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.

One of the things that's bothered me for several versions of 40K has become the matched pairs and "fixed" same loadouts for units. In 5E and prior, it made a lot of sense keep units with exactly the same weapon as you couldn't split fire and models were more or less handled in blobs instead of as individuals.

However, I'd really like to see GW move away from "pure" loadouts to mixed loadouts.

Some examples below:

- Castellan robots that could take one fist, one gun instead of 2x of one type.
- Sponsons that could be different - for example a Leman Russ with a melta sponson on the left, and a bolter sponson on the right; or a Land Raider with one twin Lascannon sponson on the left and a Hurricane sponson on the right.
- Aggressors with one guy sporting flame guns, the other two with bolters or the whole squad with one bolter, one flamer each.
- One datasheet for Terminators (instead of Terminators/Terminators assault) - with some of the squad taking power fist & storm bolter, and a specialist or two with twin lightning claws or thunder hammers. Or maybe all fist & bolters or all melee weapons - but just one datasheet for it.

Fun fact: Dark Angels do get access to mixed shooty and assault Terminators in one unit! And basically no one mixes in the same squad, because you want the job of the unit to either be shooting or fighting, not a bit of both.

Still, nice to have the option if you have a narrative reason for it. And yeah, condensing down the datasheets without losing options seems reasonable.

Well plenty of that won't happen for simple reason: no model, no rules.

Also gamers wouldn't do that anyway as in terms of efficiency it makes little sense to mix and match. 40k is game of specialization than generalization

tneva82 wrote:
Well plenty of that won't happen for simple reason: no model, no rules.
Also gamers wouldn't do that anyway as in terms of efficiency it makes little sense to mix and match. 40k is game of specialization than generalization

It is now - but it never used to be that way. In fact, you can see a trend over the years in previous editions of specific units getting less and less options as time goes by.
This is what makes me think that GW is actively pursuing killing off the mixing and matching that OP is after.

It's a bit of a shame, admittedly, but ultimately I see the point in doing it. Having too many different weapons in a unit slows the game down a great deal, anyone that ever played 2nd ed can tell you that.

tneva82 wrote:
Well plenty of that won't happen for simple reason: no model, no rules.

Also gamers wouldn't do that anyway as in terms of efficiency it makes little sense to mix and match. 40k is game of specialization than generalization

I fully agree on your second point. Although it would be nice for more laid back narrative players. Generalist TAC units do well in friendly play, and have the advantage that while they might not be maximally effective, are rarely unless. One of the perks of being a jack of all trades unit.

Your first point is only partially correct. Units like terminators are sold in separate boxes, but for many units it’s just building the different options in the same kit. And squads like scouts, where you can mix snipers/MLs in with bolters/CC/HBs shows that you can have cross-box mixes in wargear.

I think going to the extreme of asymmetrical sponsons on tanks would anger the machine spirits. Plus would probably be rough on logistics and internal layouts for ammo feed/storage/capacitor banks. Or even balance and engine/tread wear/stress.

In general I always prefer more options. My one concern would be by opening up more choices, you create a lot of “trap” picks, which can be rough for new players. Or the flip isde, sometimes you might open up some min/max cheese combo. But IMHO the advantages outweigh the dangers.

 Nevelon wrote:
Your first point is only partially correct. Units like terminators are sold in separate boxes, but for many units it’s just building the different options in the same kit. And squads like scouts, where you can mix snipers/MLs in with bolters/CC/HBs shows that you can have cross-box mixes in wargear.

This is looking at the boxes in the wrong way, though. Almost all the examples of mixed wargear unit boxes are older ones, including Scouts. Newer boxes typically remove wargear options if the box gets updated - that, or the datasheet removes options that weren't in the kit to begin with, and previously required conversion to have.
The only exceptions to this that I can think of are Tactical Marines, Chaos Marines and Havocs.

