Havocs vs. Obliterators - A Chaos Space Marine Quandary

Partially Kitbashed Lascannon Havoc Conversions

I will have a review of the last year and a preview of this coming year posted next week sometime. This week I will be talking about heavy support choices, fortifications, and why I bought a forgeworld model. Today though, we begin with the age old Chaos Space Marine question…havocs or obliterators? When the book first came out I was all about havocs and gave no thought to obliterators. Several people questioned this behavior and pushed me to try the obliterators. The results of those tests are the basis of this post.

Havocs

One of the major comments the CSM book received upon release was the affordability of havocs. At 115 points you can get five with four autocannons, or for 155 points you can get five with four lascannons. Worth noting is for 175 you can get five with four missile launchers equipped with flakk missiles, though between cost and the low quality found in S7 against flyers I don’t believe this configuration is worth taking. Havocs allow a lot of shooting for very little investment.

Havocs, being 25mm models easily can get cover. By putting the aspiring champion in the front you can take a wound before losing a havoc at the cost of reducing their leadership by one.

Obliterators

These guys are the classic CSM heavy choice. They are two wound terminators, and not you can take a mark of nurgle and make them T5, which is clutch. They are no longer fearless though. Each turn they can choose a different gun from their profile (including but not limited to multi-meltas, lascannons, flamers, and an assault cannon), but cannot fire the same gun more than one turn in a row. They can deep strike for flexibility as well.

In Comparison

For the sake of comparison, I will be using a 155 point havoc lascannon unit and a 156 point nurgle obliterator unit. Note that all numbers here are simply mathematical expected values. Also note that I am an economist, and if the economy is any indication, we are terrible with numbers. If you find a calculation that is wrong either comment or email me to let me know.

The first reason people support oblits over havocs is durability. For example, it would take 114.2 BS4 bolters to kill the obliterators compared to only 45.5 to kill the unit of havocs. This is not a truly representative statistic though at least the way my lists are built. Because of my daemons there would only be one turn that my opponent reasonably would be targeting havocs with things like bolters, and one that first turn chances are that with the 48” range on my guns my opponent won’t be in range.

Lascannons though do have the necessary range, plus at AP2 it would make sense that they are shooting the oblits. Here felling the oblits would require 10.9 shots and the havocs would require 9.1, but how often are these units sitting in the open? The answer is never. Between ruins and an aegis they should always have 4+ cover (always ‘hook’ in the ends of the aegis and put in perpendicular sections to protect from flyers and outflankers). With this cover the magic numbers are 14.4 for oblits when facing lascannons behind an aegis and 18.1 for the havocs. In the environment I typically (excluding oblit deep strikes) the havocs are actually more durable.  

The next reason people suggest oblits is how they have greater flexibility with weapon options. I firmly believe any benefit gained from this is directly taken away by not being able to fire the same weapon twice. While forethought can mitigate this somewhat, I build lists with units that serve specific purposes. There is redundancy not in units, but in unit utility (flamers of Tzeentch and heldrakes both do anti-infantry). If I take either havocs or oblits then they are in the list to fill the long range anti-tank roll. Because of this aspect of my own list building style I find this limitation on obliterator weapons to be a huge letdown. Not just in theory, but on the table as well.

In terms of damage output the havocs win hands down. Literally twice the firing capability with way I use these units.

Tactical flexibility in terms of usefulness rather than options is the last category. Here the oblits have the advantage, as deep striking them is something good to have in your pocket. In terms of my list, they also give Typhus somewhere to go besides the big zombie pile.

In Summary

I stand by my claim that for me, havocs are a far better option. The increased durability in cover compared to havocs (due to having more wounds in the unit while being wounded and saving on the same roll) takes away one of the huge perceived benefits of oblits, while the lower damage potential (against the targets they were included in the list to respond to) is the nail in the coffin. The utility gained by the ability to fire different weapons each turn is less than the cost that is the lower durability and reduced fire output nets for me. On top of this, the extra AP2 on the table makes target priority far too easy for me opponent.

One last tactic here based on this situation, I am starting to deploy Typhus with the havocs so that he can tank wounds for the unit. I place the champion and any havocs without lascannons in front of Typhus and the heavy weapons behind him. Not only does this make the unit more durable by using his save when needed, but he increases their leadership (as I have lsot first blood several times due to them running). I then on my first turn move Typhus into a nearby zombie squad, as by first turn there should be enough daemons on the table to reduce the heat the havocs will take.

Next Time: The unbreakable bastion meets the immovable aegis defense line.