40k Metrics: Building a Better Devastator in 6th Edition

Friday, August 10, 2012

40k Metrics: Building a Better Devastator in 6th Edition

Posted by Nikephoros

Hi, Nikephoros again. In 5^th Edition, if someone said they were bringing Long Fangs, Devastators or Havoks you could safely assume that they were going to be armed with missiles. It was a no brainer for the most part because they were simply the most points efficient weapon available. Does this hold true in 6^th? The way we go about killing vehicles, and to a lesser extent Monstrous Creatures, has changed quite a bit. The old paradigm might not hold true at all anymore.

It's all about the numbers

A long while ago, I put forward some 40k theory that said it’s better your unit does something, at any cost, than doing nothing for cheap. For example, if your only Troops choices were the following two units:

5 Space Marines with bolters for 50 points or

10 Space Marines with two lascannons for 225 points

What would you bring? If those were your only two choices, the answer would be to bring the 10 marines with two lascannons by a mile. The first unit, while extremely points efficient, does nothing. It will not advance your position in the game one bit. The second unit, while way overcosted, at least does something. It has a chance to impact the game.

We have established that you would, and should, spend extra points when necessary to bring a unit that will actually be effective rather than one that is points efficient but doesn’t help you win the game.

Let’s look at some easy to compare units then, Long Fangs, Devastators, Havoks. First we will look at them with the old standard loadout, 4x Missile Launchers.

Unit Cost

Fangs: 115

SM Devs: 150

BA Devs: 130

Havs: 155

Results:

Units	Kills	AV10	AV11	AV12	AV13	AV14
4x missile	Ave. by HP	3.4913	1.876	1.4349	0.9523	0.1684
	Ave. by Insta	0.5651	0.6725	0.4751	0.2559	0
	Ave. Total	4.056	2.549	1.91	1.208	0.168

This will be our baseline. Clearly Havocs are so inefficient as to be unplayable. I know said before that you can play inefficient units, but there has to be a reason to. Obliterators and Predators and Vindicators are pretty efficient so there is no reason to bring a pretty trashy Havoc unit. Same for vanillas. Blood Angels are definitely playable, but Wolves are clearly undercosted. Let’s see what Lascannons are up to…

Unit Cost

Fangs: 175

SM Devs: 230

BA Devs: 190

Havs: 215

4x Lascannon	Kills	AV10	AV11	AV12	AV13	AV14
	Ave. by HP	3.3045	1.7604	1.483	1.1879	0.4706
	Ave. by Insta	1.2985	1.6758	1.3515	0.9667	0.6054
	Ave. Total	4.603	3.436	2.835	2.155	1.076

Wow those are expensive. But look at those stats, they pack a punch. Against AV11 and 12 they are almost a full dead tank better per game, which is a huge difference. But the real selling point is how strong they are against AV13. 2 dead AV13 per game is no joke, if you team can drop two Predators per game you are pulling your weight. These will definitely attract enemy attention, which is why I would say that BA Devs do these the best thanks to a FNP priest nearby. Point for point, the SW are probably better off with Missiles. Vanilla marines shouldn’t bother with these.

Lastly, how about a reason to take Havocs at all? Glad you asked…

Havocs: 155

4x Autocannon	Kills	AV10	AV11	AV12	AV13	AV14
	Ave. by HP	4.1082	2.6421	1.9382	1.0677	0
	Ave. by Insta	0.6033	0.7494	0.4334	0	0
	Ave. Total	4.712	3.392	2.372	1.068	0

Yep you are reading those stats properly. They are better than missile devs at every light mech killing task. Almost a full Rhino per game ahead. Almost half a Chimera ahead. That is big game, and a reason for this unit to exist. While not as cheap as a Long Fang unit, these actually do more, and like I said above, paying more points for something is fine if you get more value from it. If you’re playing Chaos Marines you could do a lot worse than bringing these. Where I see these shining, though, is as an ally for Daemons. Daemons want can openers, these are can openers.

Conclusions? Space Marines should be playing AV13 heavy support units, or Rifleman Dreads via MotF. Space Wolves can spend an extra 50% points on their unit to upgrade to lascannons to gain around 50% value, so it’s debatable which to bring. Blood Angels gain more than they spend to upgrade to lascannon Devs, so it bears serious consideration. And Chaos? If 4x autocannons are a joke, I’m not laughing.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Comments (35)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+2 Vote up Vote down

Albert · 663 weeks ago

Good article. As a SW player I'd rather mix lascannons and ML for added survivability and versatility (i.e. frag light infantry out). 4 LCs in a 5/6 guys unit is going to be a big target. If you still do it, then at least stick a TDA WG in front to soak up some fire.

