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.

People are moaning that they get T5 and move and fire, I may be biased but I think that's the only way GW are going to actually fix the rules and balance out the armies, units need random arbitrary rules to make them better. This is also good for all other armies if GW do this to units that are un-playble or not worth their points. It may be contrived but I'd rather have good contrived rules than large numbers of units that are crap, as long as they aren't too ridiculous. What's everyone else's opinion on the T5 and move and fire? Also I'm not biased because I don't see World Eaters getting havocs, when we get our codex. I mean even with these rules Havocs are still really expensive 1 wound models that will die and droves so GW have been very light on these rules if this is them trying to make them more complicated.

Game-wise, it's nice whenever an under-picked unit gets a buff that makes it more of an option worthy of consideration. I've never really seen havocs used one way or another myself (and I'm very bad at keeping up with tournament results), but I don't ever hear great things about them so I'll err on the side of all the anecdotal evidence I've seen and agree that they needed some sort of boost.

Just as was pointed out in that other thread about them, it is kinda annoying that most vehicles are somehow less-stable heavy weapons platforms than havocs, but that's more of an issue with the vehicle rules than havocs. The way they carry their weapons makes both Devastators and Havocs look like they ought to be firing and relocating frequently and with some degree of ease, if not outright Rambo-ing about the battlefield. At least, that's how I've always felt.

As for T5...that's just a lil' more annoying, if only because they don't *look* that much tougher than T4 Devastators to me. It looks like they're about the same size and don't have much in the way of mutation or gross bloating that often signals a stat increase over normal marines. Sure, loyalists and traitors are different...but they don't look that much different from the new CSM troops, either, who are still T4 to my knowledge. Gameplay-wise this isn't an issue and might even be for the best, but it's rather annoying on an irrelevant aesthetic level. I don't expect it'll break the game, especially with how small the unit is and its lack of ablative wounds.

It *is*, gameplay-wise, annoying that the unit leader can't be kept cheap with a boltgun (I keep hearing he defaults to a flamer) or also take a heavy weapon. Flamers and meltaguns sorta conflict with most the weapons that the squad can take, and even then a plasma gun might be shortish-range or unsuited for whatever the squad is doing.

I have no complaints with the special rules themselves, it's the removal of options that makes me complain because it wasn't necessary at all, it was stupid and shouldn't have happened.

What bothers me most is the fact of the weapon composition of the squad in the box.
Thanks GW.

As for T5, they have this wierd armored skirt thingy, maybee that is the reason

I think they're T5 because they're slowly fusing with their weapons (like mini-Obliterators), as has been stated in the fluff for several editions now. Their in-game stats are just finally catching up.

The removal of regular bolter guys from the squad also brings them into line with the established fluff. Havocs are arrogant douchebags with a god complex because of their heavy firepower. Why would they schlub around with regular bolter-dudes?

AFAIK, you can still swap the champion's default flamer for a weapon from the Champion Equipment list, which could be a bolter if you want to save on points.

I like it when the models, fluff and rules all reinforce each other. I figure if they don't look any different than the T4 models maybe I can add some extra armor, fleshmetal mutations and bionics?

I'm a little irritated that the chaincannon is so much better than the heavy bolter. I'd rather have seen them make heavy bolters better and have the chaincannon fulfill a slightly different purpose rather than leave the HB where it is and just make a better version in the chaincannon. However, I can see how that they might have a problem in that if they change the HB they'll need to change a lot of different codexes or we'd be in a weird spot where CSM strangely have better ones than anyone else.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I like it when the models, fluff and rules all reinforce each other. I figure if they don't look any different than the T4 models maybe I can add some extra armor, fleshmetal mutations and bionics?

I'm a little irritated that the chaincannon is so much better than the heavy bolter. I'd rather have seen them make heavy bolters better and have the chaincannon fulfill a slightly different purpose rather than leave the HB where it is and just make a better version in the chaincannon. However, I can see how that they might have a problem in that if they change the HB they'll need to change a lot of different codexes or we'd be in a weird spot where CSM strangely have better ones than anyone else.

