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.

I'm sure that you are all well familiar with how units like devastator marines are displayed on the packaging and in the codex.

You have a unit of 5 marines, and of the marines who are holding heavy weapons, each is holding a different heavy weapon. This marine is holding a heavy bolter, that marine is holding a missile launcher, that marine is holding a lascannon and then that marine is holding a grav cannon.

Very cool looking...

...But also more or less useless on the table top.

And this is for a number of reasons, one of which is because of how AP works.

That grav cannon and lascannon are going to be fine against targets with a 2+ armor save, but that missile launcher and that heavy bolter aren't going to do much.

Enter a scaling AP modification system.

Obviously, mixing and matching weapons will likely still be a bad idea for a variety of reasons (for example, different ranges).

But do you think that the scaling AP system will make mixing and matching weapons LESS of a bad idea?

Depends on how shooting works. If it is likes 7th, I can see some utility.

No.

The problem with mixing weapon is that it always reduces the effectiveness of the unit because the guns are most efficient against different kinds of target. When two different guns are in the same unit it's impossible to have both guns be as efficient as possible at the same time because one of the two always has to be shooting at a less optimal target

AP wasn't THE sole factor, it just was one of the determining factors for what a gun was most efficient against. But switching for AP to armor modifiers is barely a change in this regard. After all if you shot a -4 armor gun at a unit of orks you are still wasting the potential of that gun just like if you shot an ap2 weapon at those orks, so on and so forth.

Basically what CrownAxe said.

It might make them MORE viable than they were in 7th, but that doesn't mean they'll become [Reasonably/sufficently] viable.

From what we've seen, there's good reason to believe that Missile Launchers, Autocannons, and other "only scratches the paint job like a bolter would in 7th" weapons will be better against 2+ armor than they used to be.

That doesn't mean that firepower wouldn't be reasonably sufficient only if aimed somewhere else, though.

I don't think mixed weapons were ever ruled out totally, i often run drop pod devs with 2 melta, 2 grav. Similarly mixed lascannons and missile launchers, it depends on synergy and what you're targeting.

I think it could help mixed weapons but there will still be restrictions if you want all those weapons to work efficiently that will likley work out the same. For example i'd still expect grav and melta to be shorter ranges than lascannons and missile launchers.

With weapons now guaranteed to be able to hurt everything then throwing in a heavy bolter to cut points and increase versatility may be useful depending on it's statline.

Plasma cannons could become amazing if they do d6 wounds with a good rending value.

I think it'd be possible to have a 5 man dev squad with a lascannon, missile launcher, heavy bolter and plasma cannon and use it effectively. Sit it in backfield ruins with good sight and it should bring the hurt to all vehicles, MC's and heavy infantry.

It really depends on weapons statlines.

I really don't know how they could devise a system whereby mixed weapons units would be as effective as a squad devoted to a single weapon. I would love it if it were. I suppose they could just require five man units to be composed of all different weapon holders, or somehow buff units that have mixed weapons, but I really don't see that happening.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Basically what CrownAxe said.

It might make them MORE viable than they were in 7th, but that doesn't mean they'll become [Reasonably/sufficently] viable.

I'm inclined to think you're right about this, though I'm not so sure. See below.

From what we've seen, there's good reason to believe that Missile Launchers, Autocannons, and other "only scratches the paint job like a bolter would in 7th" weapons will be better against 2+ armor than they used to be.

This is where things get interesting. By and large, what we are seeing is a slight nerf to 2+ and 3+ armor saves overall, since AP 3 and 4 can now modify a 2+ save, and AP 4 can now modify a 3+ armor save. However, we're also seeing a nerf to AP in general. AP 4 presumably will no longer negate a 4+ armor save. It will merely reduce it to a 5+, and if they go with the AoS rules for this, you can get it right back down to a 4+ simply by being in cover. Mutatis mutandis, ditto for AP 1-3: they likely will not be able to be counted on simply to negate armor saves. (If AP 1 = Rending -4, that means that a 2+ armor save would become a 6+...or a 5+ in cover.)

What is the point that I'm making?

It's looking like armor in general is becoming more durable, whereas AP in general seems to be slightly less useful.

I'm not entirely sure what my point in all of this is, but it is worth noting:

All of a sudden, that heavy bolter is more effective against terminators, and if you want to negate a 4+ armor save, you are going to need to hit it with a Rending -3 (formerly AP 2) weapon.

I guess my overall question is:

What impact do you think this will have on the meta?

Because it seems like there's going to be some overlap in terms of what weapon A and weapon B will be "useful against."

Not likely, not unless Split Fire becomes the norm everywhere. Even then, you're still better off having separate units for different weapons. You're still going to have the issue of different ranges, and different weapons having different optimal targets.

Tradito you're focusing to much on the one of the changes to weapons in 8th. Your are forgetting that there are two other important factors for weapons which is RoF and Damage. Anti-Infantry weapons are now getting a drastic jump in RoF it seems such as with the flamer being d6 auto hitting shots while the anti-tank/TEQ weapon is high rending with d6 wounds for damage. The thing those is that the d6 wonds don't bleed over like they do in AoS so shooting a lascannon at a 1W model is wasting the potential 6 -3 armor wounds on the Lascannon while shooting the flamer is still going to lose 5/6 of its damage to 2+ saves from terminators.

The way weapons function still aren't going to happily lend them selves to mixing each other

 CrownAxe wrote:
Tradito you're focusing to much on the one of the changes to weapons in 8th. Your are forgetting that there are two other important factors for weapons which is RoF and Damage. Anti-Infantry weapons are now getting a drastic jump in RoF it seems such as with the flamer being d6 auto hitting shots while the anti-tank/TEQ weapon is high rending with d6 wounds for damage. The thing those is that the d6 wonds don't bleed over like they do in AoS so shooting a lascannon at a 1W model is wasting the potential 6 -3 armor wounds on the Lascannon while shooting the flamer is still going to lose 5/6 of its damage to 2+ saves from terminators.

