Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, I understand that Blood Angels' tactics rely heavily on their ability to outmaneuver the opponent, but I've noticed that they lack the ability to take care of enemy armor or soften up infantry at range to avoid taking heavy casualties from fire on their way in or simply being overwhelmed when they get there.

Admittedly, these roles can be fulfilled with the use of cheap, fast vehicles (i.e razorspam, stormravens, etc.), but in a DoA army, whose biggest advantage is rendering the opponent's anti-armor weaponry essentially useless, those options are all but unavailable.

My solution is this:
Rather than fill your heavy support slots with vindicators, predators or stormravens, fill them with devastators.

These small, albeit static and expensive, units can bring some serious firepower to bear exactly where you need it and even tailor it to various situations with their sergeant's signum.
Even with their lack of mobility, a good strategist can place a unit of these death-dealing warriors so they can control a sizable area and remain fairly well protected themselves.
As for their expense, compare them to C:SM devastators. BA devastators, on their own, do not cost any less, but their weaponry is cheaper for our crimson clad friends.

And to top it all off, this tactic is supported heavily by BA fluff. In C:BA it says that whenever assault squads advance into combat, they do so under a withering rain of suppressing fire from devastator squads. Does this doctrine not have some validity to it?

The way I see it, GW intentionally made BA devastators cheaper to encourage tactics such as this by making them a more feasible choice for a heavy support choice. They also add to the potential synergy of the army by thinning the ranks of infantry so the assault squads won't have to worry about being overwhelmed, harassing the enemies heavy support (crew shaken/stunned) and potentially even destroying them so they can't bomb your marines (I have issues with Leman Russ tanks...) or generally forcing the enemy to keep their heads down.

With all this flexibility, our azure helmed friends are starting to look like a better and better option, no?

Finally, I'd like to compare them to the main battle tank of the Space Marines: the quintessential Predator.

A predator, at around 150 points (I'm not exactly sure about that price as I don't have my codex on me ATM), can potentially drop 2 autocannon shots and 6 heavy bolter shots or 3 lascannon shots, one of which is TL, per turn as long as it remains stationary or reducing it's firepower by 1/3 when it moves 6" or 2/3 when it moves 12" as BA vehicles are fast. (Correct me if I'm wrong about how fast vehicles shoot, please.)

On the other hand, however, devastators can potentially drop 1 lascannon shot at BS5 and 3 frag/krak missiles at BS4 each turn as long as they remain stationary for roughly the same price. (This how I would run them in most of my armies, at least.)

The conclusion I drew from this is that devastators, although less mobile, provide more firepower and flexibility than a predator or a similar vehicle.

If anyone has a counter-argument to the usefulness and flexibility of devastators among the ranks of the flying Blood Angels, I would very much like to hear it. But, please note my goal with the army is to limit my enemies use for anti-armor weaponry, so that means no tanks. I'm very interested to hear what my fellow dakka-ites have to say about this fluff-accurate and hopefully effective stratagem.

P.S: I apologize if this was a little long-winded. I just think it's a really good idea.

The tactic is sound, though at that point it becomes an all foot ba army rather than doa.

Scouts would also work well thrown into that mix, and ba devs could really gain a lot from a nearby priest. T4 3+ armor 4+ cover 4+ fnp make them the most durable dev squad option of any codex.

I've never liked the idea of devs in DOA army. It seems tactically sound, but i feel like it changes up how the army works at a much greater extent. Having these units eat up your assault or vanguard squads which may not be awful, but really force you to play your now limited jumppack units differently. The whole point to me with DOA army is being able to bring down like 6 or 7 little units melta all their tanks and roam around double charging with small units. Maybe have some flamer units to knock down hoards. By having devs you take out many of those units and it becomes a very different army.

not to say its a bad tactic but it becomes much more like a foot ba, and at that point it may be better to add some more non jp options and make it more footba


hope any of that makes sense, and my txt-wall isnt too bad

Your dev squads are a serious liability. With the rest of your army dropping down elsewhere they are just sitting there and can be assaulted by a mobile enemy.

Now I know DoA is a very mobile army, and it already has problems with anything that is more mobile than it. I think having stationary devs makes this more of a problem.