Terminators are a good example, because a long time ago you used to be able to give each individual Terminator assault weapons instead of the storm bolter/power fist combo, and still have a heavy weapon in there. But that was back when they were sold as individual metal models - the change to having either Tactical or Assault Terminators as different units came around the time they were put into plastic instead.
Meanwhile, newer armies established after 2nd/3rd ed had units with more limited wargear options right out of the gate. Take Tau Fire Warriors for example, or Necron Warriors, or Immortals. You're looking at a special weapon or two max, nothing like individual model choices.

What I'm getting at is where GW still sell boxes with varied wargear options, is largely because they're ensuring some degree of backwards compatibility with what those units could take previously. That's not guaranteed to stay that way forever though, and it's clear they're phasing that kind of thing out, albeit veeeeery slowly.

A case could also be made that allowing mixed wargear would help people transition from Kill Team (where it is encouraged) to 9th edition (where it is not)

I’m saddened by the limiting of options. Is what it is.

This is basically Deathwatch's whole design and it will quickly teach you why its a bad idea.

I think it could be done, but it requires some significant changes in how weapons are paid for by units.

 Stormonu wrote:
One of the things that's bothered me for several versions of 40K has become the matched pairs and "fixed" same loadouts for units. In 5E and prior, it made a lot of sense keep units with exactly the same weapon as you couldn't split fire and models were more or less handled in blobs instead of as individuals.

However, I'd really like to see GW move away from "pure" loadouts to mixed loadouts.

Some examples below:

- Castellan robots that could take one fist, one gun instead of 2x of one type.
- Sponsons that could be different - for example a Leman Russ with a melta sponson on the left, and a bolter sponson on the right; or a Land Raider with one twin Lascannon sponson on the left and a Hurricane sponson on the right.
- Aggressors with one guy sporting flame guns, the other two with bolters or the whole squad with one bolter, one flamer each.
- One datasheet for Terminators (instead of Terminators/Terminators assault) - with some of the squad taking power fist & storm bolter, and a specialist or two with twin lightning claws or thunder hammers. Or maybe all fist & bolters or all melee weapons - but just one datasheet for it.

I mentally like the idea of a hermaphrodite land raider for the Emperor's Children. [after all, that's what a tank with 1 gun and 1 machine gun sponson was called]. That said, I wouldn't go as far as to say it should be allowed in the game as more than a historical joke.

Actually, I dislike all but the terminators suggesting you've offered. I don't mind units that have specialists in them, but I think mix/match per model for the whole unit is just silly.

I really dislike the look of a gun team like Devastators where every guy has a different heavy weapon.

Another perk for the all the same gear is that it speeds up play.

When I built my Vanguard Vets, I gave them all sorts of options. These were the cream of the chapter, with unfettered access to the armory. They could all have their favorite toys. Swords, axes, claws, fists, spears, mauls, harsh language. The whole gamut.

On the table, it was a hot mess. Who’s in contact with who? Who’s still alive? And as this was in 6-7th, which initiative step it was.

Fun and flavorful, but glad I used magnets. Slimmed down the options I fielded them with down to 1-2 for the squad, and the sarge doing his own thing.

Bringing it back to 2nd ed, it wasn't just Vanguard Vets with that kind of granularity - it was pretty much every other squad.
Check out this pic from the Ultramarines Codex. The Tacs and Devs aren't TOO bad, but that Assault squad...

Yes, that's 2 power fists, 2 hand flamers, 3 power swords, and 4 plasma pistols! Plus of course, 5 chainswords and 4 bolt pistols.

Or, check out this Death Company:

Yet more nonsense, except this time we have a mix of bolters and assault weapons - plus that one guy has a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol. Bearing in mind that back in 2nd ed, that model couldn't fire both pistols in the same turn.


...no, mummy, I don't want to talk about 2nd ed Wolf Guard, I don't want to and you can't make me, I'm a big boy...!! *rocks back and forth in the corner*

Total spitballing follows.

