Problems with Devastators and Thundefire Cannons?

[Sir Biscuit]

The popular 5-man long fangs squad with missile launchers comes to 115 points. Five Devastator marines with the same load out comes to 150. They're a little more than "slightly" more expensive. :P IN addition, one model firing at BS 5 is much, much worse than being able to split fire, so the sergeants worse to boot. BA devastators are a little more appropriately costed, at 130 for five and four ML.

Regardless, the ML is almost always the only correct answer when it comes to choosing heavy weapons. The others are too expensive by half.

Cost, by the way, is what makes them "bad". They're almost twice as expensive as a Dakkapred, and they're more than twice as expensive as two MM/HF Land Speeders, and equally as expensive as three MM attack bikes. All those other options tend to be more efficient anti-tank.

One thing they are, however, IS resilient. Typically, they're going to be deployed far back, with some sort of cover. At the ranges they're engaging at, the only kind of weapons that can fire back are other heavy weapons. That give the opponent the choice of killing a few devastators and missile launchers, or firing at your mechanized forces with their heavy weapons. It's not uncommon for devs to survive long into late game, as blowing up transports and other hard tanks is a higher priority, and a lot of small arms spend most of the game out of range. So that's something to consider.

EDIT: forgot thunderfires. They're not good because they are AV10 and any glancing or penetrating hit kill them. While they are probably the best way to get a techmarine, if your list calls for one, they are not a particularly devastating unit in their own right. Vindicators do the blast support thing much better, so if you're after blast attacks take one of those instead.

[DarkLink]

The popular 5-man long fangs squad with missile launchers comes to 115 points. Five Devastator marines with the same load out comes to 150. They're a little more than "slightly" more expensive. :P IN addition, one model firing at BS 5 is much, much worse than being able to split fire, so the sergeants worse to boot. BA devastators are a little more appropriately costed, at 130 for five and four ML.

Regardless, the ML is almost always the only correct answer when it comes to choosing heavy weapons. The others are too expensive by half.

Cost, by the way, is what makes them "bad". They're almost twice as expensive as a Dakkapred, and they're more than twice as expensive as two MM/HF Land Speeders, and equally as expensive as three MM attack bikes. All those other options tend to be more efficient anti-tank.

One thing they are, however, IS resilient. Typically, they're going to be deployed far back, with some sort of cover. At the ranges they're engaging at, the only kind of weapons that can fire back are other heavy weapons. That give the opponent the choice of killing a few devastators and missile launchers, or firing at your mechanized forces with their heavy weapons. It's not uncommon for devs to survive long into late game, as blowing up transports and other hard tanks is a higher priority, and a lot of small arms spend most of the game out of range. So that's something to consider.

EDIT: forgot thunderfires. They're not good because they are AV10 and any glancing or penetrating hit kill them. While they are probably the best way to get a techmarine, if your list calls for one, they are not a particularly devastating unit in their own right. Vindicators do the blast support thing much better, so if you're after blast attacks take one of those instead.

Pretty much agree with everything here. SW Long Fangs are cheap enough that extra wounds aren't needed. Normal Devastators are, I think. Though, I will say that Thunderfire cannons, placed behind fortified cover, get fairly resilient due to the 3+ cover save.

[Inquisitor Soren]

Well the one other thing I just thought about is that a Thunder in cover would gain the 4+ save as well, its not a lot but it is still a 50% increase in durability in theory. I would give both units a try and see how they fare for you man, theory hammer is meaningless in the end it depends on personal playstyle and your opponents. Cheers either way.

[Mr. Pants]

One of the heavy choices in my marine rotation is a five man devastator squad with four missile launchers and las/plas razorback to drive them from battle to battle. I'm rarely disappointed with their performance and the razorback goes a long way towards offsetting their lack of mobility. As an added bonus, it can be used to screen the marines from long range enemy fire and act as an anti-tank unit in it's own right.