combi-Flamer, Razorback w/TL-Assault Cannon

While Heavy Bolters aren't the most competitive option (as described above), this squad certainly packs the best anti-GEq of any possible devastator unit while still retaining some light anti-vehicle capabilities between the assault cannon and the Missile Launcher. Alternatively the Missile Launcher and the TL-Assault Cannon on the Razorback could be swapped for straight heavy bolters if you're really looking for "dakka". The squad is a little expensive for what it does, however, so you're probably better off with a autocannon/heavy bolter sponson predator in the end.

 

Anti-MEq Utility

• 6 Devastators, 3 Plasma Cannons, Missile Launcher, Combi-Plasma, Razorback w/TL-Plasma Gun & Lascannon [281 Points]

This is a pretty expensive formation for devastators, but it really packs a punch on anything with a 2+ or 3+ armor save. I've never tried this configuration, but I wouldn't have a hard time believing this squad, when used properly against MEq or TEq targets, could easily win its points back over the course of a game.

 

Infamous Drop Pod Melta Suicide [180 Points]

• 5 Devastators, 2 Multi-Meltas, Combi-Melta, Melta Bombs, Drop Pod, Locator Beacon

This is the optimal configuration for the frequently-aformentioned drop pod melta suicide unit, in my opinion. You can cut the locator beacon if you don't have any deep striking units, but this works exceptionally well with a first-turn drop pod assault followed by a second or third turn arrival of assault terminators. From the price of the unit, it's obvious this configuration is only really worthwhile for wrecking high-points vehicles.

 

Combat Squadding Drop Pod Melta Suicide [300 Points]

• 10 Devastators, 4 Multi- Meltas, Combi-Melta, Melta Bombs, Drop Pod, Locator Beacon

This is essentially a doubled version of the previous example unit, so all of the comments above still apply. While it's ~67% pricer, you can situationally elect to combat squad if you get an opportune scatter roll for your drop pod to try and disable two enemy vehicles at once. Also, if you're really worried about crunching some mathhammer and optimizing every expense, you do get slightly more marginal utility out of buying one drop pod for 10 marines rather than 5. Send the sergeant at whichever target will be harder to crack and hope for the best.

 

Short-AT/Long-Utility Combat Squadding Unit [275 Points]

• 10 Devastators, 2 Missile Launchers, 2 Multi-Meltas, Combi-Melta, Rhino

Here's a basic "double-duty" combat squadding unit. The sergeant goes with the multi-melta squad in the rhino. You could consider adding melta bombs, but that's personal preference.

 

Short Anti-Infantry/Long Anti-Armor Combat Squadding Unit [295 Points]

• 10 Devastators, Lascannon, Missile Launcher, 2 Heavy Bolters, Combi-Flamer, Rhino

Just for comparison, here's a variant on the "double-duty" combat squadding unit, this time with more dedicated anti-personnel and anti-armor roles. The sergeant goes with the heavy bolters. You could consider upgrading the rhino to a TL-heavy bolter or assault cannon razorback, but it comes with the sacrifice of losing your firing points from inside the rhino.

 

My Devastators [261 Points]

• 6 Devastators, 3 Missile Launchers, Lascannon, Razorback w/TL-Lascannon

Just for kicks, I thought i'd end by sharing the unit I run in my list at pretty much all points values. It's my favorite unit in any of my lists. It's by far the most utility for the points (relative to my list and my local meta), and reliably wins back its points (if not double or treble) each game.

 

Characters

In this section, I will overview the HQ choices available to Codex: Space Marine armies and comment on them in the context of augmenting/joining a devastator squad. Obviously your HQ choice can synergize with a different section of your list, and that won't affect the devastators on the table at all.

 

Chapter Master, Captain, Chaplain: These are all characters that excel in combat. For no reason should you plan on attaching them to a devastators squad, period. Not even in a drop pod suicide melta squad.

 

Librarian: The new psyker rules in 6th edition will likely make librarians even more of the undisputed "top choice" of the non-special character HQ choices in the codex. Fortunately for devastators, librarians are extremely utility characters and can fit many roles. I can't imagine a circumstance in which it would be beneficial for a librarian to join a unit of devastators, however they can take both shooting and blessing powers that would synergize well with a unit like devastators.

