The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
Righteousrob wrote: You need to read more of the books. The rifle plays a huge role still. Along with tactics. The guard is predicated on the rifle man.
As is my light infantry regiment. The problem is that the rules within the game make them so.
Sledgehammer wrote: The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
All true, but this is in the context of having walkers, mc's, tanks skimmers and supermen all inhabiting the same place at the same time in a tiny area of space (a 6 by 4 board - there's not much you can do with that...). This would be no different in our era - how good is a rifleman when I can take him out half a world away with a drone piloted by a guy in Arkansas?
But you won't always have walkers, mc's tanks skimmers and super,en all inhabiting the same place at the same time. Plenty battles in the 40k-iverse involve rifle armed squad is on recon missions and scouting missions and flashpoint and firefights without any support from the above. I'm sure there are just as many battles between arbites and cultists where the heaviest thing in sight is a chimera or a looted sentinel with a heavy stubber as there are with Titans during it out with super heavies and aircraft bombing waves of monstrous creatures.
If you want that, then you need to go out of your way to make it happen. Talk to your opponents, cooperate and collaborate on an 'infantry only' mission where the heaviest thing is a heavy Bolter. Put together an interesting scenario with two forces that fit the scenario and are a decent match up for each other.
The rifle part of rifleman doesn't really matter in today's wars. Infantry are there to take up space and hold ground, which they do primarily by being small targets that are difficult to kill and by scaring away other infantry by making noise and having artillery and mortars shoot at them. Rifles don't really do anything or kill anyone, but they do make infantrymen feel better about themselves by giving them something to do - which is actually really useful.
But they don't inflict casualties.
Really, the most important part of infantry combat is getting the poor soldiers to stick around. You lose battles because your guys run away, not because they get killed.
If you want that, then you need to go out of your way to make it happen. Talk to your opponents, cooperate and collaborate on an 'infantry only' mission where the heaviest thing is a heavy Bolter. Put together an interesting scenario with two forces that fit the scenario and are a decent match up for each other.
I second this. Organize a Kill Team, Combat patrol, or Zone Mortalis game. IMO, ZM is especially fun! Riflemen become much more important in these smaller game types. With the right tactics, two, maxed out DKoK Grenadier squads can absolutely lay waste to a SMTac, Termie, Scout list in ZM.
Saber wrote: The rifle part of rifleman doesn't really matter in today's wars. Infantry are there to take up space and hold ground, which they do primarily by being small targets that are difficult to kill and by scaring away other infantry by making noise and having artillery and mortars shoot at them. Rifles don't really do anything or kill anyone, but they do make infantrymen feel better about themselves by giving them something to do - which is actually really useful.
But they don't inflict casualties.
Really, the most important part of infantry combat is getting the poor soldiers to stick around. You lose battles because your guys run away, not because they get killed.
Entirely false. Armor without attached infantry elements can e easily ambushed and taken out. I recently saw some combat footage from the yemen saudi conflict in which the saudi tanks were ambushed by infantry.
Furthermore LRRPs in vietnam accounted for more than 10000 enemy KIA.
I have been drafting some stuff for a killteam though. My problem is that all riflemen do in 40k is shoot. Bounding can't be done. Suppression is impossible. Flanking serve little purpose. There really is no reason to have a light maneuverable infantry regiment when moving up on an enemy is more of a detrement than a benefit.
Saber wrote: The rifle part of rifleman doesn't really matter in today's wars. Infantry are there to take up space and hold ground, which they do primarily by being small targets that are difficult to kill and by scaring away other infantry by making noise and having artillery and mortars shoot at them. Rifles don't really do anything or kill anyone, but they do make infantrymen feel better about themselves by giving them something to do - which is actually really useful.
But they don't inflict casualties.
Really, the most important part of infantry combat is getting the poor soldiers to stick around. You lose battles because your guys run away, not because they get killed.
