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.

Alright, so we have two fairly good Heavy Support options here. Devastators are more versatile, because they can field more specialized weaponry and in greater numbers. They can be tooled to be AT or AI, making them highly effective if used correctly. However, the Thunderfire gets 4 S6 small blasts, a free techy and multiple ammunition types. (Like Sternguards on steroids XD) Thunderfires are cheaper, but they tend to attract A LOT of fire. Even with the new rules for artillery (T7 W2 WOOT!) and a possible 3+ cover thanks to the gunner, they still seem to die faster.

So what do you guys think? Thunderfire or Devastators?

Thunder fire cannon for the win. I don't play marines of any sort. However, when I see a TFC, I have to keep it in mind. With devestators, who cares. Stay out of range, or charge in and take them out. The fact that a TFC comes with a techmarine, therefore, a better cover save.

IDK it just seems like the cannon has problems vs. armour, even with the introduction of Hull Points. S6 aint too good against Land Raiders...

Well, the TFC is primarily an anti-infantry artillery piece. The Devastators on the other hand have a variety of load outs for either anti-tank, anti-infantry (or both). So I think it's a choice of which you need more of in your army, and then deciding if devastators do the job better than a TFC.

True, true. Well, I guess I'm back where I started, but I'm leaning towards Lascannoneers at the moment rather than a gatling bombard ATM.

Any reason for not including the other Heavy options? A Lascannon Predator is probably better anti tank than Lascannon devastators. I haven't had experience with either, but the general feeling I get from the forums is that C:SM Devastators aren't very cost efficient.

Be that guy and ally in Space Marines into Wolves to get a flyer and a TFC for a fortified ruins for your long fangs and massive gun.

Oh, the butt pain!

TFC all they way. It's cheap, does it's job well, and with the points saved other toys can be purchased to do the jobs a tfc can't do. Leave the anti armor to duel mm land speeders or deep striking melta.

Also consider more scouts in camo cloaks. They benefit more from the tekmarine than tac squads.

Devs are horribly overpriced. They were Overpriced even BEFORE Long Fangs came out.

The TFC on the otherhand is very nicely priced, and comes with a free Techmarine. Who happens to be T7 while the Gun is around.

You should have plenty of anti-tank elsewhere in your list. Anti-infantry is what Marines need.

And with Footlists being more common now, the TFC has a purpose.


3 Cannons are 300 points. Thats 12 small blasts with 3 different profiles depending on the target's situation.

In my current list I am using 2 TFCs and one squad of Lascannon (or missile) devastators. Should I switch it out for a Pred? It just seems that Devs are far more durable and attract less attention IMHO.

Agree with schadenfreude. Thunderfire for sure.

ted234521 wrote:
In my current list I am using 2 TFCs and one squad of Lascannon (or missile) devastators. Should I switch it out for a Pred? It just seems that Devs are far more durable and attract less attention IMHO.

The spare wounds are good, as is durability vs infantry. Preds die even to scouts kraks because they have to stay static. Dreds av12 and hull points..

So all have limitations. In truth devs can have more firepower, but all said they do cost more.

Saying 2 lascannon pred 120 is not a fair comparison. Put a lascannon or prism cannon into its side and where is the AT you were counting on now?

Lascannon devs are VERY expensive. I would suggest MLs or the much frowned on MMs. MMs are gold if they go first, or snap fire for a turn as they advance. Whatever vehicle they hit will stay down. Advance them up the centre for area denial and mess with his plans. Pay for a few extra bodies so they not worried by the flack, i like 3 bolters to absorb incoming.

Having said all that TFC output is simply staggering. Taking 3 vs orcs is almost unfair.

Edit ...are gold if your opponent gets first turn..

ted234521 wrote:
Alright, so we have two fairly good Heavy Support options here. Devastators are more versatile, because they can field more specialized weaponry and in greater numbers. They can be tooled to be AT or AI, making them highly effective if used correctly. However, the Thunderfire gets 4 S6 small blasts, a free techy and multiple ammunition types. (Like Sternguards on steroids XD) Thunderfires are cheaper, but they tend to attract A LOT of fire. Even with the new rules for artillery (T7 W2 WOOT!) and a possible 3+ cover thanks to the gunner, they still seem to die faster.

So what do you guys think? Thunderfire or Devastators?

I'd say it all depends on who you're facing, if your facing a mech army go with devastators, I've yet to meet an opponent who would ignore devastators. If you're facing a horde army thunderfire cannons.

Thanks guys! I totally agree that Lascannon Devs are horribly over priced, but with my original ML build they couldn't touch AV 14 (glances, sure, but 4 6s?) Also, the MM idea seems interesting... AP1 alone is a great asset. Though, I'm wondering if I should remove them altogether because my two 10-man tac squads on rhinos have meltas and multi melta, and I have a podding sternguard squad with 7 combi meltas, a melta gun and a heavy flamer.

I would not put so many meltas unless you have vulkan. I would try drop podding multi meltas. Creates a zone ignore entry especially for vehicles

Some lists are good with dev. squads though not many.
Thunderfire cannon is just cheap and flexible. You'll need more than one. Also it will always have something to do.

I would argue space marines always need to be able to deal with mech at range, but mostly they need to kill mech with melta. You have a codex with melta, you need to use the advantage, whilst not expecting every enemy tank to waltz into melta range which is where the long range weapons come in. The point being if you bring thunderfire cannon you'll want something to deal with mech at range.

Thunderfire cannon destroy all enemy infantry. Unless your opponent is 100% mech, which in 6th is very unlikely, you can use it to either obliterate their mobs, or snipe their "specialised" units - devestators, obliterators etc, that tend to stay out of LOS/in heavy cover. TFC easily lays down enough wounds to make them take a huge amount of saves, power armour or no.

I fan the TFC, cheap, verstile and looks badass.

if you are playing big enough games. combat squad 2 or 3 full squads. giving you 6 squads and the ability to shoot at 6 different targets.
i personally run 2 devastators and a thunderfire cannon against shooting and lance armies like dark eldar, eldar, and necrons.

against hordes and swarms. thunderfire cannon is king. they are going to be a bit far to come and reach you.