 

The only interesting combo that is evident involving a librarian and devastators would be the inclusion of a librarian with Gate of Infinity, allowing the squad to deep strike up to 24" away each shooting phase. The librarian could substitute for the drop pod in the suicide melta squad, thus potentially getting multiple uses out of one suicide squad. Combine this with Vulkan and you can reroll your missed snap fire shots due to the master crafted multi-meltas. I must admit I have never tried this combination, but it has always appealed to me.

 

Master of the Forge: The Master of the Forge is the stand-out HQ choice for complimenting devastators. The obvious choice is the conversion beamer, which would work seamlessly with any variety of dev squad. Taking a bike increases his survivability, and keeping him separate from the devastator squad allows him to target different targets, if necessary. This is especially helpful since the conversion beamer is most effective at range. The conversion beamer synergizes best with plasma cannons due to the high strength blast of both weapons at optimal range.

 

Special Characters (only those presented in Codex: Space Marines, no FW): Vulkan is the only special character that would have any direct impact on devastators due to his rule that makes multi-meltas count as twin linked. This could be extremely effective when using a suicide melta drop pod squad, as previously detailed. Otherwise, there aren't many special characters who jump out as being able to compliment a shooty/gunline themed force that would likely include devastators. The only two worth noting are Lysander and Pedro Kantor: Lysander's bolter drill could boost the shooting capabilities of a nearby tactical squad, whereas Kantor/Sternguard lists have been detailed and discussed any number of times, and these lists would be well-suited for devastators of all varieties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am planning on sitting on it for a couple days then editing it again and tightening it up quite a bit. I'd appreciate any C&C you guys have!

 

 

Thanks,

Jupiter

[FlamingDeth]

If only DA devs got a signum. Oh well, still building a missile squad sitting in an Aegis with a quadcannon into my lists anyways. Though I guess there's technically nothing against me allying in regular DA devs, all I'd have to do is switch out a tac squad and librarian for a cheaper, better tac squad and librarian...

[Captain Idaho]

I'll give this a good read when I get home as I enjoy a good Tactica.

 

One piece of advice I would give you though is to remove little critcisms to specific games designers as it detracts from the very valid points you're trying to get across and makes you look biased, which isn't good when you're trying to create an article with appeal to many people. As an example, whilst skimming through the early paragraphs I noticed you criticised Mat Ward specifically, which just made me lose interest as it felt too personal not objective enough to give me a fair tactical and strategic analysis of Devastators, especially as you could have objectively said "...the Storm Bolter isn't such a useful item for its points inestment since it only adds a single bolter shot to the squad, and depending on the build within the squad this is utterly worthless (i.e. Tank hunting builds)."

[bystrom]

I have some comments after my read-through:

 

A Master of the forge with conversion beamer has a different optimal range spectrum compared to plasma cannon devs (42"+ vs <36").

 

Lysander's Bolter Drill works on heavy bolters, which gives him an expensive use for HB devs.

 

A sergeant uses his signum in lieu of shooting, i.e. he can't shoot and use the signum at the same time.

 

I think either the wording for predators with lascannons (under the lascannon as a weapon section) is misleading or IMO wrong. I think that lascannon sponsons on predators are a good choice, where you weigh infantry vs vehicle when comparing devs with lascannons and predators with lascannons. An example, a 5-man dev squad with 4 lascannons is 230 pts while 2 predators with lascannon sponsons are 240. The predators cost 10 points more and take up 2 heavy support slots, but are two units and carry more heavy guns, plus are more maneuverable. To call predators with lascannons as a "desperate" choice is a bit exaggerating.

 

When commenting on multi-meltas, I think you should mention another obvious place of putting multi-meltas: attack bikes and land speeders. For example, two multi-melta attack bikes cost 100 points, are very maneuverable, and reasonably durable (can hide). A land speeder with 2 multi-meltas cost 80 points, and can deep-strike. The major differences to your suicide melta dev squad is that it arrives on turn 1 and fires snap shots, while the land speeder/attack bikes arrive on turn 2-4 and shoots at bs4. Also one his a heavy support slot while the other is a fast attack.

[Ming]

Another thing to consider per my own tactica (as an ever efficient Ultramarine player) is that 4 heavy weapons in a single unit is seen in many cases as too much to get the job done. A better choice IMHO is three, allowing you to spend that overage on a weapon or upgrade for a different unit. The more times you can fire with different units at an opponent can be key to getting the job done quicker. It is that philosophical syndrome "How many licks does it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie Pop? One...Two...Three....CRUNCH".