Entirely false. Armor without attached infantry elements can e easily ambushed and taken out. I recently saw some combat footage from the yemen saudi conflict in which the saudi tanks were ambushed by infantry.
Furthermore LRRPs in vietnam accounted for more than 10000 enemy KIA.
I have been drafting some stuff for a killteam though. My problem is that all riflemen do in 40k is shoot. Bounding can't be done. Suppression is impossible. Flanking serve little purpose. There really is no reason to have a light maneuverable infantry regiment when moving up on an enemy is more of a detrement than a benefit.
You're playing the wrong game if you want those things. Considering its scale, scope and target audience, those things don't matter as much as huge super heavies and whatever. 40k is a Science fantasy/ space opera that is so loaded by chaos and insanity and backwards ness that striding forward to duke it out with your foe with swords is seen as the cleverest thing possible.
May I direct you to a game called Infinity instead?
Sledgehammer wrote: Entirely false. Armor without attached infantry elements can e easily ambushed and taken out. I recently saw some combat footage from the yemen saudi conflict in which the saudi tanks were ambushed by infantry.
What? This generalization has some exceptions, then clearly the generalization is not applicable at all and the exact opposite is true instead. Do go on.
Sledgehammer wrote: Furthermore LRRPs in vietnam accounted for more than 10000 enemy KIA.
Out of more than a million casualties. That's less than 1%.
Rifles have not been primarily about killing people on the battlefield for well over a hundred years. So, yeah, I agree that pinning and the like should be more common and falling back due to shooting more common, but let's not pretend that rifles kill a lot of people.
Riflemen would be relevant. Just not that much in ground warfare in a barren wasteland or crumbling useless ruins. Ship boarding crews might still have use for them.
40k isn't a realistic setting. They just released rules for space marines moving terrain around for example. Infantry are required, no matter what, to hold objectives, particularly of an urban nature. 40k doesn't take that into account. Realistically, any engagement the imperium would get into would be decided by the fleet bombing the crap out of everything and then sending the guard with close air support and armoured assets in to kill off survivors. Much like they do in any contemporary US war theatre.
So yeah riflemen certainly have a place in the imagined, hard sci fi fantasy we guard player have of 40k, but maybe not the tabletop reality. But that's okay, it's still cinematic seeing them all get killed to a man. The best and most realistic thing they could to to improve the guard is expand their off-board assets like artillery and air strikes.
Infantry used to have a place in 40k. I remember infantry being quite useful back in 4th ed. Now...not so much. They just die.
If you want infantry to be usable again, the following must happen
1) SHV / GC go back to apoc where they belong 2) No ignore cover 3) No Strength D 4) No cover for MCs unless it covers 50% of them 5) Limit the number of S6+ high rof weapons
That's from the top of my head. Probably more is needed.
If you want a game that's more infantry focused, something like Infinity or Gates of Antares might by what you are looking for atm.
Saber wrote: The rifle part of rifleman doesn't really matter in today's wars. Infantry are there to take up space and hold ground, which they do primarily by being small targets that are difficult to kill and by scaring away other infantry by making noise and having artillery and mortars shoot at them. Rifles don't really do anything or kill anyone, but they do make infantrymen feel better about themselves by giving them something to do - which is actually really useful.
But they don't inflict casualties.
Really, the most important part of infantry combat is getting the poor soldiers to stick around. You lose battles because your guys run away, not because they get killed.
Entirely false. Armor without attached infantry elements can e easily ambushed and taken out. I recently saw some combat footage from the yemen saudi conflict in which the saudi tanks were ambushed by infantry.
Furthermore LRRPs in vietnam accounted for more than 10000 enemy KIA.
I have been drafting some stuff for a killteam though. My problem is that all riflemen do in 40k is shoot. Bounding can't be done. Suppression is impossible. Flanking serve little purpose. There really is no reason to have a light maneuverable infantry regiment when moving up on an enemy is more of a detrement than a benefit.
