# 10-Man SM Devastator Squad: Feasible?



## Terminator (Nov 17, 2007)

Hello all! Question: is it feasible to field a 10-man Devastator squad? With codex space marines, we obviously don't get combat squads, but would fielding all 10 marines and 4 heavy weapons together be effective? It seems like a lot of points but it would really put out the firepower and be hard to kill. Sound off!


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

It works. I preferred 8 man squads myself - but 10 men is fine too - only 30 points and it makes then extremely hard to take out with shooting. They're still vulnerable to assault though.


----------



## Terminator (Nov 17, 2007)

Very true. I also suppose I could split them into two 5-man squads with two heavy weapons each - although for regular marines that takes up two FOC slots


----------



## bl0203 (Nov 10, 2007)

I think eight with four weapons fills the role nicely.


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

10 will work.

But I would take 5 in a razorback to add some extra punch and cover to the Devastators.

Personally I think a full 10 is a waste of points due to fact that bolter's can't fire as far as most heavy weapons. That and the dev's shouldn't need the numbers (ie, for assaults or heavy casualties) due to the fact that they should be in cover or a save distance away from the enemy for the duration of the game,


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Its cheaper and slightly more feasible to field multiple Tactical squads with Heavy Weapons in them than the Devastator squads. Personally I just dont like how expensive HW are for Devastor squads.


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

Bishop120 said:


> Its cheaper and slightly more feasible to field multiple Tactical squads with Heavy Weapons in them than the Devastator squads. Personally I just dont like how expensive HW are for Devastor squads.


Yes the points are cheaper, but taking heavy weapon in a tac squad takes away the "tactical" aspect of the squad. I mean I don't know about any of you but I'm not going to give away a move just to fire a heavy weapon. Tac squads are you're back bone so why hold them back just to get a shot or to from a heavy weapon. That's what you're devastator squads are for to sit in a position and wear the enemy out.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

SPYDeR13 said:


> Yes the points are cheaper, but taking heavy weapon in a tac squad takes away the "tactical" aspect of the squad. I mean I don't know about any of you but I'm not going to give away a move just to fire a heavy weapon. Tac squads are you're back bone so why hold them back just to get a shot or to from a heavy weapon. That's what you're devastator squads are for to sit in a position and wear the enemy out.


I'd have to disagree that giving a Tactical Squad a heavy weapon removes the 'Tactical' aspect of the unit. The entire idea of a Tactical Squad is to be able to do anything and everything that it's called upon to do.

They need to have the ability to move forward to capture objectives, the ability to stay back and provide fire support (this is where a heavy weapon comes in), the ability to engage in close ranged firefights (bolters and a special weapon do the trick) and finally fight in close combat (the Veteran's power weapon or fist).

Nonetheless, as to the original topic of a 10 man Devastator unit, I say go for it if you have the points. 10 men is that much harder to reduce below scoring size and it becomes that much harder to start taking out the heavy weapons.


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

WOW! Well put little lady. You bring up some good points.

But you contradict you're self by saying that tac squads need to capture locations and thats kinda hard when they can't move because they just had ti fire that missile launcher. Next how are they going to get into combat if they fire there bolters? They can't charge so they would have to be charged and marines can handle that in just about any situation. I will agree with a power weapon or fist just for the situation mentioned above but I still think that a heavy weapon in a tac squad is a bad choice. After all that is why you can take special weapons.:good:

And you shouldn't need weight of numbers for dev. squads bucause they shouldn't be out in the open were they can be picked of. Now with combat squads yes i would take 10 men just to split them up.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

I agree with Katie. The heavy weapons in Tactical Squads are cheap enough that they can be worthwhile even if you only fire it once or twice a game. That 15 point Lascannon or 10 point Missile Launcher can easily pay for itself if it icks a Land Raider the one time it's shot.

Heavy Bolters are also a nice choice for Tactical Squads since they're dirt cheap and they complement the anti-infantry firepower of the Bolters.

There are also many missions where you're required to hold an objective. Having a heavy weapon gives the Tactical Squad something to do while they sit on it.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

SPYDeR13 said:


> And you shouldn't need weight of numbers for dev. squads bucause they shouldn't be out in the open were they can be picked of. Now with combat squads yes i would take 10 men just to split them up.


Lanes of fire (like tracers) work both ways. If you position your Devastators so that they have a good range of fire on the battlefield, invariably there's going be a lot that can return fire. The extra wounds are invaluable for absorbing that fire.

If you hide them behind a rock, then you've closed off a commensurately large portion of the battlefield for yourself as well. Since Devastators have heavy weapons, they lose effectiveness each turn that they need to reposition themselves and are unable to fire.

I prefer to choose a flexible, albeit relatively open, starting position where I can keep the big guns firing for the whole game. If you prefer to shelter your heavy weapons, tanks are a better choice since they can much more easily reposition themselves as the dynamics of the battle change.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

SPYDeR13 said:


> WOW! Well put little lady. You bring up some good points.
> 
> But you contradict you're self by saying that tac squads need to capture locations and thats kinda hard when they can't move because they just had ti fire that missile launcher. Next how are they going to get into combat if they fire there bolters? They can't charge so they would have to be charged and marines can handle that in just about any situation. I will agree with a power weapon or fist just for the situation mentioned above but I still think that a heavy weapon in a tac squad is a bad choice. After all that is why you can take special weapons.:good:


No, you misunderstand me. I said that they need to have the _ability_ to accomplish all of these tasks, not that they need to do all of them in every game. Basically, they need to be versitile enough to handle any situation that they may come across.


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

It sure is good to know that so many players waste points on heavy weapons that just means there units won't be moving and my berzerkers can charge at there discretion.:laugh:

But what the hell it's you're army and you're choice. What works one may not work for all.

