Critical amount of weapons?

[Gendo]

Hi, have a question on composition.

 

Talking about weapons like Meltas, Lascannons and Plasmas, how many is a good amount in a unit or across the army looking into 8th edition?

 

And when isn't worth getting any because would do too little?

 

Is it better to have them spread out? Example:

1 Las Predator (4 shots, sponsoons permitting) 202 pts

1 Crusader squad with Lascannon in a Las Razorback (3 shots but more wounds across 2 units) 200 pts

[GreyCrow]

One weapon per model is usually the minimal amount needed to make an army an army :P

 

There is no absolute optimal amount. Technically It depends on The opponent you're facing and their army preferences.

 

Rule of thumb for competitive play, enough to deal with an all armoured force in 5 turns +20% back up when factoring expected casualties and crap roll.

 

Then you buy time with tabletop tactics ;)

Edited June 8, 2017 by GreyCrow

[Captain Idaho]

This is a difficult selection of questions to answer in part because of the new edition being so fresh but also because the amount of weapons in an army is constituent to the capabilities of the army as a whole.

 

If you have lots of infantry and close combat troops, you won't likely need as many multi-shot weapons. If your army is replete with lascannons and missile launchers, you probably don't need those melta guns.

 

When building a list you need to sort out what capabilities you want of it and add weapons to match, or in some cases, shore up weaknesses.

 

As for whether we should spread them out or group them together, again this is a case of what role a unit has in relation to the greater list. Having 4 lascannons in 4 Tactical squads seems better over a Devastator squad, until one of those squads gets killed, another gets bogged down in combat and a third needs to move to a position for an objective that spoils it's line of fire.

 

I am personally operating on the basis of strong fire support elements that are supported by additional weaponary to bolster capabilities and allow for some redundancy without if the fire support is taken out of the equation.

 

In a Tactical squad, it's possible to take minimal sized squads with a special and combi weapon, yet 4 losses results in a reduced efficiency of weapons. Not to mention that this edition will have big losses and close combats that result in a handful of bolters spread out being noise makers.

 

Even though we can freely split fire, it doesn't mean you should do. A Tactical squad with bolters and say plasma are going to do best concentrating on infantry and holding them out of rapid fire range to get another lascannon shot off at a tank could mean they are out of position to kill those Orks threatening your 2nd Tactical squad on the objective, for example.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Captain Idaho

[Gendo]

This is a difficult selection of questions to answer in part because of the new edition being so fresh but also because the amount of weapons in an army is constituent to the capabilities of the army as a whole.

 

If you have lots of infantry and close combat troops, you won't likely need as many multi-shot weapons. If your army is replete with lascannons and missile launchers, you probably don't need those melta guns.

 

When building a list you need to sort out what capabilities you want of it and add weapons to match, or in some cases, shore up weaknesses.

 

As for whether we should spread them out or group them together, again this is a case of what role a unit has in relation to the greater list. Having 4 lascannons in 4 Tactical squads seems better over a Devastator squad, until one of those squads gets killed, another gets bogged down in combat and a third needs to move to a position for an objective that spoils it's line of fire.

 

I am personally operating on the basis of strong fire support elements that are supported by additional weaponary to bolster capabilities and allow for some redundancy without if the fire support is taken out of the equation.

 

In a Tactical squad, it's possible to take minimal sized squads with a special and combi weapon, yet 4 losses results in a reduced efficiency of weapons. Not to mention that this edition will have big losses and close combats that result in a handful of bolters spread out being noise makers.

 

Even though we can freely split fire, it doesn't mean you should do. A Tactical squad with bolters and say plasma are going to do best concentrating on infantry and holding them out of rapid fire range to get another lascannon shot off at a tank could mean they are out of position to kill those Orks threatening your 2nd Tactical squad on the objective, for example.

 

Thanks for the answer, with a 5 man Crusader squad we can take an Heavy, Special and Combi/Sargent list but don't like the mix as one will be long range and not as effective when moving and the other 2 weapons need to move because of range, unless you put 2 of those in a Rhino then you have quite a punch coming out of it ;) Although it's useful when kitting out a heavy hitting CC squad.

 

Been thinking that for the points nothing beats an IG Heavy Support squad with 3 Lascannons shooting twice on 4+ and a Company Commander that give 2 orders like rerolling 1s for hits and wounds at 100pts total.

 

Would having 2 or even 3 of those (6 shots each) be enough to support a CC oriented army?

[Captain Idaho]

Depends on what heavy hitters you might have, but you could struggle to hurt the enemy quickly enough with just 6 plasma guns.

 

However, 6 plasma guns spread over 3 units is fairly solid for some support that can help.

 

You can do with some other heavy weapons. Lascannons and Missile launchers can assist in bringing out wounds on tough models that will punish an assault force otherwise.

[GreyCrow]

Agreed with Captain Idaho here

 

Longer range will really benefit your army. After analysis and a few Games, It does seem that 8th is still a very shooty edition.

CC is more powerful, but It seems like It was designed as a support for fighting on objectives rather than a main source of damage, for small elite armies like Marines.

 

Considering that a Thunderhammer is the same price as a Missile Launcher, would be bad to cut the great source of ranged damage that the Heavy weapons bring to Bear :P

[Aothaine]

I agree with GreyCrow with this subject. Heavy weapon teams are nearly an auto-include in my lists now. I really like the Quad-las preds and I think they will have more use with an assault focused list. But if you are going to be using a lot of marines then you might as well just keep up the same by adding Dev squads.

[GreyCrow]

Indeed !

 

Even with the humble tactical squad on foot, the Heavy Weapon is now a serious contender for the first upgrade spend now, due to its newfound flexibility, it's longer reach and the serious damage potential.

 

Don't get me wrong, specials are very cool and still powerful, but the much smaller reach means that they are very situational.

Every weapon is situational, even heavies, but their longer range allow them to be more useful in more situations.

[Gendo]

I didn't know that Damage doesn't spill over other models, now my question seems stupid :)

 

High Shots vs squads and high Damage vs heavies.

[autek mor]

standout weapon for me as far as vanilla marines go is the autocannon. dark angels obviously do plasma better but the autocannon provides some much needed balance given how much more expensive a lot of stuff got.