You're playing the wrong game if you want those things. Considering its scale, scope and target audience, those things don't matter as much as huge super heavies and whatever. 40k is a Science fantasy/ space opera that is so loaded by chaos and insanity and backwards ness that striding forward to duke it out with your foe with swords is seen as the cleverest thing possible.
That's a misconception. 40k isn't as stab happy as everyone seems to want to believe. Its very rare you will find generic soldiers who want to get into cc. Please show me the swords on guardsmen, or tactical marines.
Sledgehammer wrote: The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential.
In modern day, between one human and another.
With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Therein lies the problem.
We can't generalise rifles to compare to these things because they don't exist in modern day. The truth is, the rifleman IS outmatched by these things. Explain to me how a guy with a rifle can bring down something like a Trygon or Riptide. It's just so unlikely it's not funny.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
Except it's not just one squad against another - it's a unit of infantry, fighting a unit of highly trained, genetically engineered, well armoured/armed killing machines, or an alien race with superior tech, or just sheer strength, or literal manifestations of unreality and hellspawn. It's like medieval peasant bowmen going up against a modern fireteam. There is naturally a gap of power between the two.
If you're after strategic placement at the micro level, 40k is not for you.
As it stands, the game is on a larger scale than ever before - GMCs and superheavy tanks move alongside infantry, huge blocks of men are wiped out by titanic explosions and gunfire from ancient or alien weaponry and the very terrain is commanded and reshaped by the combatants. This is not normal war. This is 40k. Individuals are quickly forgotten about, and any advantage from unit placement is forgotten on such a large scale.
If you are after lower scale fights, try out Kill Team. Especially Herald of Ruin's version. Less big stuff, more about model placement and tactics.
My rifleman do well against other rifleman. The problem with today's game is you may not even know the army you are fighting let alone what it has. In real world and fluff you tend to have an idea so you don't stumble upon a knight with all infantry or a tank army with a blob guard. Not likely in real world with drones and scouting. So I think if you want that than do what we do and put restrictions and forge the narrative. Way more fun for me personally.
The game has inflated to a scale where rifleman really aren't meaningful anymore. The background fluff emphasizes this more, but in a game where relatively common, non-MC/vehicle units can shrug off nearly 900 Lasgun shots, or in some cases be buffed to the point where a single such model would take over 5,000 Lasgun shots to slay (superfriends psyker supported TWC sporting blessings from Endurance, Invisibility, and Veil of Time), and common basic Troop infantry from some armies requires nearly 30 Lasgun shots to kill (Decurion Warriors), it's really pretty much impossible for "rifleman" to have a meaningful effect on things in many instances. There's also some issues with game mechanics for the sake of a functional game. An Elephant for instance is approximately the size of many MC's, but I can put one down by myself with a Kalashnikov *relatively* easily, poachers do it all the time, they don't have 30 dudes out there hosing the beast down, a couple dudes unload magazines into them in a couple of seconds and call it good, but MC's in 40k not only have armor but between the T values and the way Wounds work, you need several dozen rifleman to hose such a creature down in order to kill it.
That said, in real warfare, rifleman aren't the big killers either, artillery/aircraft and crew served weaponry is, but they're a damn sight more capable than they are in 40k currently.
Righteousrob wrote: Ask the troops in afghan or whatever war zone who is doing the majority of the killing. It's always the ground pounders.
That's somewhat different than conventional warfare, heavier weapons are available almost exclusively to one side, and attacks made by the other side are pretty much exclusively made by infantry ambush or IED as a result. We're not really talking about armies clashing in that instance, and engagements tend to end very quickly and one-sidedly once the side that has artillery, aircraft, and crew served weapons brings them into play.
Righteousrob wrote: Ask the troops in afghan or whatever war zone who is doing the majority of the killing. It's always the ground pounders.
That's somewhat different than conventional warfare, heavier weapons are available almost exclusively to one side, and attacks made by the other side are pretty much exclusively made by infantry ambush or IED as a result. We're not really talking about armies clashing in that instance, and engagements tend to end very quickly and one-sidedly once the side that has artillery, aircraft, and crew served weapons brings them into play.
