Specialise or Generalise?

[shortysl]

What does the general consensus seem to be these days regarding weapon loadout in Veteran squads?

 

Does anyone still build their squads according to the unique kill-team types (Malleus, Purgator, Venator etc) and risk having all their eggs in one basket, or is it best to have a variety of weapons and roles in each squad?

[Qui-Gon]

I specialize each of my squads to have a particular style of job.

 

First thing is uniformity of weapon choices*.

 

If someone has a bolter, they all get bolters.
If someone has a storm bolter, they all get storm bolters.

If someone has a stalker pattern boltgun, they all get spbs.

If someone has (insert style of bolt rifle), they all get the same.

* Heavy weapons not withstanding.

 

The reason for this is it is a holdover from previous edition thinking that still holds true. In prior editions you had to shoot everything at one target, instead of model by model as it is now. Then, it was efficient and ideal to stick to the same type of weapon statline so that you didn't have an anti tank weapon shooting at infantry (and being ridiculous overkill), or your anti infantry weapons shooting at tanks (and thus being wasted).

It still applies in this edition where it is rare you want to split your fire (either because of targets of opportunity, forced target selection, not in range, a more important need to kill THAT thing...etc.). So I stick to one type of weapon loadout per unit.

[anarchistscourge]

I generally make use of 3 kill teams or variations thereof. 10 man SB squad to teleport in, or if I’m using fragcannons I’ll stick hem in rhino/ corvus.

5 man stalker team to camp backfield with heavy Bolter for the mortal wound strategem, maybe a ML if I’m light on anti tank.

Next is a 5-6 man squad to go in razorbacks occasionally with combI Melta.

I tend to find fragcannons the most versatile and can deal with lots of threats.

 

I go by the redundancy rule and almost always field 2 battalions so double up on most squads but keep each squad pretty focused. I find if you go versatile they lack the punch they need

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I like to mix it up for the diversity .

[Prot]

 

I like to specialize generally.

 

In 7 th I think this was a much more important factor. The way split fire works, and even wound allocation, I think it matters far less.

 

My squads are pretty mixed up as far as shooting, but I rarely mix shooting with CC. Only the odd ‘ body guard’ might be included in a really juicy, honeypot type unit.

 

I think keeping them general, also allows for slightly cheaper units. I see too many people with essentially what I would call “ dev” squads cannon balling in and then they’re gone. Meanwhile most of the other squads just have Bolters or whatnot.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Split fire means you don’t have to build specifically anymore. As an example why not to take for a squad of vets with four frag cannons... it will draw heavy fire and each gunner is roughly twice the points as a vet with a storm bolter and chainsword. One of the great things about the new codex is you can mix Primaris types into one squad.

[Inquisitor Red]

I specialize each of my squads to have a particular style of job.

 

First thing is uniformity of weapon choices*.

 

If someone has a bolter, they all get bolters.

If someone has a storm bolter, they all get storm bolters.

If someone has a stalker pattern boltgun, they all get spbs.

If someone has (insert style of bolt rifle), they all get the same.

* Heavy weapons not withstanding.

 

The reason for this is it is a holdover from previous edition thinking that still holds true. In prior editions you had to shoot everything at one target, instead of model by model as it is now. Then, it was efficient and ideal to stick to the same type of weapon statline so that you didn't have an anti tank weapon shooting at infantry (and being ridiculous overkill), or your anti infantry weapons shooting at tanks (and thus being wasted).

 

It still applies in this edition where it is rare you want to split your fire (either because of targets of opportunity, forced target selection, not in range, a more important need to kill THAT thing...etc.). So I stick to one type of weapon loadout per unit.

 

Preach it brother! I couldn't agree with you more, and it this is still my philosophy in 40k. I want my squads to be tools designed to do one task well, and its on me as a tactician to make sure I put them in a position to succeed at that one job. Then let our specialization be our mission tactics/special ammo, which only sharpens each tool to do its job better.

[Mobius0288]

Yes to both.  A hybrid list is a good way to go. Standard bolters/storm bolters for most troops (since SIA is so good), and sprinkling in some special weapons. I've gone away from a dedicated type of unit with the exception of my melta squad that I deep strike. It's cheaper, it gets more bodies on the table and I try to combat squad my specialty troops with termies or VV when appropriate.

[Kallas]

Split fire means you don’t have to build specifically anymore. As an example why not to take for a squad of vets with four frag cannons... it will draw heavy fire and each gunner is roughly twice the points as a vet with a storm bolter and chainsword. One of the great things about the new codex is you can mix Primaris types into one squad.

That's one of the nice things: both ways to build are actually reasonable.

 

The counter-point to spreading out your weapons is that it's harder to bring all of your buffs to bear (eg, the various Doctrines are much less valuable when applied to one FC as opposed to four!), and stuffing lots of powerful weapons in to one squad is useful for other things (eg, less overhead costs of additional bodies; or only needing to spend 1CP to teleport; etc) but, as you say, it's much easier for the opponent to concentrate fire on the single squad.

 

So it's swings and roundabouts, which is good!

 

Both specialised and generalist squads have their merits, it mostly depends on personal preference.

[Mobius0288]

 

Split fire means you don’t have to build specifically anymore. As an example why not to take for a squad of vets with four frag cannons... it will draw heavy fire and each gunner is roughly twice the points as a vet with a storm bolter and chainsword. One of the great things about the new codex is you can mix Primaris types into one squad.

That's one of the nice things: both ways to build are actually reasonable.