Also there is cover on the field and DoA is great in that it can take the fight to the enemy, which could be out of LOS of your dev squad.

Problem is: Your giving your enemy a target when there is literally nothing else to shoot at on the first turn. They will just get wiped off the board by anything thats in range.

I very much like this tactic, as I use it myself. I agree that they are a liability when they are the only units you depoly on the table, but to counter this I usually depoly my assault squads on the table. Their 12" move makes thier str8 meltas have a 24"in threat radius with a 18"in 2D6 range.

If there are tanks that need to be melta'd, keep a squad in reserve and pop them down next to it. Many people suggest vangaurds in BA liists over devastators for tank hunting purposes, but if the vehicle moves your hitting on a 4+. Besides Leman Russ' and Tau Hammerheads, the latter which I've never played, all other vechicles tend to be transports. Even if they aren't fast, they are making their way to your lines at top speed,so chances are your vanguard are hitting on 6's.

From my expirience, I always take Dev's as my BA support unit. They are well worth it, and if you are worried about them being targetted in the begining turns, deploy more on the table! This also means your not handicapped to 1 less turn by reserving your entire army.

it actually is a decent tactic...however it can take some use to get the hang of. the way you set them up in your deployment just screams for cover and even then its best to take a priest with them as well. they do take points away from other needed units but then the addition of devs totally changes the way your list works and can both hurt and help the list. but in adding them to your list your gonna wanna take multiple units of the devs just to make sure they do the job at hand. they also work great in that they can easily be avoided...which can also be a bad thing, but in a jumper based list it just means your jump elements have an increase threat level. nothing like taking out 2 or more tanks with blood lance due to them avoiding the devs

Jaon wrote:Problem is: Your giving your enemy a target when there is literally nothing else to shoot at on the first turn. They will just get wiped off the board by anything thats in range.

Fnp meq units deployed in cover are not fragile.

Ba can start the game with scouts, scout bikes, tac, or even assault marines on the table. Just because an army has a shiney toy doesn't mean it must be used at every oportunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Exergy wrote:Your dev squads are a serious liability. With the rest of your army dropping down elsewhere they are just sitting there and can be assaulted by a mobile enemy.

Now I know DoA is a very mobile army, and it already has problems with anything that is more mobile than it. I think having stationary devs makes this more of a problem.

Also there is cover on the field and DoA is great in that it can take the fight to the enemy, which could be out of LOS of your dev squad.

Assault marines are still more mobile than regular meq in a rhino, and those do just fine when mixed with heavy support. If a players fundamental skills are sound none of those scenarios should be a problem.

I use Predators and Baal Predators in my DoA style Blood Angels. I want every unit in my army to be good coming in from reserves. Devs are flat out bad whenever they're reserved. You miss at least 3 turns of shooting from them.

The Predators are good on their own. The normal Predators (Autocannon/sponson Lascannons) can move on 6" and shoot everything. the Baal Predators (I run mine naked) can come on 12" and outflank if I want them to, and still get good shots off.

DoA will simply suffer against mech armies. Devs don't solve the problem as keeping the units small means every dead model is a lost Missile Launcher (and Priests or not, if you line them up across the table from Mech IG/SW/BA you won't kill enough stuff quick enough to make a huge difference). Your opponent will have 2 turns to shoot his entire army at them, he'll kill them.

I have recently started running a JP army w/ dev support. So far so good! I stopped running a DoA army (All JP with VV) due to its unreliability. Unit not coming in, priests scattering, units scattering, and so much else has made the army inconsistent. I will admit that my DoA army tore up Mech IG quite easily, but against everything else it was just too much of a gamble. With that said, I have started to play JP army w/ dev's. I can place units where I need them, and it allows me to set up normally. Now, I understand that first turn I need to try and survive a torrent of fire, but that is a small trade off for me, and has proven to give me more reliable tactics. Tactics that don't need to rely on reserve rolls and scatter!

So I agree with the article, although I don't suggest DoA if you use Devs. If you stick with DoA, then VV/HG are better.

Absolutely Devs are good in a DoA army. Else;

Turn 1 he does nothing/moves
Turn 1 you do do nothing

Turn 2 he moves 7+ inches and pops smoke
Turn 2 you get 75% of your melta guns which 50% are ignored by smoke. If you have VV, they need 6s to hit a moving vehicle.