Mixed weapons are a thing in real life, despite weaponry being more specialized than in 40K. Infantry squads are regularly equipped with both machine guns (anti-infantry) and rocket launchers (anti-tank). Why is this a thing, rather than equipping every squad with multiple machine guns or multiple rocket launchers? I can think of a couple of reasons.

First, having some capability is dramatically better than having no capability. An infantry squad with no anti-tank whatsoever is at severe risk of being overrun by armor before the anti-tank squad can respond. An infantry squad with a rocket launcher or two can force armor to slow its advance enough for the other squad to redeploy to support it. And an infantry squad with an MG and a rocket launcher can suppress enemy infantry to protect the AT gunner while he lines up his shot, whereas a squad with just rockets might need the MG squad nearby to cover. Since you don't always know what you're going to be fighting, and can't guarantee that a squad that covers your weaknesses will be nearby, being prepared is valuable.

Second, multiple weapons in a single squad quickly hit diminishing returns. Two machine guns aren't twice as effective at suppression as one machine gun. Four machine guns doesn't make a squad four times as good at anti-infantry as one. Ten RPGs getting a clean shot on a vehicle isn't ten times better than one clean RPG shot.

Third, tying in with the above, the effectiveness of a weapon is a combination of capability and opportunity. Spreading your weapons out often provides more opportunity- two MGs suppressing from a single vector is not as effective as two MGs setting up a kill zone from opposite sides of an approach. A weapon team of three RPG gunners on a hill 500m away firing at a tank's front armor is not nearly as useful as a single RPG in an infantry squad 50m behind the target.

So, do these translate to 40K at all?

I think that since the value of fire in 40K comes down to raw firepower, the answer is no. Having one MG is always exactly half as useful as having two MGs. Flanking and range penalties don't exist, so being able to fire on a unit from multiple vectors is of dubious utility. Everyone has perfect information, so it's much easier than in real life for an anti-tank unit to make a beeline for the sole tank on the table.

Basically, none of the factors that reward generalizing over specialization really apply to 40K, so specialists are generally the way to go. It's always better to have one Devastator squad with quad heavy bolters and another with quad Lascannons, rather than mixing the weapons within each squad. Meanwhile, in real life, a weapons platoon is commonly equipped with a mix of mortars, HMGs, grenade launchers, and/or ATGMs.

I think to make mixed-weapon squads viable in 40K, you'd have to do a couple of things.

1. Make positioning and range matter. If having a weapon be closer to the enemy or flanking provided significant bonuses over engaging from max range in my backfield, then I might consider spreading out capabilities among my maneuver elements.

2. Implement friction, so that fire is useful for more than just killing. If shooting a heavy bolter at a squad of infantry forced it to slow down and move more cautiously, then that would give it utility. A Devastator squad with a mix of anti-tank weapons plus a heavy bolter to pin threatening infantry wouldn't feel useless- especially if, in conjunction with #1, your Tactical squad could then flank the infantry to wipe them out.

But under the current rules, even if the option to mix more were available, I don't see why players would go for it. Why mix sponsons when you can optimize towards your intended role for the unit? Why mix weapons on Devastators when it just makes them harder to use effectively? In a game that comes down to efficiency of killing, specialization maximizes that efficiency.

^Exalted

Two more observations:
In 40K the grouping of units is way, waaay, tighter than it would be in real life. Despite many tables having "ruins", the types of forces deployed in a 40K battle would be spread out over a far greater area, and there would be far more interference with LOS. When forces can't all be in direct LOS support of each other, it makes more sense to divvy up capabilities in a way that every unit has "some" AT or anti-infantry.