 

The counter-point to spreading out your weapons is that it's harder to bring all of your buffs to bear (eg, the various Doctrines are much less valuable when applied to one FC as opposed to four!), and stuffing lots of powerful weapons in to one squad is useful for other things (eg, less overhead costs of additional bodies; or only needing to spend 1CP to teleport; etc) but, as you say, it's much easier for the opponent to concentrate fire on the single squad.

 

So it's swings and roundabouts, which is good!

 

Both specialised and generalist squads have their merits, it mostly depends on personal preference.

 

 

There's definitely validity in what you're saying. I've lately been feeling like that's why we've been given these doctrines, to help normalize a very diversely weaponized squads. The cost is what kills me. It also creates a much longer game which bothers some people as well.

[vigitant]

I choose units to do roles, and build them accordingly.  So I specialize to a degree.  Anything added to increase versatility has to work within the framework of its role, or it means that im paying for less value.

For instance, adding a heavy bolter to my standard veteran squad(2 SB/shield vets, a PS/SB termie, VV, a frag cannon, everything else with a Storm Bolter/CS)..
    Doesn't help much.  For me, the unit pushes the enemy out from the leviathan, and screens for it.  That is its job.  Adding a HB doesnt help do that.  Moving/deep striking reduces its value.  Shooting at 12" reduces it value. 

   It's important to plan not only for what a unit is supposed to do, but also for what it might have to do as well.  This is why i put chainswords and a vanguard in.  The unit isnt built to be in melee, but it might have to be in melee, and it's not much of an investment to give it a :cuss ton of CS attacks.  But if I put a Thunder hammer or two in, a power sword/plasma pistol on the vangaurd, powerfist or TH/SS on the termie...  It would quickly get out of hand.  At that point to get good value I'd have to be in melee and at 12", and it would be enough points investment to be bad screen.

[zero88]

One rule I always go by with Veteran squads is there will always be at least one storm shield, even in a Stalker squad. This is one of the best advantages of regular veterans and if you get hot on your rolls, you can really mess with an opponents shooting plan.

[Qui-Gon]

A storm shield managed to brick two separate Custodes Shield Captain charges. My opponent was speachless as the shield stopped the damage cold.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Storm shields can do some really amazing things for sure the Dice willing .

[spacewatch]

...

   It's important to plan not only for what a unit is supposed to do, but also for what it might have to do as well.  This is why i put chainswords and a vanguard in.  The unit isnt built to be in melee, but it might have to be in melee, and it's not much of an investment to give it a ton of CS attacks.  But if I put a Thunder hammer or two in, a power sword/plasma pistol on the vangaurd, powerfist or TH/SS on the termie...  It would quickly get out of hand.  At that point to get good value I'd have to be in melee and at 12", and it would be enough points investment to be bad screen.

 

I very much agree that most units should have a role. But I also like to point out that shooting and melee (I understand they were just examples here) are just two of many unit roles one should think of when building army. I mean mobility, durability, AT/AA-capabilities and so on are sometimes more important than just shooting efficiency. What makes this game interesting is that oftentimes required capability is also sum of two separate units (corvus/rhino + frag Cannons) and some of the roles can be accomplished "for free" using our rules (deepstrike) or relics (beacon angelis). 

 

What I have learned (and this may be relevant only in my play style) in these two years playing this army is that "good enough" is often better than "overwhelming". Good enough weapons to kill most of the models of the enemy infantry unit, good enough to hammer enemy vehicle useless, good enough to smash enemy character close to death ...so that supporting unit(s) can then wipe that infantry, burn that vehicle and kill that character. This way your key units are tactically usable (good enough) but do not cost too much and your tactics is not ruined if (when) you loose your key units. Deepstriking is an exception; to really shock your opponent DS units should have all the tools they need so that they do not die in vain.

[anarchistscourge]

@spacewatch. I completely agree with you point. I would love to hear some examples from what you of what you consider ‘good enough’ vs ‘overwhelming’

[Lemondish]

 

 

...

It's important to plan not only for what a unit is supposed to do, but also for what it might have to do as well. This is why i put chainswords and a vanguard in. The unit isnt built to be in melee, but it might have to be in melee, and it's not much of an investment to give it a ton of CS attacks. But if I put a Thunder hammer or two in, a power sword/plasma pistol on the vangaurd, powerfist or TH/SS on the termie... It would quickly get out of hand. At that point to get good value I'd have to be in melee and at 12", and it would be enough points investment to be bad screen.

I very much agree that most units should have a role. But I also like to point out that shooting and melee (I understand they were just examples here) are just two of many unit roles one should think of when building army. I mean mobility, durability, AT/AA-capabilities and so on are sometimes more important than just shooting efficiency. What makes this game interesting is that oftentimes required capability is also sum of two separate units (corvus/rhino + frag Cannons) and some of the roles can be accomplished "for free" using our rules (deepstrike) or relics (beacon angelis).

 

What I have learned (and this may be relevant only in my play style) in these two years playing this army is that "good enough" is often better than "overwhelming". Good enough weapons to kill most of the models of the enemy infantry unit, good enough to hammer enemy vehicle useless, good enough to smash enemy character close to death ...so that supporting unit(s) can then wipe that infantry, burn that vehicle and kill that character. This way your key units are tactically usable (good enough) but do not cost too much and your tactics is not ruined if (when) you loose your key units. Deepstriking is an exception; to really shock your opponent DS units should have all the tools they need so that they do not die in vain.

Very well said. I can't endorse the fact that "good enough" tends to be cost efficient, too.