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.

When it come to balancing weapon upgrades in units, is 1 per 3 or 2 per 5 better?

So plenty of units have 1 per 5, and many of these units have a minimum 5 models in their unit to begin with. I want to focus on those units that either start at lower than 5 models or those that can take more than 1 per 5.
One example is GK Paladins. The min unit size is 3, but they can take 2 special weapons per 5, meaning they need to take 5 models in order to even get special weapons. I think they would benefit more from 1 per 3.
An example of 1 per 3 are DE Reavers, which start at 3 models. Last edition Windriders also only could take 1 Shuricannon per 3.

So 1 per 3 can be good for MSU, but will only allow 3 total weapons in a 10-man unit, whereas 2 per 5 would allow 4 weapons per 10.

Thoughts?

-

1per 3 is better except in units of 5 or 10 models. So if you want to put them in a transport of 5 or 10, then the 2 per 5 is better. If they are walking or you have no reason to max the unit at 5 or 10, then 1 per 3 is better.

It depends?

For imperials, I’d rather 2/5. Most squads in the IoM work on a 10 man system, or half squads of 5. So from a fluffy POV, I’d like to see as much stuff as possible in lumps of 5.

Xenos don’t have that hangup. So I’m more OK seeing them at 1/3.

From a purely game mechanics standpoint, I think the two are roughly equal, with pros/cons for both. Which is better for an specific units should probably be looked at on a individual basis.

1 in 5 for baseline troops.
2 in 5 for elite troops.

It would depend for other ones. While 1 in 3 is fair for Reavers and was fair for 6e Jetbikes IMO, I honestly would like Stealth Suits to not be "one in 3". Nerfing the OSC would be a must in that case however.

How do the rules read specifically in current 40K?

For instance, if you have "one in three may..." does this translate to a unit of four having two, or a unit of six having two?

It all depends on what the other weapons are do they mix well or are the rest of the weapons wasted if you shoot, and how easy the things die for their points. You might want to protect those 1 with those 5 in order to avoid wasting your points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some MSU units even run better on 1 on 1. Like deffkopta's etc.Its all about how you use them.

5-2 has advantage of not always facing a leadership test for first loss and 3 bodies to soak for heavy weapons.

3-1 has 6 marines per 2 heavy, in effect split fire andcan man two points. However extra marine cost. You will always be making leadership on loss and 2 bodies per gun however. Each gun. As separate targets.

Hmm...

Both have advantage of either. But with imperial system it seems to favour the 5-10 man units.

It also makes the best of the transports, as min of 6 -10 in main transports..

Hmmm..
It's gonna depend on tactics.

My gut says 1 in 3 due to MSU, but let's look at the math:

Your average Tac Marine is 14 ppm. Giving him a Melta gun is 10 points, so

1 in 3:
- (14 x 3) + 10 = 52 points, divided by 3 marines, gives 17.333 per Special Weapon.

2 in 5:
- (14 x 5) + 20 = 90 points, divided by 5 marines, gives 18 points per Special Weapon.

So, points cost 1 in 3 is cheaper for MSU, but personally I'd rather have the 2 in 5, because I think 3 man units are too easy to kill.