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.

Belphegor wrote:PM or Post an all-rounders list.
I'll draw out a diagram with a all-rounders list.
We'll be able to discus this further with some visuals.
It's a bit to abstract of a discussion right now to get anywhere.

how does 1,750 sound?

I honestly appreciate the outreach and I do value your and others' point of view.

But what I keep coming back to is how the extra effort shouldn't be necessary. I mean, if drop pod Devastators are a "good buy" in a significant number of scenarios, several should be apparent from the get go without requiring more in depth analysis. The comparison would only be really relevant for competitive lists, and I can't think of any that would incorporate drop devastators. Can you?

The strength of the unit is that it is reactive.
It's deployment is flexible and based upon what openings your opponent have left you.
It can be either 2 (drop pod and full squad) or 3 (drop pod and 2 combat squads) units to contest objectives.
and they can possibly take out two vehicles in a turn (if in combat squads)
they would take two assaults to be taken out
also if combat squads are not the way to go against a certain opponent you don't have to declare whether they will be splitting or not until they deploy.
Their strength is passive. They don't hunt tanks, they block them.
If it's space you need to pass through, you'll not be able to ignore them
if deployed properly, they will be supported by a full battle line the first turn they come in
also I'm not saying you should take this instead of a Melta-Bike unit, take it with and you have a good anvil with hammer

Loose Deployment example:
a West / Center / East objective ~ mid board
Opponent: ~ 12" east of center line deployed transports, hard eastern flank with armor
Melta-Player: Drop center, near center objective to support 1st turn approaching Rhino and razorback squad

It's really not about the number crunch as much as the function the element with the army as a whole
(they are not as points efficient "on the firing range")
and it's about setting up board dynamics rather than taking a specific shot
Like those first 2 pawns of a chess game.

well, that's the sum-up of my somewhat inarticulate pitch for the Drop Melta-Devs

It seems to me that there are MUCH better options for drop pods. If you're talking about anti personel it Sternguard are way more win. Anti tank, I think Dreads or Sternguard with combi-melta would be much more useful.

You get all of the benefits of putting something in a drop-pod without the drawbacks of spending a whole turn spitting on your thumb to wipe your sites clean and fiddling with your bipod.

Like Sourclams, I just cannot fathom a common scenario where it would be better to drop in a squad that can't shoot that turn.

sourclams wrote:

WintermuteSwarm wrote:considering that they'll move on to murder another unit every turn...which in this case would be your deepstriking multi-meltas that probably [will [not]] blow up one of their more important heavy support choices.

I hate being such an assinine rules stickler, but this *is* the tactics forum. Nobody has move-and-shoot Devastators. That means:

You mis-quoted me, I was stating that the vindicator and lash prince would move on to destroy every other unit. When it comes to devastators with multimeltas they're put in range of both lash and that big ol' cannon. Not that you won't have the same issue with bikes, but you'd be losing a lot less points and if you manage to survive then you have a teleport homer ta bring in some assault units that can scare that prince away :-P

sourclams wrote:Give me a scenario where devastators with multimeltas are a better investment than an equal number of points' worth of attack bikes, or deployed devastators with suitable 36"- 48" weaponry.

Can't be done.

to ueberyak:
I've been discussing the function and use of a devastator build that sacrifices one turn of possible shooting for position

and don't get me wrong, I <HEART> Sternguard, but they kill one vehicle
They're anti-infantry with some teeth vs. heavy armor
the devastators hurts approaching infantry and eats approaching tanks
and are used to take territory, not deny it

please compare it to a marine unit that denies territory more strongly

WintermuteSwarm wrote:You mis-quoted me, I was stating that the vindicator and lash prince would move on to destroy every other unit. When it comes to devastators with multimeltas they're put in range of both lash and that big ol' cannon.

I apologize for the mis-quote. You got lost in the opposing viewpoint and I lost sense of context.

Belphegor wrote:[Devastators] are used to take territory, not deny it

......

please compare it to a marine unit that denies territory more strongly

Seems like a contradictory statement.

I disagree that Devastators are there to take territory. Their best role is in defensive firepower, i.e. a stationary gun turret with a lot of guns. This lends itself to their strengths, as opposed to an offensive role, where shooting is impossible. I personally can't believe that a unit can be good in a role where their strength is ignored.

"Fire Lanes"

I have yet to see a table with legitimate 25% terrain coverage that has fire lanes longer than 18". If it's just one giant piece of terrain smacked into the middle or the sides.... okay then. But for actual game play, maneuvering for the fire lane wendigo just doesn't seem to be a reality.

I hear you. I'm just saying I don't believe adding the price of a drop pod, AND eating up a heavy support choice, AND gambling on when you get the unit, AND sacrificing the subsequent round of shooting is worth the denial when you have so many other tools at your disposal as a SM player to do the job.

The a drop pod dev squad won't deny anything the turn it drops. So ANY unit denying territory that can shoot that turn would be doing a better job.

sourclams: I disagree that Devastators are there to take territory. Their best role is in defensive firepower, i.e. a stationary gun turret with a lot of guns. This lends itself to their strengths, as opposed to an offensive role, where shooting is impossible. I personally can't believe that a unit can be good in a role where their strength is ignored.

whoops! miss-inserted text (hurried reply) sorry

Original:

and don't get me wrong, I <HEART> Sternguard, but they kill one vehicle
They're anti-infantry with some teeth vs. heavy armor
the devastators hurts approaching infantry and eats approaching tanks
and are used to take territory, not deny it

Intended:
and don't get me wrong, I <HEART> Sternguard, but they kill one vehicle
They're anti-infantry with some teeth vs. heavy armor, and are used to take territory, not deny it
the devastators hurts approaching infantry and eats approaching tanks

ueberyak: AND gambling on when you get the unit

you know when it will drop, since it will be the first pod you drop

Personally, I'm a fan of deployed Devs with ML in a 5-man unit.

I get two missile launchers and a signum for 120pts. Pretty good by me so far, earned their points back every single game.

Taking other weapons is a bit silly to me when 10-man Tac squads generally get them much cheaper and can score too.