Insurgencies can still happen in the 40k universe.
Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
Sledgehammer wrote: Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
In Vietnam we also had rules about not causing excessive civilian casualties, or at least pretending to care about it. In 40k that just isn't a factor. If the enemy hides in dense forests where you can't bring your big guns you bomb the whole forest flat and cover the remains in chemical weapons until nothing is left alive. And so what if you just burned a whole bunch of children to death, you were going to kill them anyway and saving the execution squads a little work is a nice bonus!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote: Remove the ability of any unit to claim an objective and return it to Troops choices that have the Infantry unit type.
Which is a bad idea because it kills off fluffy armies that focus on units other than troops choice infantry squads. For example, my IG armored company goes back to having no scoring units and therefore no realistic hope of winning a game.
Sledgehammer wrote: Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
In Vietnam we also had rules about not causing excessive civilian casualties, or at least pretending to care about it. In 40k that just isn't a factor. If the enemy hides in dense forests where you can't bring your big guns you bomb the whole forest flat and cover the remains in chemical weapons until nothing is left alive. And so what if you just burned a whole bunch of children to death, you were going to kill them anyway and saving the execution squads a little work is a nice bonus!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote: Remove the ability of any unit to claim an objective and return it to Troops choices that have the Infantry unit type.
Which is a bad idea because it kills off fluffy armies that focus on units other than troops choice infantry squads. For example, my IG armored company goes back to having no scoring units and therefore no realistic hope of winning a game.
Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.
If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.
Righteousrob wrote: Ask the troops in afghan or whatever war zone who is doing the majority of the killing. It's always the ground pounders.
That's somewhat different than conventional warfare, heavier weapons are available almost exclusively to one side, and attacks made by the other side are pretty much exclusively made by infantry ambush or IED as a result. We're not really talking about armies clashing in that instance, and engagements tend to end very quickly and one-sidedly once the side that has artillery, aircraft, and crew served weapons brings them into play.
Insurgencies can still happen in the 40k universe.
They can but that's not really the type of engagement that 40k is designed to portray nor what the rules are really intended to function around. A skirmish scale game like Necromunda is the best way to portray that kind of combat.
Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
Right, but tanks aren't the only form of crew served weapons, and the US brought lots of such abilities into play. The US dropped more ordnance on Vietnam than on both Germany and Japan in WW2 combined. Artillery and aircraft delivered munitions were used in mind boggling amounts, and even with infantry engagements, belt fed machine guns and mortars are the core of the firepower base once we start getting into company level engagements.
Sledgehammer wrote: Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.
Yes, but one will also notice it was a one-sided battle with a pre-determined outcome from the start, the Japanese on that island had no illusions that they were going to win. Surviving the bombardment is one thing, being able to achieve victory is another.
If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.
Hrm, depends on what we're talking about and how much. A mountain will stop a convention bomb, they may shelter those inside from a relatively small fission based nuclear bomb, but you drop a 5 megaton fusion bomb directly on it and nothing underneath is going to survive.
Right, but tanks aren't the only form of crew served weapons, and the US brought lots of such abilities into play. The US dropped more ordnance on Vietnam than on both Germany and Japan in WW2 combined. Artillery and aircraft delivered munitions were used in mind boggling amounts, and even with infantry engagements, belt fed machine guns and mortars are the core of the firepower base once we start getting into company level engagements.
.
That is kind of my point. We used so much ordinance, and yet the infantry were still very relevant.
Sledgehammer wrote: Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.
Sure, but those places to fight may or may not be places that can allow light infantry to hide and fight effectively. Great, the open deserts are untouched, good luck surviving against patrolling bomber formations. Or have fun "fighting" in a random forest halfway around the planet from all of the valuable strategic objectives.
If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.