Two squads of Devs means either he pops smoke first turn and tries to save some rhinos/tanks from devs....or takes fire first turn to save the melta shots coming in 2nd turn. Neither is a good choice for your opponent.

how many devs exactly would you put into an DOA army. I see how it could work very well, def that situation shown above, which happens almost every game! but I just see it as eating a lot of points from the central assault squad bulk of the army. What list would you recommend.

Two squads of Devs with a Priest bubble in the center of the board work great. 3+/4+ FNP marines in cover don't dislodge anytime soon. I would just run min squads with ML---if they are spending time shooting you 1st turn with some serious firepower and rack up some wounds, go to ground----they did their job already by not letting him pop smoke/move.

What would someone be shooting across the table at devs on the first turn that wouldn't ignore fnp? Autocannons? That's about it, right? A priest seems like a waste of points to me.

idk, i feel like you'll need the priest for the assault squads. and two dev squads eat up a lot of points, right? or am i mistaken? they would have MLs i would assume.

Dok wrote:What would someone be shooting across the table at devs on the first turn that wouldn't ignore fnp? Autocannons? That's about it, right? A priest seems like a waste of points to me.

Splinter cannons, Lootas, various IG heavy units, SM Whirlwinds/Thunderfires/Dakkapreds, sniper rifles, assorted Eldar strength 6 nastiness, frag missiles (if you deployed in cover), etc.

Fetterkey wrote:

Dok wrote:What would someone be shooting across the table at devs on the first turn that wouldn't ignore fnp? Autocannons? That's about it, right? A priest seems like a waste of points to me.

Splinter cannons, Lootas, various IG heavy units, SM Whirlwinds/Thunderfires/Dakkapreds, sniper rifles, assorted Eldar strength 6 nastiness, frag missiles (if you deployed in cover), etc.

Right on....drop pods, scouting units, Horrors,etc

It seems like spending the 50 points on extra bodies for the squad would be a better use. Then you are more resistant to taking morale checks to losing guys as well.

Dok wrote:It seems like spending the 50 points on extra bodies for the squad would be a better use. Then you are more resistant to taking morale checks to losing guys as well.

*Shrug*, perhaps....you could try either way. To me though, that priest force multiplies those guys all game..unlike 3 bodies that you eventually lose. I've thrown a JP Priest in that unit a couple of times, then flew him out late game to add to an assault squad for a furious charge/defensive assault on my objective too. Worth trying both ways and see how it fits your playstyle.

schadenfreude wrote:

Assault marines are still more mobile than regular meq in a rhino, and those do just fine when mixed with heavy support. If a players fundamental skills are sound none of those scenarios should be a problem.

as noted in another post. DoA will have a lot of trouble with DE. DE can move around too quickly and stay out of range. With night shields on all their vehicles it will be very hard to deep strike close enough to them to shoot them down. They can also move to concentrate their forces better when they do decide to assault. They also have a lot of stuff that ignores FNP

Having some devistators on the board wouldnt help that much as DE have enough shots to down a Dev squad or two in 1 round of shooting even in cover.

I think landspeeders would work better coming on the board at the same time and moving just as fast as the jet packs but packing more firepower than a meltagun

Have you guys had success with a priest in your dev squads? IMO, the fire that dev squads take tend to be from long range heavy weapons which ignore FnP anyway.

Mr. DK wrote:Have you guys had success with a priest in your dev squads? IMO, the fire that dev squads take tend to be from long range heavy weapons which ignore FnP anyway.

it really depends on how much cover they are in. If I see devs in good cover i just pepper them till their armor fails.

I would say yes and no. It depends who your HQ, if its Grim i would say yes, just because he could give your DEV a better chance in gettin Fearless. Just think about a fearless DEV unit. It happen to me in a tournament where all my DEV were Fearless. But in my new DoA list everthing has a jump pack, so therefore I don't take them anymore.