The way weapons function still aren't going to happily lend them selves to mixing each other

That basically sounds right.

But I still think that even though it's going to be a bad idea still, it won't be as laughably useless as it is now.

Do you share this view, or do you disagree?

Mixed weapons can work as an "army wide" view, but not as a single unit view. It's the classic generalist vs specialist. If your army is mobile, you'll get to choose your targets, so specialization is better.

If your army is static, your opponent will choose your targets for you [IE. What you can see after your crappy movement ] so taking a variety of weapons lets you deal with whatever target you have available. For example, Guardsmen with 8 lasguns can handle Orks, but they can't handle tanks, so you take an Autocannon... but they can't handle Terminators so you give them a Plasmagun. You aren't good against any particular thing, but you're able to reasonably [for the points] handle a wide variety of things. If you put 4 of those units side-by-side, then for your points you can tackle most anything that comes your way. Which is important, since you don't get to pick your targets.

So mixed weaponry has always been a staple of poor movement armies. Going back to Guard, the only specialists you see are Veterans, where they can take 3 specials... and investing in transports for them is worthwhile. Otherwise, not so much.

I'll give it tentative maybe, leaning towards no. We don't know enough about 8th edition to give it a true answer. When the book is in my tendrils I shall dissect it, and help youse figure stuff like this out.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I really don't know how they could devise a system whereby mixed weapons units would be as effective as a squad devoted to a single weapon. I would love it if it were. I suppose they could just require five man units to be composed of all different weapon holders, or somehow buff units that have mixed weapons, but I really don't see that happening.

Split-Fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you have more than two heavy weapon profiles in a unit the unit gains the Split-Fire special rule. Suggestion for a benefit in mixed units.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I really don't know how they could devise a system whereby mixed weapons units would be as effective as a squad devoted to a single weapon. I would love it if it were. I suppose they could just require five man units to be composed of all different weapon holders, or somehow buff units that have mixed weapons, but I really don't see that happening.

Split-Fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you have more than two heavy weapon profiles in a unit the unit gains the Split-Fire special rule. Suggestion for a benefit in mixed units.

That's a neat idea and would certainly improve them. Still not as good as a non mixed weapon unit, but definitely worth a look.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I really don't know how they could devise a system whereby mixed weapons units would be as effective as a squad devoted to a single weapon. I would love it if it were. I suppose they could just require five man units to be composed of all different weapon holders, or somehow buff units that have mixed weapons, but I really don't see that happening.

Split-Fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you have more than two heavy weapon profiles in a unit the unit gains the Split-Fire special rule. Suggestion for a benefit in mixed units.

That's a neat idea and would certainly improve them. Still not as good as a non mixed weapon unit, but definitely worth a look.

Space Wolves Long Fangs get it, I was suprised to find out Vanilla Dev Squads don't.

Probably not.

If they allow different weapons in the same unit to target different units then I can see them viable, yes.

I am a big fan of mixed weapon squads in general with miniatures war games. However, I will agree that they tend to be less effective than dedicated squads.

Some of the reasons are:
You are paying for equipment that covers the whole battlefield, but chances are your opponent is not going to spread their forces out equally well to allow you to maximum all the weapons in these squads. That's assuming split firing is allow in the game, without it; mixed squad almost never work.

With only one or two soldiers carrying a given weapon type, you greatly reduce the chances of hitting/damaging compared to a large squad.

If mixed weapons squad takes casualties you risk completely losing some of the special weapons you were planning to use. This can be less of an issue in games where you pick the casualty.



Making use of mixed weapon squads work best when you buy several of these squads to have the widest coverage or overlapping support of each other. Otherwise you will have gaps on the table for you opponent to exploit.

I think it works best for smaller games where players can't take everything they want. Mixed squads give you something to threaten everything a little bit.

It works on smaller tables. It might oddly enough work good for really big games where there is so much stuff models are tripping over each over.

They also work well as the mop up crew if your normally dedicated weapon doesn't destroy the target but would be overkill to attack again and there are other threats it should deal with instead.

I would like to have 8th edition allow mixed squads work. Most of my models were built with the widest amount of options as I think they look better that way. Too bad they don't play well that way.

Mixed Weapons that are focused on the same or similar targets?

Maybe

Full Rainbow? Never

Do we know if everyone gets Split Fire?

The only way I see it being viable is if they changed the rules so that we resolve shooting on a weapon-by-weapon basis (like on the current GMCs).

This would make mixed-weapon units slightly superior to mono-units as they would both have similar damage outputs, but mix weapon units can dodge having one type of weapon wiped out due to it's unit being wiped out. It also means if for some reason you only need one or two instances of a weapon you can just buy one Dev squad as opposed to buying two or three min size tacticals.

I have for years used a Long Fang Pack with:
>Las-Cannon x2
>Missile Launcher x2
>Heavy Bolter x1

With the Split Fire it has always performed well, though normally it is the only Long Fang Pack I would bring. The other one is of course the 5 Missile Launcher load out.
The first one (it started life as what was left in my bits box) always out performed the 5xML pack in almost every game.

As long as there is a 'Split Fire' rule I see this not changing munch.

Honestly, the thing that makes mixing weapons in 8th seem viable is the fact that everything has a T vavlue and AV is gone.
The new AP helps a bit too, but not as much.

Range will still be a big factor as you will still want your weapons to match range as closely as you can