An underground fortress is not an insurgency, it's a conventional military strategy. And troops sitting in a fortress are useless, point some artillery at it and shell anything that tries to come out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: That is kind of my point. We used so much ordinance, and yet the infantry were still very relevant.
Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.
Sledgehammer wrote: Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.
Sure, but those places to fight may or may not be places that can allow light infantry to hide and fight effectively. Great, the open deserts are untouched, good luck surviving against patrolling bomber formations. Or have fun "fighting" in a random forest halfway around the planet from all of the valuable strategic objectives.
If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.
An underground fortress is not an insurgency, it's a conventional military strategy. And troops sitting in a fortress are useless, point some artillery at it and shell anything that tries to come out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: That is kind of my point. We used so much ordinance, and yet the infantry were still very relevant.
Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.
But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.
Sledgehammer wrote: But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.
Yes, it's actually a pretty good argument that 40k has too much use of ground forces, especially infantry, and too little use of WMDs, mass artillery bombardment, etc. But even when ground forces are used it's usually to take a specific objective, which means the insurgency doesn't get to fight in favorable terrain. Hiding in a remote wilderness might be great for preventing tanks from reaching you, but you probably aren't going to be accomplishing anything to hurt the enemy while you're there.
Sledgehammer wrote: But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.
Yes, it's actually a pretty good argument that 40k has too much use of ground forces, especially infantry, and too little use of WMDs, mass artillery bombardment, etc. But even when ground forces are used it's usually to take a specific objective, which means the insurgency doesn't get to fight in favorable terrain. Hiding in a remote wilderness might be great for preventing tanks from reaching you, but you probably aren't going to be accomplishing anything to hurt the enemy while you're there.
Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration
They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.
Sledgehammer wrote: Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration
They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.
This theory works a lot better when your enemy can't just deliver stuff directly to/from orbit.
Sledgehammer wrote: Logistics. If your enemy is cut off they are screwed. My guys go after logistical supply lines, enemy artillery emplacements, and harry advancing enemy units when they pass through unfavorable terrain. See long range penetration
They are not the hammer, they are the arrow that wounds the soldier allowing the hammer to more easily smash armor.
This theory works a lot better when your enemy can't just deliver stuff directly to/from orbit.
Aircraft are most certainly involved in this effort as well. If your enemy is cut off from orbital supply lines due to aircraft, the presence of another opposing fleet, adequate Surface to air sites, etc. Then they are going to have to rely on production from the ground as well as what they brought with them. Sure you can blockade an Agri world, but you are not going to starve it unless you actually deny them access to food. The only way to do so is to #1 blow up those farms from orbit (which won't happen because 40k logic), or #2 you have guys secure those farms or if that proves too difficult/inefficient prevent those supplies from reaching the front line soldiers. That is where my guys fall in.
the_Armyman wrote: Remove the ability of any unit to claim an objective and return it to Troops choices that have the Infantry unit type.
Which is a bad idea because it kills off fluffy armies that focus on units other than troops choice infantry squads. For example, my IG armored company goes back to having no scoring units and therefore no realistic hope of winning a game.
I hate to sound like I don't care about your army, but I don't care about your army Tanks and armored vehicles can seize ground, but they can't hold it. Returning that ability to Infantry Troops forces people to take, y'know, Infantry Troops. If your army is composed of nothing but tanks, then you'll need to adjust your tactics accordingly (i.e., tabling).
One of the reasons 40K is screwed up right now is that GW has tried to pander to every special snowflake, instead of building in weaknesses to some lists.
Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.
That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.
Vaktathi wrote: Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.
That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.
No tanker in his right mind wants to enter an environment where they have poor sightlines and no infantry support. Armored units are spearheads and linebreakers, you'll never see a modern armored division operate without attached infantry. My point was to return a modicum of power and utility to the humble rifleman, give him an ability in the game that can't be claimed by any other unit.