Thing is with making the HB better, that's a change that would mean you'd have to change HB's all across the board, which I don't mind but it would be a big change that they'd have to figure out how to implement. I think the chaincannon looks awesome, plus its so good that you can mix the squad with chaincannons and lascannons, where as previously you'd want to max out on certain weapons or just have all chaincannons lol though its range is ridiculous, they had to do it to make HB's worth taking.

Not Online!!! wrote:
What bothers me most is the fact of the weapon composition of the squad in the box.
Thanks GW.

As for T5, they have this wierd armored skirt thingy, maybee that is the reason

Not my faction, so I don't have any real problems with havocks. And it is good for less often used units to maybe see more play. The new gun being one per box, seems like an odd choice though. I am sure companies like Kromlech are loving it. people at my store ordered a big batch of their versions of the gun.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
What bothers me most is the fact of the weapon composition of the squad in the box.
Thanks GW.

As for T5, they have this wierd armored skirt thingy, maybee that is the reason

Not my faction, so I don't have any real problems with havocks. And it is good for less often used units to maybe see more play. The new gun being one per box, seems like an odd choice though. I am sure companies like Kromlech are loving it. people at my store ordered a big batch of their versions of the gun.

Imagine you buy a box for grey knights and get one Falchion f.e. It's a idea of them that says less weapons of the same type = double the sales but forget that this is exactly the reason why many will just go to third parties, whilest also annoying your own customer base.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I think they're T5 because they're slowly fusing with their weapons (like mini-Obliterators), as has been stated in the fluff for several editions now. Their in-game stats are just finally catching up.

The removal of regular bolter guys from the squad also brings them into line with the established fluff. Havocs are arrogant douchebags with a god complex because of their heavy firepower. Why would they schlub around with regular bolter-dudes?

AFAIK, you can still swap the champion's default flamer for a weapon from the Champion Equipment list, which could be a bolter if you want to save on points.

See, the weapon-fusing argument would convince me if they looked a little more mutated / cyborg'd / whatever. But they look very similar to the normal CSM bolter guy from the new multipart kit and the reaper guy from the new box set, who are T4. From what I've seen of the models, it looks like they're holding / carrying their weapons just like loyalist devastators use. Again, T5 is fine for gameplay reasons, but the lack of the visual cue (mutations, bloating, crazy robot arms, anything) that screams 'This guy is an order of toughness above CSM!' is annoying, if superficial.

If the leader can take a boltgun that'd be real nice. There doesn't appear to be one on the sprues, but hopefully they'll throw them a bone and let them steal one from the CSM kit.

I'm not annoyed by the lack of additional bodies like I am with my weird hangup on the non-visual T5 matter, but I do think that being unable to take ablative wounds might give people pause. Heck, I play smaller (1000pts) games nowadays way more often than the 'standard' big games and I can see a lot of uses for the option to only take 2-3 heavy weapons across the whole 5-man squad in that sort of environment (and I'm sure there's some larger lists that might like that option, too). To my understanding, everyone but the sergeant needs to take at least a HB--But I think I'd rather have 2 chainguns across 5 bodies than 4 HBs and whatever the sergeant's taking.

maybe they are deployed in old style armour, wasn't one of the marks heavily armored?

Karol wrote:
maybe they are deployed in old style armour, wasn't one of the marks heavily armored?

Mark III was heavily armoured in the front, but that's certainly not why. Mark III armour can already be used in game for normal marines.

I'm cool with the T5 and moving and shooting is fine, though that entire mechanic needs to be reworked in my opinion. Infantry should not be a better shooting platform than a tank or flyer.

What I really don't like is the massive change to their options and numbers. It's just another in a trend from GW of stripping options and flavor out of the game.

Just to point out some existing suspension of disbelief. Lt's, captains, chaplains, libs/sorc (to a slightly lesser extent), lords, ex champs, apostles, even cadre fireblades and comissars have bonus wounds to make them tougher without all that much modeling difference compared to the troops they command, and without helmets often enough.

Primaris are tougher than basic marines giving a bonus wound and a few mm in height. Plague marines are a bit thicker for T5 so I'll give you that unless looking at the old model.