+10 Vote up Vote down

Scuzgob 96p · 663 weeks ago

its a shame the havoc leader brings nothing to the unit - oh wait this is 4th ed chaos marines, special rules were for other people

+1 Vote up Vote down

Auretious Taak · 663 weeks ago

I believe you do a dis-service to the Devastator Units by leaving out Plasma Cannons - you are looking at the long range weapons and against most armies, Plasma Cannons will still have range on most units in an opposing army for most of the game, they can't snap fire, but that's fine. Moreover, you are comparing just one aspect of why you'd take Missile Launchers - the ML is AP 3 which is great for killing MEQ and MC's with a 3+ save or worse, whereas those Autocannons cannot, and the ML's also pack Frag Missiles which bring in the flexibility aspect. Back to Plasma Cannons - yes, vs vehicles they are a single str 7 ap 2 blast, but they are still blast weapons and the new rules will allow you to better punish closely packed vehicles as well as still do what they were being used for (at least to what I was reading in relation to space wolves) to kill off Paladin blocks and terminators and MC's pretty solidly, i.e. more then just there to hit vehicles. Finally Long Fangs can split fire whereas the other units cannot and so the flexibility of differing weapon loadouts has to be factored in there. More importantly, the Long Fangs are cheaper then the other Dev units in the examples you've given, where you could easily add the 5th Long Fang Heavy Weapon in to equal or in some cases still be less points then the equivalent unit. This hasn't been factored into your calculations - if you are going to compare the choices, at least work in the price cost to be closer as most Space Wolf players still run max Long Fangs as standard in support because youc an still bring along that light razorback that also packs more support weapons in the same slot (in effect being able to hit 3 targets a turn per FOC as opposed to just one, or two if the equivalent Devs took transports too).

3 replies · active 663 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

clever handle · 663 weeks ago

you can also factor in that all loyalists have access to a razorback & the price differential between a razorback & a rhino will make up for the significantly cheaper boots on the ground whilst addign firepower over the havocs. BUT I don't believe Nike is telling you to take longfangs over BA devs so much as examining the effects of the weapons they can take (hence sticking with 4 HW...) There are always a tonne of statistics to mull over - how likely are you to survive 5 game turns to be able to realistically pull that 4 AV10 kills per game? Not very if you're only a minimum sized squad - since rapidfire can fire 24" on the move you're going to see backfield foot troops taking additional hits as foot sloggers cross the field. I believe this was a post to examine the effects of hull points on the traditional HWS loadouts more than "take this codex over that codex" because frankly, if it was a "take this codex over that" all he would have to say about chaos (and C :S M) is "don't bother"

+2 Vote up Vote down

Sethis_II 87p · 663 weeks ago

Yup.

It's not "Long Fangs vs Devs" (because we all know who wins that one). It's MLs vs Lascannons vs Autocannons.

It's a "Hey, you know everyone ignored Lascannons last edition? Maybe we shouldn't do that any more..." post, not "Unit X is better than Unit Y".

0 Vote up Vote down

Auretious Taak · 663 weeks ago

To be fair, not everyone did ignore lascannons last edition. My point still stands that if you are going to compare the loadouts and state that they are typical loadouts then at least get the points closer to even if possible, yes, Long Fangs are cheaper, but the downside is that every guy has to have a heavy weapon after the sergeant. Whilst he was there, he could have looked at Purgation Squads with Psycannons because a unit of 4 Psycannons still is comparable to the autocannon access of Grey Knights via Dreadnoughts, but is still an option that is seen, sure, most people stillw ent massed rifledreads, but it doesn't mean that a good chunk of the community didn't.

Clever handle, a minimum sized long fang squad is 2 guys - Sgt+Dev, not 5 Guys. Just sayin', because you're making statements about minimum sized squads when looking at Long Fangs where as I'm saying bring the points more even if comparing, yep, most armies devs have 4 heavies, but long fangs typically have 5.

+5 Vote up Vote down

Prometheus 101p · 663 weeks ago

"5 Space Marines with bolters for 50 points or

10 Space Marines with two lascannons for 225 points

What would you bring? If those were your only two choices, the answer would be to bring the 10 marines with two lascannons by a mile. The first unit, while extremely points efficient, does nothing. It will not advance your position in the game one bit. The second unit, while way overcosted, at least does something. It has a chance to impact the game."