Technical "acktually":
Loyalist Devastators have a minor incentive to diversify their weapons a bit because they can choose to fire one of them twice. Having at least two weapons in the squad of different capabilities means you can optimize that ability to shoot one additional time based on your tactical situation. That might be a "40K-simple" direction to take to incentive mixed gear without getting into suppression mechanics and overlapping arcs of fire.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Exalted

Two more observations:
In 40K the grouping of units is way, waaay, tighter than it would be in real life. Despite many tables having "ruins", the types of forces deployed in a 40K battle would be spread out over a far greater area, and there would be far more interference with LOS. When forces can't all be in direct LOS support of each other, it makes more sense to divvy up capabilities in a way that every unit has "some" AT or anti-infantry.

Technical "acktually":
Loyalist Devastators have a minor incentive to diversify their weapons a bit because they can choose to fire one of them twice. Having at least two weapons in the squad of different capabilities means you can optimize that ability to shoot one additional time based on your tactical situation. That might be a "40K-simple" direction to take to incentive mixed gear without getting into suppression mechanics and overlapping arcs of fire.

That real only incentive was the use the Helfire round for the Heavy Bolter and get twice the effect. Without that SINGLE Strat there would be no mixed weapons.

 Super Ready wrote:
Or, check out this Death Company:

Yet more nonsense, except this time we have a mix of bolters and assault weapons - plus that one guy has a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol. Bearing in mind that back in 2nd ed, that model couldn't fire both pistols in the same turn.

Friend of mine got that box and built every mini to match the ones on the box. It was crazy.

And my original Assault Squad was a little more wild in its armaments. I had matched pairs of:

Plasma Pistol + Power Fist
Laspistol + Power Sword (yes, on Marines)
Hand Flamer + Power Axe
Bolt Pistol + Chainsword

^2nd Ed Assault Squads were the best assault squads. I'd prefer they just drop Vanguard and give Assault Squads more weapon options.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Two more observations:
In 40K the grouping of units is way, waaay, tighter than it would be in real life. Despite many tables having "ruins", the types of forces deployed in a 40K battle would be spread out over a far greater area, and there would be far more interference with LOS. When forces can't all be in direct LOS support of each other, it makes more sense to divvy up capabilities in a way that every unit has "some" AT or anti-infantry.

Yeah, and the other side to that- which I didn't mention in the 'how to fix' section, since it's damned hard to implement in a wargame- is imperfect information. If your company has a 600m frontage on defense and you don't know exactly where threats are coming from, it's going to be very hard to put your single-concentrated-anti-tank squad somewhere where it'll be guaranteed to be useful. Having one AT4 here and now when a T72 suddenly appears over the ridge is a lot more situationally useful than a bunch of AT4s in the weapons team that had no idea a tank was coming and are 400m away.

I think it's underappreciated just how much perfect information skews tabletop wargames. You have to work in some very abstract mechanics (reducing movement rates when near the enemy to represent caution due to possible ambush, for example) to get things to behave realistically. The real-world need for flexibility to handle unexpected threats is tough to model.

I would love to be able to have a sctarreshield as well as a heavy wraithcannon on a wriathknight as an option. Or one sun cannon and one heavy wraithcannon... Not that its good in any configuration currently.... But it can be built this way so no idea why it has to have two wraithcannons or none at all.

Back in 3rd edition you did your best to gear units to do one thing.

That means you didn't take a heavy weapon on your tactical squad, but rather you pulled those models out and made a devastator squad of all lascannons. Focused unit loadouts have been a thing basically forever.

As a result the game has naturally drifted that way. Admittedly a part of that is also the "no model no rules" outlook, but there's more to it than just that. The only difference now is that taking a tactical squad with a flamer and a lascannon isn't wasting one gun or the other.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Back in 3rd edition you did your best to gear units to do one thing.

That means you didn't take a heavy weapon on your tactical squad...

3rd Ed was the edition where the 6-man Tactical Squad w/Lascannon & Plasma Gun ruled. You didn't take heavy weapons out of your tac squads. You ensured you had as many min-maxed units as possible.