 

I go with some of the other poster's above on tone. Keep Tactica all about facts, not feelings, and include data to confirm the benefits you present. Going back to my concept of 3 vs 4....it may be that in the balance, the new HP system may mean that for S7 or lower, the 4th weapon may be needed to get a meaningful impact on a vehicle, but 3 MMs or 3 LCs or 3 MLs may be just fine.

 

My favorite dev squad is just 5 marines, 1 PC and 2 MLs....bring two of those and happy hunting....I think more game experience in 6th and some good old fashioned math hammering will be needed before I change that up. For the points, lascannons and plasma cannons are cheaper in tactical squads....

[DarkGuard]

A good review. I meant to comment on this sooner, but I was very busy when that got put up. Lots of good, informed points.

 

Just a few comments. I'd personally rate heavy bolters higher. With more infantry on the board, the ability to snap fire when moving, they've just got better IMO. You'll chew up enemy infantry squads, be nasty in overwatch, and be able to move and shoot at some effectiveness if you have to. Adding Lysander into that unit just makes it nastier, especially with his ability to suck up wounds. I still don't rate the MM with it's small range. Sure you have snap fire, but that's one shot per model. I'd personally prefer to swap the ratings for those two heavy weapons around.

 

Also, the Sergeant, I couldn't see if you made it clear there, but IMO he should always not have points spent on him. Maybe meltabombs, but nothing big. Why? Because you want him to be an ablative wound, so why spend points on him? And you also want him to use his signum all the time. For that reason I give mine a CCW/BP. He'll pretty much never fire his boltgun due to using the signum, so I gave him a CCW in case they got charged, for that extra attack.

 

Of course, one could argue they got a bit worst as more people are now bringing anti-infantry to deal with the large amounts of infantry everywhere, and therefore they'll be a prime target for that firepower when compared to Preds. But I'd still say they got mainly better, which is a good thing. Now all C:SM need is for a heavy weapons price drop.

[Ricter]

One thing I feel is a common misconception (and is at least hinted at in the some of the replies) is that snapfire benefits Heavy Bolters (and multi-shot weapons in general) more than one shot heavy weapons.

 

This really isn't the case - sure, Heavy Bolters may net more hits, but those shots will still, in general, do significantly less damage than the alternative heavy weapons. This is identical to how it is in a normal firing phase. Snapfire simply cuts overall damage output by 75%, and this hurts Heavy Bolters just as much.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

One thing I feel is a common misconception (and is at least hinted at in the some of the replies) is that snapfire benefits Heavy Bolters (and multi-shot weapons in general) more than one shot heavy weapons.

 

This really isn't the case - sure, Heavy Bolters may net more hits, but those shots will still, in general, do significantly less damage than the alternative heavy weapons. This is identical to how it is in a normal firing phase. Snapfire simply cuts overall damage output by 75%, and this hurts Heavy Bolters just as much.

 

No one's suggesting snapfiring heavy bolters will outperform snapfiring lascannons against, say, a Rhino. But while four snapfiring lascannons will be lucky to get one hit, four snapfiring heavy bolters should get two or three, which against their target array -- specifically, infantry -- is enough to reliably kill models. This is especially key when firing on Overwatch, where you can blast an enemy out of charge range.

 

You can't just say, "Multimeltas are more powerful than heavy bolters and thus I'd rather snapfire them instead." You have to consider volume of fire -- more dice = more chances at rolling 6s -- and target preference/effect.

[Ricter]

No one's suggesting snapfiring heavy bolters will outperform snapfiring lascannons against, say, a Rhino. But while four snapfiring lascannons will be lucky to get one hit, four snapfiring heavy bolters should get two or three, which against their target array -- specifically, infantry -- is enough to reliably kill models. This is especially key when firing on Overwatch, where you can blast an enemy out of charge range.

 

You can't just say, "Multimeltas are more powerful than heavy bolters and thus I'd rather snapfire them instead." You have to consider volume of fire -- more dice = more chances at rolling 6s -- and target preference/effect.

 

A full squad of Heavy Bolters only averages 2 hits on Snap Fire. That's still 25% of the normal 8 they should manage.