Point being that internal fortitude is challenging to model on the exterior of armor. I'd settle for saying that havocs have grit or tenacity exceeding standard csm troops. Not so much as to give an extra wound, but enough to maybe shrug off a slightly bigger bullet. Overall I'm happy to see GW try to bring up a unit by adjusting rules to fill a role with the stabilization talons and annoyed that they missed the opportunity to share it with terminators and tanks.

Improved T or ablative W is an argument to be had, both have merits. I like both but considering terrain dimensions 5 bodies of 32mm is hard enough to get los or cover on, and being infantry they can move through ruins so the T5 approach fits that role better.

If it is correct that they are only in squads of 5 (I picked up the book today but haven't had a chance to read it yet), they're pointless (IMO). Way to easy to take out small number units squads. If you're not going first they lose much of their firepower with very little needing to be shot at them.

As for the T5, seems like more of a play test. Seeing if it works for other units. Just get that feeling, more than likely wrong. Agree with Shas'O'Ceris, there are many other models/units that have different stats to warrant the different toughness.

As for move and shoot, already brought up but yet another unit that is doing better then a dreadnought/helbrute which all the fluff stats that they run around the battlefield shooting without difficulty.

I think people are always happy to have 'random, arbitrary rules' [read - massive buff] when its their army in question.

The change is irritating for a few reasons IMO:
1. It utterly breaks the suspension of disbelief. Nothing on their model shouts T5 nor does any of their fluff. They're 'fusing with their weapons'? Give me a break. So they're tougher then than Tactical Dreadnaught Armour? Than the toughest, meanest Ork warboss going (who are renown for their toughness). Nope. The same for their moving and firing heavy weapons. Somehow these dudes can swing a weapon around quicker and easier than a tank that is designed to be a platform for heavy weapons . Nope, it makes no sense. Why would CSM ever take a vehicle when their infantry can use a heavy weapon better? They wouldn't.
2. The rules aren't fair across multiple factions. Why are CSM the only faction to get heavy weapons specialists that can actually use their heavy weapons properly? Why don't Devastators, who are functionally the same unit, get the same rule? How about any other infantry heavy weapon choice? And don't give me this 'muh asymmetric balance bruh' argument. This isn't balanced.
3. It feels like a cash grab. Why do you think the new gun is by far the best and there's only one in the kit? Aren't some tournaments already banning anything that's not entirely a GW model? Good luck using those 3rd party chaincannon bits in a tournament all you CSM players. They wanted/needed Havocs to sell.

Just imagine for a second there was an upgrade that any unit can take, it costs a single point and gives a unit +1T and the ablity to fire heavy weapons with no penalty. You'd take it just for the T increase.

Boyz went up a point. They gained chapter tactics (like every other damn troop in the game). That's it.

I'm not a fan of these rules, or the way they've been implemented (if that wasn't obvious :-D )

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
...2. The rules aren't fair across multiple factions. Why are CSM the only faction to get heavy weapons specialists that can actually use their heavy weapons properly? Why don't Devastators, who are functionally the same unit, get the same rule? How about any other infantry heavy weapon choice? And don't give me this 'muh asymmetric balance bruh' argument. This isn't balanced...

Dark Reapers?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[read - massive buff]

If you think what Havocs have received qualifies as a net "massive buff" then your opinions on balance probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. The loss of regular bolter-dudes as ablative wounds probably makes Havoc squads less resilient overall than they were before.

1. It utterly breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Maybe it breaks yours. Doesn't bother mine. I'd be willing to bet it doesn't break most people's.

So they're tougher then than Tactical Dreadnaught Armour?

Terminators have +1W, +1Sv and a 5++. Havocs are tougher in the narrow sense of having a higher T value. Terminator armour is still giving more overall protection, though. And the T value alone has nothing do do with armour, or at least shouldn't from a fluff perspective (*glares at Gravis armour*). If half of what's inside a Havoc's armour is no longer mortal flesh, then +1T makes perfect sense.

Than the toughest, meanest Ork warboss going (who are renown for their toughness).

I actually agree Orks should be tougher. Their fluff going all the way back to RT is that they can survive truly massive amounts of damage, up to and including decapitation. If I were designing Orks, even standard Boyz would be T5, and their characters would make Death Guard look fragile.