3rd ed introduced the rule that a unit could only shoot at one other unit, so firepower was routinely sacrificed depending on what target you're shooting at. On the flipside, heavy weapons on non-dedicated units cost less. A Lascannon was 15 points for a Tactical Squad, but 35 for a Devastator Squad. That made the 5 man Tac squad with a Lascannon look pretty good.

 Stux wrote:
Fun fact: Dark Angels do get access to mixed shooty and assault Terminators in one unit! And basically no one mixes in the same squad, because you want the job of the unit to either be shooting or fighting, not a bit of both.

Still, nice to have the option if you have a narrative reason for it. And yeah, condensing down the datasheets without losing options seems reasonable.

I do it in Command Squads a little. At least when Command Squads were a thing.

catbarf wrote:Total spitballing follows.

Mixed weapons are a thing in real life, despite weaponry being more specialized than in 40K. Infantry squads are regularly equipped with both machine guns (anti-infantry) and rocket launchers (anti-tank). Why is this a thing, rather than equipping every squad with multiple machine guns or multiple rocket launchers? I can think of a couple of reasons.

First, having some capability is dramatically better than having no capability. An infantry squad with no anti-tank whatsoever is at severe risk of being overrun by armor before the anti-tank squad can respond. An infantry squad with a rocket launcher or two can force armor to slow its advance enough for the other squad to redeploy to support it. And an infantry squad with an MG and a rocket launcher can suppress enemy infantry to protect the AT gunner while he lines up his shot, whereas a squad with just rockets might need the MG squad nearby to cover. Since you don't always know what you're going to be fighting, and can't guarantee that a squad that covers your weaknesses will be nearby, being prepared is valuable.

Second, multiple weapons in a single squad quickly hit diminishing returns. Two machine guns aren't twice as effective at suppression as one machine gun. Four machine guns doesn't make a squad four times as good at anti-infantry as one. Ten RPGs getting a clean shot on a vehicle isn't ten times better than one clean RPG shot.

Third, tying in with the above, the effectiveness of a weapon is a combination of capability and opportunity. Spreading your weapons out often provides more opportunity- two MGs suppressing from a single vector is not as effective as two MGs setting up a kill zone from opposite sides of an approach. A weapon team of three RPG gunners on a hill 500m away firing at a tank's front armor is not nearly as useful as a single RPG in an infantry squad 50m behind the target.

So, do these translate to 40K at all?

I think that since the value of fire in 40K comes down to raw firepower, the answer is no. Having one MG is always exactly half as useful as having two MGs. Flanking and range penalties don't exist, so being able to fire on a unit from multiple vectors is of dubious utility. Everyone has perfect information, so it's much easier than in real life for an anti-tank unit to make a beeline for the sole tank on the table.

Basically, none of the factors that reward generalizing over specialization really apply to 40K, so specialists are generally the way to go. It's always better to have one Devastator squad with quad heavy bolters and another with quad Lascannons, rather than mixing the weapons within each squad. Meanwhile, in real life, a weapons platoon is commonly equipped with a mix of mortars, HMGs, grenade launchers, and/or ATGMs.

I think to make mixed-weapon squads viable in 40K, you'd have to do a couple of things.

1. Make positioning and range matter. If having a weapon be closer to the enemy or flanking provided significant bonuses over engaging from max range in my backfield, then I might consider spreading out capabilities among my maneuver elements.

2. Implement friction, so that fire is useful for more than just killing. If shooting a heavy bolter at a squad of infantry forced it to slow down and move more cautiously, then that would give it utility. A Devastator squad with a mix of anti-tank weapons plus a heavy bolter to pin threatening infantry wouldn't feel useless- especially if, in conjunction with #1, your Tactical squad could then flank the infantry to wipe them out.

But under the current rules, even if the option to mix more were available, I don't see why players would go for it. Why mix sponsons when you can optimize towards your intended role for the unit? Why mix weapons on Devastators when it just makes them harder to use effectively? In a game that comes down to efficiency of killing, specialization maximizes that efficiency.