Well, do the 10pt marines have krak grenades? Cuz if so, yeah, I'd probably run that. Heck even with out, there's something to board control. Just flood them. They'll never kill enough of you, and you can kill everyone but the tanks.

1 reply · active 663 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Jasonc · 663 weeks ago

Apart from being comical lol, Prometheus has a point - it is fine and good to do comparison between the weapon options, but you should also consider what might be a better option vs devs, and why mathematically. I don't have the know how to do that precisely, but is a Pred better than a long fang squad? A rifleman? Combat?

Long fangs were awesome before because of split fire/multiple suppressing vehicles, which doesn't reliably happen anymore. They are still static, and pressing fire into one target seems to be the better option. Things like that.

0 Vote up Vote down

Jens BH · 663 weeks ago

What about Multi-meltas and Plasmacannons?

0 Vote up Vote down

ericbtjr · 663 weeks ago

This was interesting and useful, but it seems incomplete since you didn't cover all the weapon options for all units. You also don't take into account the ability to fill multiple roles. Missile launchers weren't good in 5th just for their ability to pop transports. They also some solid anti infantry, something lascannons don't do.

0 Vote up Vote down

Jens BH · 663 weeks ago

What about multi-meltas and plasma cannons?

+2 Vote up Vote down

Prometheus 101p · 663 weeks ago

So, I don't think you stated what time period your "avg by HP and Insta" were over. Is that for 6 shooting phases? (a little opptimistic to get all 6 rounds, but it doesn't matter, just need the interval)

1 reply · active 663 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Nikephoros · 663 weeks ago

5 shooting phases.

+4 Vote up Vote down

TheAmbit · 663 weeks ago

When I played orks I routinely paid 40 points for 10 grots that never killed a single thing in probably 20 games but they single handedly won at least half of those by camping an objective. At that I actually could have taken 30 boys and a nob for 220. So pretty comparable to your argument. I think there's a lot of merit to the dev stats etc. but the 50 vs 225 argument is flawed.

5 replies · active 663 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Nikephoros · 663 weeks ago

It could be argued that if you didn't waste points on do-nothing units your army might have won by wider margin. Counterfactuals aside, I'd rather have an army of units that do things than not.

0 Vote up Vote down

CuriousOne · 663 weeks ago

In this specific case I seriously, seriously doubt that the extra 40 points spent in other areas would have helped him win games by wider margins.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Auretious Taak · 663 weeks ago

You so haven't experienced 10 grots shooting a full wounds having Avatar down ina single round of shooting yet. That's disappointing. Do nothing Units as you seem to claim, yeah great for your purposes but realistically, there's no such thing as a do nothing unit, everything has a role, even a minimalist costed and small sized squad can still kill quality targets, it's not as accurate but take your example, 10 guys and 2 lascannons vs 22.5 marines, because you are only looking at 2 units and not then comparing the difference of points, that is where your arguement and example is fatally flawed. Give me the 22.5 marines in your example anyday, they'll tank some losses from the las, close to rapid fire range and slaughter you via torrented firepower, not to mention being 4 and a half units vs your one, and if not, if it is only the 2 units available, you still have 175pts of units elsewhere in the army which makes the argument stand on its' head. This is what people are disagreeing with in your example.

+1 Vote up Vote down

LordRao · 663 weeks ago

The original argument was about taking units that accomplish (almost) nothing and therefore have little or no effect on the game. Camping an objective and not getting destroyed, thereby claiming VPs, is a huge deal in objective missions. Obviously such a unit was pivotal, performing the primary mission of the game. The fact that it didn't kill any enemy models is pretty much irrelevant.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Sethis_II 87p · 663 weeks ago

Correct. Possibly a better example would have been 5 sternguard with storm bolters (and therefore no special ammo) or something else that doesn't score.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Red · 663 weeks ago

I think its a decent analysis on a per unit basis, but you do a disservice comparing them with each other. No, SM devs aren't worth it compared to LF... but how about in relation to preds, dreads, attack bikes, etc? This is the useful information.

1 reply · active 663 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Kelterran · 663 weeks ago

While I agree to your general point, I think it should be noted that there is a little bit of utility now in comparing them to each other since most of these armies have access to other types through Allies. But yes, it would be more useful to compare against other anti-tank options within the same codex. In fact, re-looking at the article its interesting that the conclusions more or less try to talk about those same-army anti-tank options but without any of the analysis that the rest of the article had. Still, it had some good points.

