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.

The trigger happy devastator. Always a favorite of mine, but are they worth it? With the ability to use las sponson preds and vindicators cheap. I don't know if i should use them. Thoughts?

In medium to large games, yes. A large squad of devaststors with lascannons can cripple almost every vehicle in the game. Missile launchers aand plasma cannons are great horde control. padding out the squad adds meatshields to your valuable guns and signum.

The dillema you're going to face at this specific point in time is the unknown...the meta game is currently in flux between the strength of infantry and vehicles.

When Marines come out we'll have a much better idea.

It also depends on your army...Space Wolves say Yes...Blood Angels say no. Grey Knights say its highly situational. I believe Templar have some odd options that make them worth investigating...and Dark Angels have a lot of similar heavy loadouts on terminators and skimmers.

MLs are not horde control because small templates are not good and AP 6 is terrible.

It does heavily depend on your army. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Vanilla Marines get the same squad of 4 missile launchers for 115, 130, and 150 points respectively.

Martel732 wrote:
MLs are not horde control because small templates are not good and AP 6 is terrible.

Orks and nids sure hate AP6 templates...

Tyranids have FnP and there are generally too many orks to care.

Missiles are somewhere between decent and sucky at horde control...what they excel at is being cheap AT and anti-MC

Martel732 wrote:
MLs are not horde control because small templates are not good and AP 6 is terrible.

I've got to disagree with you there.

If you are firing off 4 of them you should get 1-2 hits and some partials. That can hurt any horde squad and even force a lot of checks from anything that deep striked and didn't run to spread out.

Sure, plasma cannons give you AP2 and a couple in the army are nice, but Missiles have longer range and can fire STR8 at vehicles and flyers.

I will continue my position that MLs are mistake for any stationary squad or vehicle. The stat profile for the ML doesn't change from list to list, and I find it to be pretty bad for a TAC list. How ironic.

Martel732 wrote:
MLs are not horde control because small templates are not good and AP 6 is terrible.

But you also get the option of a S8 shot to instant kill terminators, nobs, captains etc...

Krak missiles don't penetrate terminator armor or artificer armor on captains. Garbage. They don't handle AV 13 or 14. They don't handle riptides. They fold against Deathwing. They're not even good at anti-transport work compared to the autocannon. Why would you commit to heavy support with so many holes in a TAC list?

I love my PC Devs (DA). Very, very easy to remove most units from the table. Prescience helps!

 ductvader wrote:
Tyranids have FnP

They do? that's news to me...

 migs6357 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
MLs are not horde control because small templates are not good and AP 6 is terrible.

But you also get the option of a S8 shot to instant kill terminators, nobs, captains etc...

Terminators laugh at Missiles...sure it hurts Paladins a bit...but the get an 83% chance of denying each wound.

Termies cringe at Lascannons, Plasma Cannons and heck even heavy bolters more than missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth mentioning this thread is on general devs...not just missiles

Missiles are the go-to catch-all weapon en masse. Lascannons can crack every type of armor, but are useless against a horde army. Multi-meltas are too short-ranged to be of any value. Heavy bolters, en masse, would be effective against hordes. Plasmas are phenomenal against everything, as long as you don't roll ones.

Better?

I think DA lascannon devs are quite nice. They come in at a good price point, and 4 lascannons in a list with access to cheap level 2 divination libby seems potent. They could have prescience and ignore cover potentially!

C:SM and BA are just hosed on devs. I agree that probably the most over all effective loadout is plasma cannons. These are homerun hitting weapons, but when they do work you get way ahead in points. All the other options are critically flawed, imo. Plus, BA have fast tanks and C:SM has thunderfire cannons with built in ignore cover competing for this slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Missiles are the go-to catch-all weapon en masse. Lascannons can crack every type of armor, but are useless against a horde army. Multi-meltas are too short-ranged to be of any value. Heavy bolters, en masse, would be effective against hordes. Plasmas are phenomenal against everything, as long as you don't roll ones.

Better?

But even horde armies usually have some target for lascannons. Plasma cannons aren't good against vehicles, really; not for the cost. Missiles are *supposed* to be catch all, but they end up not being good enough against any one thing to be a serious choice, imo.

MLs are bad??? Tell that to the SW players...


Just because it can't crack a 2+ doesn't make it bad. Multiple small templates wreck hoard units, better than PCs because their cheaper. Small Templates on terminators are great, a 1 is a 1. MLs offer a flexible firing options, they are supurb vs AV12 and below and can be fielded en mass.

When I face SWs, their MLs are the least of my concerns. Long Fangs firepower degrades quickly when they come under fire.