Exergy wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Assault marines are still more mobile than regular meq in a rhino, and those do just fine when mixed with heavy support. If a players fundamental skills are sound none of those scenarios should be a problem.

as noted in another post. DoA will have a lot of trouble with DE. DE can move around too quickly and stay out of range. With night shields on all their vehicles it will be very hard to deep strike close enough to them to shoot them down. They can also move to concentrate their forces better when they do decide to assault. They also have a lot of stuff that ignores FNP

Having some devistators on the board wouldnt help that much as DE have enough shots to down a Dev squad or two in 1 round of shooting even in cover.

I think landspeeders would work better coming on the board at the same time and moving just as fast as the jet packs but packing more firepower than a meltagun

DE don't have a lot of ranged options that ignore all ba saves, the main options are dl, blasters, and disentigrators. Disentigrator ravagers are not common and vulnerable to dev ml, and blasters in range to shoot a dev squad would place trueborn in assault range of ba assault squads, there is also the fact that when those weapons shoot devs in cover it takes 2 dead devs in cover to =3 dead assault marines in the open.

I just don't see ba v de as an unfair fight, I see it as a good matchup that depends entirely on player skill. The real advantage de have is ba armies attracts newbies much like sw, while de armies repell newbies and have a reputation as being hard to play. End result is de players tend to be better and/or more experienced players.

schadenfreude wrote:
DE don't have a lot of ranged options that ignore all ba saves, the main options are dl, blasters, and disentigrators. Disentigrator ravagers are not common and vulnerable to dev ml, and blasters in range to shoot a dev squad would place trueborn in assault range of ba assault squads, there is also the fact that when those weapons shoot devs in cover it takes 2 dead devs in cover to =3 dead assault marines in the open.

I just don't see ba v de as an unfair fight, I see it as a good matchup that depends entirely on player skill. The real advantage de have is ba armies attracts newbies much like sw, while de armies repell newbies and have a reputation as being hard to play. End result is de players tend to be better and/or more experienced players.

DE dont have many weapons besides Dark Lances, Blasters and Disentigrators. Two more they do have, the heat lance and Void lance are also AP2. The rest of their weapons are splinter, which i agree would leave any MeQ with his save. Speaking of not common, the shredder is not common. No one ever takes it. Now Disentigratro ravagers are not super common, but I take one pretty often alongside 2 DL ravagers. They show up enough that they need to be accounted for. In cover they might only kill 2 marines on average but they might get lucky and wipe a squad.

Trueborn shooting at a dev squad are only guaranteed to be in assault range if they are standing right on top of the dev squad. Are you going to leave an assault squad babysitting your dev squad from turn 1 through the end of the game. Sounds mighty expensive to me. Also Trueborn can shoot from their vehicle and taking a vehicle down in CC is not guaranteed. Even if you do down it, they trueborn will still get to shoot then assault your assault squad if they like.

As for dead devs vs Assault marines, the Assault Marines are not on the table turn one right? Most DE armies have a lot of mobile shooting that will all be focused on the few squads on the board first turn. I dont think my army maximizes it but at 1500 points ill have 10 dark lance, 24 splinter cannon and 9 disentigrator shots, that is a lot for 1 squad, even in cover to take.

BA dont have trouble with DE, DoA might have trouble because of the lack of range. With some more tanks, tac marines and dev squads a BA army is not really a DoA army, its a plain BA army which I dont think will have any problems.

I aleady said with devs its no longer a true doa army, but it is a very viable no vehicle foot/jump army.

Assault marines would start on the table, or at least most of them would. Just because one can doa doesn't mean one must doa. They would be between the de and devs, so if basters are within 18" the assault marines are definately in range. By turn 3 the devs might be unguarded, but by then they already spat out a lot of krak and a battle royal probably already broke out between assault units.

When 2 fast agressive armies meet its all in who plays the game better.

schadenfreude wrote:I just don't see ba v de as an unfair fight, I see it as a good matchup that depends entirely on player skill. The real advantage de have is ba armies attracts newbies much like sw, while de armies repell newbies and have a reputation as being hard to play. End result is de players tend to be better and/or more experienced players.

I have a BA guy who doesn't play me anymore because of this match-up - and my attitude (I don't know 'for fun', fair enough, my bad.)