I remember the old WD Armored Company and the "Lucky Shot" rules. While an army of tanks may not be considered OP these days, I still don't think they deserve special consideration when it comes to making Infantry Troops the only scoring unit in the game.
Most of the things on our 40k table are completely useless in a 40k universe war. Almost all races don't care at all about the survival of the other races infrastructure or civilians. This makes anything with less fire-power then a light cruiser completely obsolete in the common 40k fluff scenarios.
Sure you could still use rifles vs criminals, a chaos cult uprising in a hyve city or the clean up sweeps after a bombardment but it is absolutely useless to deploy light-medium ground troops in an open warfare on an alien world.
Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game
Sledgehammer wrote: Unless you char the entire planet, there will still be places to hide, and areas to fight from. Hell look at mt suribachi we bombed and shelled that place for forever and there were still japs crawling all over the place.
Sure, but those places to fight may or may not be places that can allow light infantry to hide and fight effectively. Great, the open deserts are untouched, good luck surviving against patrolling bomber formations. Or have fun "fighting" in a random forest halfway around the planet from all of the valuable strategic objectives.
If a mountain can stop bombs, than an underground fortress complex made of ceramite can hold off orbital bombardments.
An underground fortress is not an insurgency, it's a conventional military strategy. And troops sitting in a fortress are useless, point some artillery at it and shell anything that tries to come out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: That is kind of my point. We used so much ordinance, and yet the infantry were still very relevant.
Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.
But the thing is past a certain point 40k no longer becomes logical. If that were the case there really wouldn't be a need for the Imperial guard, the Space Marines, or the Adeptas Sororitas as the imperial navy would just nuke everything from orbit.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game
Well within the way that I believe the universe operates, it makes sense for my regiment to exist and fight that the way it does, but only if there are units and regiments that fulfill other roles. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to defend against the notion that in a universal sense, the rifleman is completely useless. There is still always headcannon, and that is fine, but I think 40k should at least allow a multitude of possible fighting styles and for them to be properly represented in the rules.
What I really intended for this thread was for it to be a discussion on how to implement rules that would allow for more tactical and fun infantry engagements.
Here is how I would like to play. :
I might want one squad up front and center equipped with carapace armor. That squad is then flanked by two lighter squads. Behind them are sentinels and heavy weapons teams providing on location fire support.
The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys are are now being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.
It depends - fluffwise? Yes, riflemen are common and easy to produce and there are very few engagements where super heavies/GMC's see action. Most armies are made out of core infantry.
Crunchwise? No, Riflemen might as well be represented by wound counters on a single model on a massive base which represents the section. All the figures act as are glorified wound markers and the occasional extra lasgun shot. That said, I have had several engagements won for me by my ever tenacious Veterans so they can sometimes fill a purpose beyond bubblewrap and wound counters.
I think Warpath works a little like that. You have a suppression mechanic there, and infantry are a bit hardier thanks to how the damage system works. Antares is similar in that it has a pinning mechanic, but I don't think there are any suppressive weapons like you described.
But yeah, 40k could use something like that. There are pinning checks, but those are pretty easy to pass.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think Warpath works a little like that. You have a suppression mechanic there, and infantry are a bit hardier thanks to how the damage system works.
Antares is similar in that it has a pinning mechanic, but I don't think there are any suppressive weapons like you described.
But yeah, 40k could use something like that. There are pinning checks, but those are pretty easy to pass.
The way I want it to work is that it should be very tedious taking out an enemy that is dug in, but take away their cover and they should be easier to kill. The way to victory is positioning your units in such a way that they can break up points in an enemies defensive line and then exploit those points to then crush the enemy.
For instance If you can take out a bunker, or a house, or a particular enemy with a good vantage point, you then can then move through the area that he had fire on. What this does is then give you the ability to pass through the enemies fields of fire and then expose their flanks.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Sledgehammer, you're wasting time if you're going to try to win a "realism" argument with Peregrine, and the only real answer you need as to why a game about putting your nice army down only to remove the whole thing on the basis of "oh, because nukes" is because that would be a boring as feth game
Well within the way that I believe the universe operates, it makes sense for my regiment to exist and fight that the way it does, but only if there are units and regiments that fulfill other roles. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to defend against the notion that in a universal sense, the rifleman is completely useless. There is still always headcannon, and that is fine, but I think 40k should at least allow a multitude of possible fighting styles to be properly represented in the rules.