I hope this doesn't piss anyone off I'm just trying to get people to take everything into account.


----------



## Terminator (Nov 17, 2007)

In regards to the tactical squad, I have to agree with Katie. 10-man, special/heavy weapons, vet w/ powerfist. Whether in Rhinos or not, the heavy weapons are cheap enough to take and only fire once or twice a game, if need be. Typically, my tactical squads will shoot long, move and rapid fire, assault or be assaulted all in the same game, so it's nice to have all options available.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I tend to rely on 10-man squads pretty universally. The gameplay reasons for having 10 men in the squad have already been given in others' posts-- but more importantly in my mind, the Codex Astartes organizes Space Marines into 10-man squads. That being said, ten is probably optimal anyway, since you get six bodies to protect the heavy weapons before the squad loses any real effectiveness if they're being used as a static firepower unit.


----------



## mgtymouze (Dec 7, 2007)

SPYDeR13 said:


> Yes the points are cheaper, but taking heavy weapon in a tac squad takes away the "tactical" aspect of the squad. I mean I don't know about any of you but I'm not going to give away a move just to fire a heavy weapon. Tac squads are you're back bone so why hold them back just to get a shot or to from a heavy weapon. That's what you're devastator squads are for to sit in a position and wear the enemy out.


Actually giving a heavy weapon to a tactical squad makes them more of a tactical asset by defination. It goes along the lines of why real life infantry squads take anti tank weapons and squad automatic weapons. If a target of opportunity presents itself then the assets are there for use. As far as waste of points; either field one more troopie or make a squad more versatile for the same points?


----------



## Veritek83 (Dec 20, 2007)

I've had sucess running 10 man dev. squads. Generally I'll do a 4x ML squad with vet. sarge. I like the vet sarge for two reasons: 1.) the LD bonus is nice if I'm not running a Master and 2.) if I have the points I like to stick a pf/pw in there as insurance against deep strikers/fast movers/etc. Also, the sarge with a sword directing the unit's fire looks pretty cool. 

Occasionally, I'll run 4x HB against IG, Eldar, Tau, etc. They can really mow through anything but MEQs. 

As far as HWs in Tacs. go, I'm all for them. I find that in early turns in obj. based missions, I'll push the tac squads up, but then, once they're positioned, the HW(usually a ML or LC) really helps out.


----------



## SPYDeR13 (Dec 18, 2007)

mgtymouze said:


> Actually giving a heavy weapon to a tactical squad makes them more of a tactical asset by defination. It goes along the lines of why real life infantry squads take anti tank weapons and squad automatic weapons. If a target of opportunity presents itself then the assets are there for use. As far as waste of points; either field one more troopie or make a squad more versatile for the same points?


Yes the military does take "heavy" weapons but they also fight in real time were they can fire a rpg and then keep on moving. Last time I checked you fire a heavy weapon in 40k you don't move. That doesn't fly with me, not when I can take 2 special weapons in the squad.

The second thing is with a heavy weapon you range on that weapon can be a little longer than you're bolter so in some situations you may fire at comething 33 inches with you're missle launcher but then the other 9 guys in you're army are out of range. Once again that doen't fly with me.

But what the hell you're army do with it what you please. I was just trying to get people to see the other options they had.

So why don't we get back to the original question.:headbutt:


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

Everyone sees the option, but they disagree about its worth. You can only field 2 special weapons if you're Salamanders, Chaos, or using a trait, so that's not a good baseline (the option will be gone in a year anyway).


----------



## Sons of Russ (Dec 29, 2007)

I believe that a 10 man Dev squad is indispensable, but whether you take it or not depends on the rest of your army composition and your approach to playing.

Full size dev squads (placed in good cover!) will take out anything in the game and shrug off everything short of multiple indirect barrages. With this in mind, you should support them with some fast attack to deal with this along with a speed bump unit to bog down assaulters. Now you have a unit that can outgun anything in LOS that wants to play, and can not be easily tied up in assault. 

I like to play with a nice firebase that forces my opponent to do something about it. The rest of my army is mechanized or fast. I like to use rapidfire/assault tooled fullsize tac squads so the dev squads I have can cover them or deny area to my enemy. 

Then again, if your army is primarily assault based, it might be better to take something like a 6 man squad with 3 weapons if you know the threat posed by your advancing units is much greater.


----------



## Izual (Dec 30, 2007)

Sons of Russ said:


> I believe that a 10 man Dev squad is indispensable, but whether you take it or not depends on the rest of your army composition and your approach to playing.
> 
> Full size dev squads (placed in good cover!) will take out anything in the game and shrug off everything short of multiple indirect barrages. With this in mind, you should support them with some fast attack to deal with this along with a speed bump unit to bog down assaulters. Now you have a unit that can outgun anything in LOS that wants to play, and can not be easily tied up in assault.
> 
> ...



I have to agree - I've played tau vs marines, and i have to say, my friend took 4 lascannon 10 man devies and just blasted the crap out of my hammerheads.

They will make the devies rock solid. I would only do it if you had the points, otherwise if not I'd go for 8 man squads at least to get some body shields.


----------



## Archangel (Dec 30, 2007)

An eight man dev squad is fine, ten is great if you can afford it. It'll soak up the deaths of non Hvy Weap marines. Personally, I stick with only 2 types of heavy weaps in a single Dev Squad, and in a 3:1 ratio, i.e. 3 LC's, 1 HB; or 2:2 if you can combat squad them. It just helps in the unlikely event that you get charged you have something/anything to fend them off. Also, if you can't kill something with 3 LC's in a unit, the 4th probably won't do it ... because the dice gods obviously hate you and your devvie's.


----------