It comes down to BA either have concentration of power or durability.
In the face of DE's Anit infantry, DoA looks dodgy. In the face of Razor Spam, DL weapons are 'yay'.
By the same token DE look at BA and really really don't want to be hit in the face.

I think that it depending on skill is fairly accurate (there's no 1 list to take against DE and DE by the same virtues don't have a #1 list.) I feel the skill involved is unit placement - an example would be two ravagers heading towards the middle of the board from back right, one has a DP dread, what does one do with it? Go for rear armour? Or front? It's DoW and one knows the DE have a couple of venoms, does one deploy out, or walk the heavy weapons on? Or one's DoA rolls are hot, hot, hot... how many units does on dedicate to each task against the ever versitile DE? What do you want stuck in combat, what will survive a turn in the open? Etc etc. Dark Eldar players make decisions like this - that can cost games - every game, SM have a built in 3+ BA have a possible 3+/4++ I'd say until the BA player gathers a lot more experiance even these great save can't compensate for having to make 12 'right-calls' every turn to stay in the game.

schadenfreude wrote:I aleady said with devs its no longer a true doa army, but it is a very viable no vehicle foot/jump army.

Assault marines would start on the table, or at least most of them would. Just because one can doa doesn't mean one must doa. They would be between the de and devs, so if basters are within 18" the assault marines are definately in range. By turn 3 the devs might be unguarded, but by then they already spat out a lot of krak and a battle royal probably already broke out between assault units.

When 2 fast agressive armies meet its all in who plays the game better.

sure sure. Player skill IS the most important thing

honestly my gut reaction when I see most SM armies is "o dear is this guy a n00b or can he play" I say the same thing when a guy whips out eldar.
when I notice they are painted red I think "ooo assault marines, this game should be fun" Nothing about BA being easy or not, just this battle is going to be decided in CC.
but when my opponent starts his deployment with lots of things in reserve for deep strike I start thinking "ooo this is going to be easy"
when I see my opponent has orks I think "Awesome, this game is going to be fun no matter what happens"
and when I see IG I think "ugg this is going to be tough fought and little fun"

but thats just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:In the face of DE's Anit infantry, DoA looks dodgy. In the face of Razor Spam, DL weapons are 'yay'.

really DE cant take that many DLs anymore. Against a really heavy mech list they (or well me) find that its hard to kill the vehicles fast enough.
DLs are only better than lascannons against AV14 and blasters are only better than meltaguns at ranges between 12-18"

Exergy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:In the face of DE's Anit infantry, DoA looks dodgy. In the face of Razor Spam, DL weapons are 'yay'.

really DE cant take that many DLs anymore. Against a really heavy mech list they (or well me) find that its hard to kill the vehicles fast enough.
DLs are only better than lascannons against AV14 and blasters are only better than meltaguns at ranges between 12-18"

The purpose of DL in Dark Eldar armies is to shake or stun transports or just shake fire platforms - not to blow them up, that's gravy.
Stun, move on, explodes and think to self wow nice bonus there, move on, shaken - oh well move on, stunned Yay!
So on and so forth. If BA (as that's the army under discussion) doesn't have a large number of transports, they willquickly fin their troops on foot,in which case DL weaponary is some of the bet for DE again as it dodges the good ole SM3+ and BAs potential FNP too.

ChrisCP wrote:

Exergy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:In the face of DE's Anit infantry, DoA looks dodgy. In the face of Razor Spam, DL weapons are 'yay'.

really DE cant take that many DLs anymore. Against a really heavy mech list they (or well me) find that its hard to kill the vehicles fast enough.
DLs are only better than lascannons against AV14 and blasters are only better than meltaguns at ranges between 12-18"

The purpose of DL in Dark Eldar armies is to shake or stun transports or just shake fire platforms - not to blow them up, that's gravy.
Stun, move on, explodes and think to self wow nice bonus there, move on, shaken - oh well move on, stunned Yay!
So on and so forth. If BA (as that's the army under discussion) doesn't have a large number of transports, they willquickly fin their troops on foot,in which case DL weaponary is some of the bet for DE again as it dodges the good ole SM3+ and BAs potential FNP too.

Read the full post! My comment was directed specifically at BA Razorspam lists, in which case the BA player does have a lot of transports.