The same for their moving and firing heavy weapons. Somehow these dudes can swing a weapon around quicker and easier than a tank that is designed to be a platform for heavy weapons .

Again, I actually agree that vehicles should be able to move and fire without penalty.

Yeah, as a Chaos player, I can be accused of bias. But your bitterness as an Ork player is just as obvious a bias. I think you have every right to be annoyed that GW keeps screwing up your army, but that's no excuse for getting huffy that other armies are getting nice things. Frankly, the whole "breaking my suspension of disbelief" thing just sounds like you're trying to justify your feeling of resentment.

The chaincannon is simply stupid.

The move and fire without penalty tell us for sure that this unit is a must sell one.

A unit that can fire 32 shot and can fire twice a phase, is hilarious. It is something I don’t want to play with neither against.

 werewolfhunter wrote:
If it is correct that they are only in squads of 5 (I picked up the book today but haven't had a chance to read it yet), they're pointless (IMO). Way to easy to take out small number units squads. If you're not going first they lose much of their firepower with very little needing to be shot at them.

Basically, if you run havocs you best run them in a devastation battery, because if you don't shoot first, they are fethed.

Duskweaver wrote:
If you think what Havocs have received qualifies as a net "massive buff" then your opinions on balance probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. The loss of regular bolter-dudes as ablative wounds probably makes Havoc squads less resilient overall than they were before.

Lol rubbish re 'ablative wounds'.

If +1 pt for +1T and ability to move and fire heavy weapons isn't a massive buff I don't know what is.

Maybe it breaks yours. Doesn't bother mine. I'd be willing to bet it doesn't break most people's.

Really? Saw lots of complaints on here regarding exactly that.

Terminators have +1W, +1Sv and a 5++. Havocs are tougher in the narrow sense of having a higher T value. Terminator armour is still giving more overall protection, though. And the T value alone has nothing do do with armour, or at least shouldn't from a fluff perspective (*glares at Gravis armour*). If half of what's inside a Havoc's armour is no longer mortal flesh, then +1T makes perfect sense.

No. It makes no sense from a balance or fluff perspective. Termies are considered walking tanks. Devastators have gun arms. And yea they are tougher. As in literally higher toughness.

I actually agree Orks should be tougher. Their fluff going all the way back to RT is that they can survive truly massive amounts of damage, up to and including decapitation. If I were designing Orks, even standard Boyz would be T5, and their characters would make Death Guard look fragile.

I don't need your feigned sympathy. I'm explaining why T5 Havocs make no sense next to a T4 warboss from a fluff perspective.

Again, I actually agree that vehicles should be able to move and fire without penalty.

....and that Havocs shouldn't be able to, surely?

Yeah, as a Chaos player, I can be accused of bias. But your bitterness as an Ork player is just as obvious a bias. I think you have every right to be annoyed that GW keeps screwing up your army, but that's no excuse for getting huffy that other armies are getting nice things. Frankly, the whole "breaking my suspension of disbelief" thing just sounds like you're trying to justify your feeling of resentment.

You are biased. I don't need to be strawmanned. This discussion is about Havocs, not Orks. It makes absolutely no difference what army I play nor how competitor or not I believe that army to be. Havocs are designed poorly compared to other units that fulfil similar roles in other codexes, with an obvious cash grab mentality and that sucks.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Lol rubbish re 'ablative wounds'.

I think that you have no idea how this game works if you dismiss the value of ablative wounds on a fire support unit.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining or saying it's not enough of a buff. It's absolutely an overall improvement, but they're also far more of a glass cannon unit now than they were before. Every wound the unit takes now removes a significant fraction of its firepower.

If +1 pt for +1T and ability to move and fire heavy weapons isn't a massive buff I don't know what is.

Well, that would be a pretty massive buff. But what we've actually got is +1 point for +1T, an effective +1 to hit when moving and the total loss of the previous ability to pad the unit with cheap extra wounds. So that averages out to a pretty minor buff.

Really? Saw lots of complaints on here regarding exactly that.

Mostly from you, though. OK, I concede that you are probably not the only person on the planet who thinks fusing with your gun shouldn't make you tougher.