As a side note, in 2018, the US Marine Corps decided to remove from the rifle squad the man with the missile launcher. The missile launchers aren't gone, but they're now at the platoon and company level.
The US Army infantry squad also does not have a dedicated AT man in the squad; which has 2 machine guns, 2 guys with rifles with underslung grenade launchers, and 5 guys with rifles [1 leader, 2 fire team leaders, 2 riflemen]. The dedicated AT is provided by a platoon weapons section. [There's also 2 AT-4 disposable launchers in the squad, but those aren't nearly as effective as Javelins or recoil-less rifles, and also there's only 2 shots total.]

In general, this is because "specialization vs generalization" isn't exactly coherent like that. In general, generalist groups are built out of specialist parts, because specialist units are more effective. Whatever level of organization you are at, you want to be able to handle any threat organically, but you also want all the pieces you're using to do it to be specialist. And this basically applies at every level, because the guy above you would like your unit to be specialist and the guy below you would like their unit to be generalist. So exactly how much specialist, how much generalist, and at what level varies.


Also, a weapons section in a platoon, or weapons platoon in a company, doesn't have all those things so that it can engage every possible target better than the rifle squads. Otherwise, the platoon would be made out of weapons sections. It's because the weapons section is basically a collector for "all the token generalist capability the platoon needs to function that we didn't give to the rifle squads."

Insectum7 wrote:^Exalted

Two more observations:
In 40K the grouping of units is way, waaay, tighter than it would be in real life. Despite many tables having "ruins", the types of forces deployed in a 40K battle would be spread out over a far greater area, and there would be far more interference with LOS. When forces can't all be in direct LOS support of each other, it makes more sense to divvy up capabilities in a way that every unit has "some" AT or anti-infantry.

Technical "acktually":
Loyalist Devastators have a minor incentive to diversify their weapons a bit because they can choose to fire one of them twice. Having at least two weapons in the squad of different capabilities means you can optimize that ability to shoot one additional time based on your tactical situation. That might be a "40K-simple" direction to take to incentive mixed gear without getting into suppression mechanics and overlapping arcs of fire.

While I think the density of units is too dense for a good game, there have been battles, especially urban ones, where the force density was similar to what we see on the board.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
In general, this is because "specialization vs generalization" isn't exactly coherent like that. In general, generalist groups are built out of specialist parts, because specialist units are more effective. Whatever level of organization you are at, you want to be able to handle any threat organically, but you also want all the pieces you're using to do it to be specialist. And this basically applies at every level, because the guy above you would like your unit to be specialist and the guy below you would like their unit to be generalist. So exactly how much specialist, how much generalist, and at what level varies.

This. Also, on a side note, when you read memoirs of any war from between 1914 to 1980s, one thing is striking - armchair generals always try to mix and match weapons in squads so your army can take on anything, then the real war comes, and life quickly verifies the paper theories - usually by dropping useless junk (sometimes literally, with trenches being littered with discarded gear even though it was punishable...) and focusing. Having one gun support advance of your company in WW1 is nowhere near as effective as pulling guns from other fronts and doing it with 20. Having one tank supporting infantry is largely wasting that tank, and the success of WW2 blitzkrieg (despite all the deficiencies and ineptitude of German army) was mostly due to the fact they actually massed the tanks/machine guns/artillery and applied it in one point.

Germans and Soviets also noted big jumps in effectiveness in late war when they introduced more focused units - say, an infantry squad armed with all submachine guns did better in storming trench than one with a mix of rifles, machine guns, and smgs. Anti-tank artillery worked better when you didn't dole it out along the front to be overwhelmed and destroyed in detail, but massed to defeat enemy advance. Tank regiments work better when you have stuff doing the same thing, instead of mixing stuff for every eventuality (which bit the Germans in the ass in late war as they were pressing everything they could build resulting in tank units having 10+ different vehicles on hand which greatly degraded their effectiveness despite defending being relatively simple task). Etc, etc.