 

And that's exactly my point. Heavy Bolters are hurt just as much by snapfire as everything else. Firing more shots doesn't magically make you better at snapfire than other weapons. The reason why that works for Orks (which is where I'm guessing this comes from) is that their low BS means snapfire doesn't hurt them as much. Just because you have more chances of rolling 6s doesn't mean anything in the end - it just means you have more chances to hit. You're ignoring the fact that you still have to wound and break armor.

 

Is snapfire an improvement? Of course it is, it gives them 25% damage output on turns they move, where it was 0% before. But that 25% doesn't improve if you're firing more shots, and a lot of people seem to not understand that. It's quickly becoming a buzzword, though, and for marines it's really not that good. It makes a much bigger difference for low BS armies like Orks than it ever will us.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

You keep missing the point, Ricter. It's not about improving anything. It's a rate of fire issue. Snapfiring a melta is a Hail Mary, because you get one die and a prayer that it'll hit. Snapfiring a heavy bolter, thanks to its high rate of fire, gives better odds of landing a shot. It's the difference between actually doing damage and rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

[pyroknight]

I think it depends who you are fighting. a Heavy bolter on snapfire is certainly better than a MM against orcs, but against terminators, HBs wont do much. That one hail Mary MM shot taking out a terminator could make all the difference.

 

Either way, snap firing is not the most reliable, so you should focus on the weapon you need for the job. Your regular shooting is always going to be far more valuable.

[Ricter]

You're welcome to argue against the math all you like. I tried, at least, I won't derail the thread any farther.

 

Back on topic, an important trick, although perhaps rarely useful, is to take advantage of moving flat out being during the shooting phase. Now, you can use their Rhino as a mobile wall - move the Rhino out of the way during the movement phase, fire the devastators and then flat out the Rhino in front.

[Koremu]

I'm wondering if a ten-man squad with 3 Missile Launchers and a Heavy Bolter wouldn't do well.

 

You Combat Squad for a 3*ML+2*bodies unit, plus a 3*Bolters+Heavy Bolter+CCSgt unit.

 

The 3 ML unit sits back as you could expect, while the Heavy Bolter unit makes use of the Signum to move and fire the Heavy Bolter and has the Sergeant to deter close assault.

[NoxinWolves]

You're welcome to argue against the math all you like. I tried, at least, I won't derail the thread any farther.

 

Back on topic, an important trick, although perhaps rarely useful, is to take advantage of moving flat out being during the shooting phase. Now, you can use their Rhino as a mobile wall - move the Rhino out of the way during the movement phase, fire the devastators and then flat out the Rhino in front.

You're welcome to check my Maths on this but here goes.

 

4 heavy bolters snap firing at terminators.

 

12 shots = 2 hits = 1.33333333 wounds = 0.22222222 dead terminators

 

4 multi meltas snap firing at terminators

 

4 shots = 0.666666666 hits = 0.5555555 wounds = 0.37037 dead terminators

 

However against anything that isn't MEQ (or a tank of course) the heavy bolters are likely to come out on top (just).

 

The point is snap firing is a bonus that should never be relied on to do anything. And whatever weapon it is shouldn't be targeting anything it normally wouldn't. I don't see the point in taking snap fire into consideration when choosing a load out.

 

EDIT: Checked my Maths on the MMs still work out best against any MEQ. 4+ or worse is where the HB wins.

[Koremu]

The point isn't that more shots = better, but that more shots = more reliable.

 

We're not talking averages here, we're talking variance.

[NoxinWolves]

The point isn't that more shots = better, but that more shots = more reliable.

 

We're not talking averages here, we're talking variance.

 

Fair point. In terms of reliability though you can't expect any remotely reliable results when snap firing. Regardless of 4 shots or 12.

 

Devastators will only be moving if forced to and most players will do whatever they can to not be in that position. If you're snap firing more than once a game you're wasting those very expensive weapons. So really should snap firing even be considered when choosing their load out? IMO no.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

If you're snap firing more than once a game you're wasting those very expensive weapons. So really should snap firing even be considered when choosing their load out?

 

Depends on the army's overall tactical scheme, doesn't it? A drop pod army, for instance, will have to worry about the deploying turn, plus Overwatching. Taking, say, two multimeltas for tank popping with two heavy bolters to add weight to Overwatch is -- to me, at least -- a viable tactic.