" Multiple small templates wreck hoard units"

Except they don't. Not against players who know what they are doing.

Go listen to Space Wolf players tell you their recent troubles since 5th edition...

Paladins, Riptides, Dreadknights, and now Serpents.

You realize it takes about 18 missiles to down one Serpent?

SW are also an exception due to good drop pod melta squads

Again, SW are not dangerous because of lame ass MLs. They are dangerous because of how GHs are armed and can be armed. And their other tricks like Lone Wolves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all fairness, it also takes 15 or so lascannons to down a serpent. But AV 13/14 and 2+ saves is where the lascannon has it all over the ML. That's very valuable in a TAC list.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, SW are not dangerous because of lame ass MLs. They are dangerous because of how GHs are armed and can be armed. And their other tricks like Lone Wolves.

So, an aggressive army like Space Wolves which balances shooting, close combat, and psykers has a unit that is good in certain situations? sounds like poor balance to me...

/sarcasm

Long Fangs are nasty because of the split fire. For some armies, like vanilla marines and thunderfires, other units are better. Just tossing out "is *unit x* good?" is a foolish question. Context is a handy thing.

In most normal sized games(1500-2000) they are not worth it.

The weapon upgrades are too expensive and the unit occupies a Heavy Support slot.

If you are playing above 2k with double FoC, they might be marginally useful because you have more HS slots to play with.

Unfortunately BT don't have dev teams but before when I was doing marines I did 4 plasma cannons on the team, and aim at there best unit and watch the blast blow them apart.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, SW are not dangerous because of lame ass MLs. They are dangerous because of how GHs are armed and can be armed. And their other tricks like Lone Wolves.

So, an aggressive army like Space Wolves which balances shooting, close combat, and psykers has a unit that is good in certain situations? sounds like poor balance to me...

/sarcasm

Long Fangs are nasty because of the split fire. For some armies, like vanilla marines and thunderfires, other units are better. Just tossing out "is *unit x* good?" is a foolish question. Context is a handy thing.

Splitting fire with MLs is useless. It takes the whole squad firing together to reliably bring down a target.

I run ML devs and have no complaints. Sure they aren't good versus AV14, but there aren't a lot of those out there so I find I am able to consentrate on those with my meltas and las cannons. They are a great durable HS choice in my opinion

But they're not durable. At least, they wouldn't be in the games I've played in. Granted, I play against players that most would consider "WAAC", but why should they neuter their own lists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, SW are not dangerous because of lame ass MLs. They are dangerous because of how GHs are armed and can be armed. And their other tricks like Lone Wolves.

So, an aggressive army like Space Wolves which balances shooting, close combat, and psykers has a unit that is good in certain situations? sounds like poor balance to me...

/sarcasm

Long Fangs are nasty because of the split fire. For some armies, like vanilla marines and thunderfires, other units are better. Just tossing out "is *unit x* good?" is a foolish question. Context is a handy thing.

Averaged across all possible matchups, I think ML long fangs are a poor heavy choice. They are cheap, but they are also vulnerable to small arms fire like pulse rifles and their damage output is not all that. As I said, the GH makes the SW codex work way more than the long fangs. The ML is just a result of people thinking they are getting some kind of deal, when I don't think they really are. Of course, my record against SW is abysmal but I maintain that it is because of the GH, not the long fangs.

As a BA player running 2 4xML squads in the backfield with a tact squad and priest I can honestly say they make their points back 4 out of 5 games.

Threatening AV 12 regularly, controlling the placement of hoard armies, taking advantage of bottle necks and one shooting t4 units. Their isn't a lot of other weapons that have the versatility of the ML in MEQ armies, specifically MEQ infantry armies.

** if you like ML's just run with them (a good share of infantry MEQ armies do for reason), you could write a 5 page mathematically backed research document titled "Missile Launchers and their application in 6th edition" and Martel would still disagree with it.

Please do so. So far, the main reason I see to use them is that they are cheap.

That being said, if you really think they solve your heavy support issues, by all means keep bringing them. But I don't see any other lists falling all over themselves to bring MLs, and that includes CSM and Eldar. Just because the marines have bad devastator options doesn't make the ML good.

I usually run 2 devs at 7 men, 1 with 4 plasma cannons and the other with 4 lascannons, I back these with 3 rifleman dreads and 3 las plas tacticals, and then throw in 3 typhoons, and finally 2 level 2 div libys, does me well this army

In what world are Devestators durable? Certainly not one with Heldrakes, FMCs, Wave Serpents, etc