No. It makes no sense from a balance or fluff perspective. Termies are considered walking tanks. Devastators have gun arms. And yea they are tougher. As in literally higher toughness.

I think you perhaps have difficulty distinguishing between figurative and literal descriptions. Terminators are described as being like walking tanks (while literally just being veteran marines in heavier armour), while Havocs are described as literally fusing with their weapons so that they can never put them down, with ammunition feeds worming through their flesh and their blood turning into volatile chemicals. So Terminators have a better armour save, while Havocs are harder to actually wound even if you penetrate their armour.

I don't need your feigned sympathy. I'm explaining why T5 Havocs make no sense next to a T4 warboss from a fluff perspective.

It's not feigned. It does seem undeserved, though, I admit. Orks were my first 40K army back in RT/2nd edition days, so I retain a fondness for them.

Ork Warbosses being T4 is absurd. That doesn't mean Havocs shouldn't be T5. It just means the Warboss is a silly baseline to compare to.

....and that Havocs shouldn't be able to, surely?

No, that does not logically follow.

You are biased. I don't need to be strawmanned. This discussion is about Havocs, not Orks. It makes absolutely no difference what army I play nor how competitor or not I believe that army to be. Havocs are designed poorly compared to other units that fulfil similar roles in other codexes, with an obvious cash grab mentality and that sucks.

You're misusing the "strawman" term I think. It probably wasn't helpful for me to try to psychoanalyse you, though. You do come across as very angry and bitter in this thread, though. Not meant as an insult, merely an observation.

@Duskweaver - Calling into question the validity of someone's opinion based on an imagined 'bitterness' or 'resentment' of another, entirely unrelated topic, is the fething definition of a strawman.

E - actually you're right, I was misplaced. Your argumentative technique is actually Ad Hominem. Similar but slightly different, bot misleading and fallacies.

The OP has asked for our opinion and I have provided mine. I can assure you it has nothing to do with your insane reasons and is based, solely, on my opinion regarding this specific topic.

I'm sorry you don't agree with it but please stop making things up. Your last post is more imaginary than real.

Attempting to psychoanalyse someone through text alone on an anonymous forum is probably the most doomed to failure exercise you can attempt. I wouldn't recommend it. Particularly given your attempts thus far.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'm cool with the T5 and moving and shooting is fine, though that entire mechanic needs to be reworked in my opinion. Infantry should not be a better shooting platform than a tank or flyer.

What I really don't like is the massive change to their options and numbers. It's just another in a trend from GW of stripping options and flavor out of the game.

I don't agree with that at all, SM's are basically walking tanks, why wouldn't you outfit them with heavy weapons.

I pre-ordered two boxes of Havocs yesterday. I have been wanting plastic Havocs for quite a while since my army is mostly just a spiky version of a marine one circa 5th edition (I think). I could never quite bring myself to buy Predators because the price to model aesthetics just wasn't there for me. Besides, I have always made use of bazooka/panzerschreck type teams/squads and not having one felt really weird to me. Not having two man sniper teams still does feel off to me, but I am dyed in the wool WWII miniatures wargaming that accidentally stumbled across Able-Baker-Charlie tactics too.

Load outs: I do plan on making use modeling 2 rotary guns, 2 missile launchers and 2 lascannons. I am not yet sure about the champions (leaning Plasmagun for the range and then being my preferred special weapon). I probably won't go heavy bolter (or custom-build rotary guns). I am thinking autocannons or another missile launcher and lascannon.

I like the idea that different units have different roles and aren't a way to side step FoC or the Rule of Three. I want my Havocs to serve as the heavy support they are, and my Chosen to be the more flexible jack-of-all-trades unit. What I really want Chosen to be Troop choices for Black Legion again.

As a player benefiting from Havocs being T5, I am ambivalent to it. It is a buff so I am not going to complain, but I don't really see why Havocs just so happen to get it either beyond a small fluff descriptor. The loss of extra bodies or bolters doesn't bother me yet. I wasn't planning on running my Havocs that way. I could see it being an issue in the future if they do turn out to be pretty squishy though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I don't agree with that at all, SM's are basically walking tanks, why wouldn't you outfit them with heavy weapons.