0 Vote up Vote down

Suijin · 663 weeks ago

I agree the 50 vs 225 argument is flawed as their is some role for the 50 point unit in games. That doesn't mean you want every single unit you have to only have bolters, but their would definitely be a place for a few units of the 50 point squads.

Paying 50% more for the lascannons for about 50% more killing tanks doesn't really account for the unit still dies the same, so I think you still lose out overall by a bit with the lascannons. Now maybe you run into a bunch more AV12&13 than before in games now, so then it makes the lascannons more necessary if you don't have something else points efficient to kill those units.

+1 Vote up Vote down

velmoor 4p · 663 weeks ago

It would also be useful to look at the probabiliteis of killing things or doing set amounts of damage in one volley, this owuld help with target priority. I'll pop up an example, although I don't have time to do more than a quick one at the moment.

Long Fangs with 5 Missiles

Probability of Exploding AV 10 31.9%
Probability of Dealing 4 HPs or more 7.9%
Probability of Dealing 3 HPs or more 19.1%
Probability of Dealing 2 HPs or more 42.3%
Probability of Dealing 1 HPs or more 90.5%

Hull point damage is calculated to exclude explosion.

Just did that quickly as I'm at work so may have made an error as I had to do it in my head. Still you get the idea.

1 reply · active 663 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Kawauso · 663 weeks ago

I was gonna say, what about the fact that Long Fangs can take an extra heavy weapon over all the others...

+1 Vote up Vote down

Guest · 663 weeks ago

Good Article!

Inspired me to have another look at Purgation Squads with Psycannons: 5 Points more than Fangs with Lascannons, and a potential greater damage output than any unit compared above.

AV10: 7.11
AV11: 5.33
AV12: 3.56
AV13: 1.78
AV14: 1.78

Obviously, the downside is low model count/High target priorty=Vulnreble. Also competing for spaces alongside psyflman!

5 replies · active 663 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Prometheus 101p · 663 weeks ago

That's off 2 psycannons, unmoving I assume?

0 Vote up Vote down

Alastores · 663 weeks ago

Why 2? They can have four.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Prometheus 101p · 663 weeks ago

ah, I was thinking Purifiers, and I know a full purifier squad comes out near 300 pts.

But honestly, if you want psycannons, I think a full purifiers squad does better, then combat squad them. Purgation are awesome for cheap incinerators but pay stupid pts for psycannons cuz of their supposed advantage being able to shoot through walls (it's a near useless power). Nice way to get a teleport homer, though.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Shadar_Logoth 92p · 663 weeks ago

Being able to shoot through Rhino's and LandRaiders isn't so useless though. You can always bring your own LOS blockers. Also, with the potential influx in fortifications, I think the Purgs power could see more viable opportunity.

Can it be combined with Perfect Timing? That seems to have some unlocked potential.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Sethis_II 87p · 663 weeks ago

Hiding Purg squads behind tanks now suffers from the additional problem of the tank being hit at full strength with blasts.

0 Vote up Vote down

Craig · 663 weeks ago

Not to mention that psycannons have significantly reduced range, which also increases their vulnerability and makes it more commonly necessary to move them forcing you to either snap fire or fall back on the 2 shots instead of 4. Of course if you're firing at heavy enough targets that only rends will do (AV13 or 14) then you might as well snap fire anyway.

1 reply · active 663 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Red · 663 weeks ago

Snap firing only applies on the to hit roll, not the pen roll. You'd want weight of shots...

0 Vote up Vote down

ben · 663 weeks ago

phycannons can still snap fire with four shots. Not massively usely most of the time but if firing at flyers or have the re-role power is an option. I think mix matching long fangs with heavy bolters will also be an intresting option. With more troops on the board and split fire bulking out squads with them an a few lazcannons will give you a nasty unit at a bargin price letting you field 6squads using the double force org.

0 Vote up Vote down

labmouse42 · 663 weeks ago

Good article.

Autocannons did get better with the new edition as glancing hits can now kill over time. This means the autocannon is much more effective vs AV 12- than it used to be.

The ML still has some uses (doubling out wraiths, for example), but the autocannon is your go-to for light armor destruction.

0 Vote up Vote down

Ben · 661 weeks ago

I think I could count the number of times I saw Missile Havocs in 5th on one hand. If a person had Havocs, they were always armed with Autocannons. Can't see that changing now.