[Koremu]

The point isn't that more shots = better, but that more shots = more reliable.

 

We're not talking averages here, we're talking variance.

 

Fair point. In terms of reliability though you can't expect any remotely reliable results when snap firing. Regardless of 4 shots or 12.

No, you can, that's the point of discussing variance. 12 shots hitting on 6s is reasonably reliably going to get roughly 2 hits.

 

The more shots you have, the more likely you are to be closer to the mean average number of hits.

 

In any case, snap fire is not just for moving. It's also very relevant for holding positions.

[NoxinWolves]

If you're snap firing more than once a game you're wasting those very expensive weapons. So really should snap firing even be considered when choosing their load out?

 

Depends on the army's overall tactical scheme, doesn't it? A drop pod army, for instance, will have to worry about the deploying turn, plus Overwatching. Taking, say, two multimeltas for tank popping with two heavy bolters to add weight to Overwatch is -- to me, at least -- a viable tactic.

 

...and a reason why I'm still a rookie. Hadn't considered that. Taking as a 10 man squad to combat squad on arrival would allow target flexibility and if kept close enough that anyone charging would have to charge both seems viable. I might be suddenly over thinking things though.

[Ricter]

The point isn't that more shots = better, but that more shots = more reliable.

 

We're not talking averages here, we're talking variance.

 

I'd love to see the math on that.

 

And unless you're talking about hitting flying MCs, hitting variance doesn't even matter, so we're talking killing variance.

[rubix41]

Is there any chance of adding something in 6th about whether its better to have LC's from Tac squads due to cost?

[Kua]

Just finished reading, very nice article. Now I see the role of devs much clearer.

But it needs some adjustment after the new FAQs. First the combat quad thing (they now actually can enter the battlefield separately if I read correctly) and second the champ’s signum which does not help with snap fire.

[Panda_]

Another thing to consider per my own tactica (as an ever efficient Ultramarine player) is that 4 heavy weapons in a single unit is seen in many cases as too much to get the job done. A better choice IMHO is three, allowing you to spend that overage on a weapon or upgrade for a different unit. The more times you can fire with different units at an opponent can be key to getting the job done quicker. It is that philosophical syndrome "How many licks does it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie Pop? One...Two...Three....CRUNCH".

 

I go with some of the other poster's above on tone. Keep Tactica all about facts, not feelings, and include data to confirm the benefits you present. Going back to my concept of 3 vs 4....it may be that in the balance, the new HP system may mean that for S7 or lower, the 4th weapon may be needed to get a meaningful impact on a vehicle, but 3 MMs or 3 LCs or 3 MLs may be just fine.

 

My favorite dev squad is just 5 marines, 1 PC and 2 MLs....bring two of those and happy hunting....I think more game experience in 6th and some good old fashioned math hammering will be needed before I change that up. For the points, lascannons and plasma cannons are cheaper in tactical squads....

 

The tactica should include those ideas. This is true that if the Devs go for anti Horde, they'll need as much heavy weapons as possible. On the other hand, if going to hunt vehicules 3 heavy is the way to go (3 LC shoots: say 2 hits, baring the occasional 1/2, only 1 would really hurt the vehicule).

 

With 3 or 4 ML, it's unlikely to remove all Hull Points in a salvo. They'll need additionnal support so 3 ML may be the better choice there. However if the Devs are using Autocanons, they'll better use 4. Finally, if the army doesn't have much AAA, a 4 heavy weapon team may help filling the need.

 

In fact, if they are going for vehicules, it's more a game of area denial... creating killing zones.

[VoteForPedro]

Really interesting article to read, you've put a ton of effort into this!

 

I've got a squad with 4 Missile Launchers painted up and haven't had enormous amounts of luck with them. Sure, 4 missiles is decent but it seems they have so many things acting against them. I prefer using Predators now for my anti infantry/ light anti tank and have switched my vehicle busting to Lascannon/ Plasma Gun Tacticals and Meltaguns in other units.

 

(This makes me sounds incredibly picky but Devastator is spelt wrong in the title)

[Iron Father Ferrum]

(This makes me sounds incredibly picky but Devastator is spelt wrong in the title)

 

And spelled is spelled wrong in your post. :D