That is how I always figured it. That's why space marines have relatively poor selection of tanks (basically APCs and AFV). The marines mostly fight with man portable weapons which allow greater flexibility and precise use of force at the cost of limited supplies (read: ammo). They drop in, break some stuff and quickly extract out. Their tech is more advanced in that it is miniaturized and their armor basically could classify them as at very least light tanks.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I pre-ordered two boxes of Havocs yesterday. I have been wanting plastic Havocs for quite a while since my army is mostly just a spiky version of a marine one circa 5th edition (I think). I could never quite bring myself to buy Predators because the price to model aesthetics just wasn't there for me. Besides, I have always made use of bazooka/panzerschreck type teams/squads and not having one felt really weird to me. Not having two man sniper teams still does feel off to me, but I am dyed in the wool WWII miniatures wargaming that accidentally stumbled across Able-Baker-Charlie tactics too.

Load outs: I do plan on making use modeling 2 rotary guns, 2 missile launchers and 2 lascannons. I am not yet sure about the champions (leaning Plasmagun for the range and then being my preferred special weapon). I probably won't go heavy bolter (or custom-build rotary guns). I am thinking autocannons or another missile launcher and lascannon.

I like the idea that different units have different roles and aren't a way to side step FoC or the Rule of Three. I want my Havocs to serve as the heavy support they are, and my Chosen to be the more flexible jack-of-all-trades unit. What I really want Chosen to be Troop choices for Black Legion again.

As a player benefiting from Havocs being T5, I am ambivalent to it. It is a buff so I am not going to complain, but I don't really see why Havocs just so happen to get it either beyond a small fluff descriptor. The loss of extra bodies or bolters doesn't bother me yet. I wasn't planning on running my Havocs that way. I could see it being an issue in the future if they do turn out to be pretty squishy though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I don't agree with that at all, SM's are basically walking tanks, why wouldn't you outfit them with heavy weapons.

That is how I always figured it. That's why space marines have relatively poor selection of tanks (basically APCs and AFV). The marines mostly fight with man portable weapons which allow greater flexibility and precise use of force at the cost of limited supplies (read: ammo). They drop in, break some stuff and quickly extract out. Their tech is more advanced in that it is miniaturized and their armor basically could classify them as at very least light tanks.

Yeah people forget that they aren't just infantry. Plus the game completely downplays how much of walking tanks they are. A lasgun never pierced the armour of a SM's at least on a direct hit of the armour, in the game two dozen lasguns can make mince meat out of terminators lol

In the abstract, I don't mind either change. Many infantry already have a move and fire HW option, so why not Havoks? While the weapons have the same stats as vehicle mounted versions, The Land Raider Lascannon that is bigger than a CSM would be more powerful than the man portable version. You would think the enormous Leman Russ Plasma Executioner would hit harder than a pistol. For the purpose of streamlining, these guns are all the same.

For the extra toughness, how comparable is getting on a dirtbike to any combination of extra armor, cybernetics, daemonic possession, extradimensional combat drugs, and millenia of combat experience?

In game terms the extra survivability IMO isn't enough to use them as they are. You've got to add protection of some type or they will be shot off the board immediately, and those defensive options are all more expensive than extra models. I don't think picking Alpha Legion alone will be enough.

Aren't Warbosses T5 anyway?

People are moaning that they get T5 and move and fire, I may be biased but I think that's the only way GW are going to actually fix the rules and balance out the armies, units need random arbitrary rules to make them better.

The only way...
Improving Havocs and leaving Devastators as they are is a bit stupid if you ask me.

 wuestenfux wrote:

People are moaning that they get T5 and move and fire, I may be biased but I think that's the only way GW are going to actually fix the rules and balance out the armies, units need random arbitrary rules to make them better.

The only way...
Improving Havocs and leaving Devastators as they are is a bit stupid if you ask me.

Devastors had the Cherub before, frankly they should get also the move and fire but at this point GW has shown very well that regular marines are not the way forwards for your SM army.
Wouldn't be surprised if there comes a Primaris "devastor" style unit that does everything better then Devastors and get's the Havoc Ruleset.