What I really intended for this thread was for it to be a discussion on how to implement rules that would allow for more tactical and fun infantry engagements.
Here is how I would like to play. :
I might want one squad up front and center equipped with carapace armor. That squad is then flanked by two lighter squads. Behind them are sentinels and heavy weapons teams providing on location fire support.
The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys that are being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.
And no-one is preventing you from deploying your men in such a way and playing them like that. If you want to get bonuses from suppression or from flanking though, you're playing the wrong game.
Here's the problems:
The carapace troops could easily get destroyed by enemy firepower. So many things are AP4 now, those guys will be shredded. More bodies works better from a gameplay point.
Suppression is represented by Pinning in game. And only Mortar Weapon Teams have it, by virtue of Barrage. However, Pinning is not very reliable due to enemy Leadership, which is most likely 7/8+.
Flanking has no discernible benefit unless it involves moving through cover or past LOS blockers.
Now I'm not saying that your light infantry don't exist in the 40k universe - they do. (See Tanith First and Only)
However, these regiments are rarely seen on table, because they lack the durability and damage output that the rest of the guard army can bring.
Here's the best tips on how to play riflemen well.
1) Play a different system. Infinity seems to suit this, and HoR's Kill Team certainly focuses on the lighter infantry.
2) Play a game against lighter opponents. Cultists, other guardsmen, LatD. Play it in a heavily covered area, disallow tanks and MCs and suchlike, and house rule that any ranged weapons stronger than S6 (save for krak missiles) are banned.
You seem to be citing rifles as useful against other human opponents, but they become fairly weak when they fight the more exotic foes. If you wanted a narrative, a fireteam of guardsman putting down a rebel uprising would fit this fluff very well.
But unfortunately, on the standard tabletop, in the face of tanks, MCs and elite killing machines, rifleman tactics go to pot, and really do become useless.
Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
Are you still pretending that Reconnaissance Patrols are the same thing as front-line battle units? Their abilities should be like those of Alaitoc in 3rd edition.
The Vietnam War was not all like you imagine it. Their were tank battles and artillery duels. They had a meaningful air force.
The country was only about 1/3 forested, too. It's not all jungle. Jungles don't support entire civilizations.
I agree with your desires for how the game should be modified. I play Imperial Guard. But I am going to call BS on BS arguments.
40k is not a game where a LRRP makes sense. And you know it. So why do you keep insisting? They make sense for Kill Team, but not regular games of 40k.
Again, because of rules of engagement combined with less-effective ordnance than 40k. The infantry would not have been relevant if the US had been willing to nuke a buffer zone 100 miles across between North Vietnam and everything of value, combined with nuclear attacks on all North Vietnamese cities, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. Infantry are much less relevant in a campaign of extermination, which is what virtually every war in 40k consists of. Killing civilians with WMD attacks on military targets is just a nice bonus, since you're going to kill all of the civilians anyway once you get done eliminating the military threat.
Actually, that is not the way the Imperium fights most of the time. It is much more expansive in time and resources to bring in an entire new population than it is to just sacrifice a few million extra Guardsmen so you can take the world in a somewat more intact state. Not to mention that a single nuke is likely more valueable than an entire IG regiment. Infantry becomes a lot more valueable when it is an infinite resource. In war, it is not the strength of weapons that decide victory, but the economy. When the use of infantry is more economical than the use of orbital bombardments, you use infantry.
The idea would be to send the heavy squad up front to draw the enemies fire and due to their armor they are going to be harder to take down. Whilst the enemy is preoccupied with taking down that squad, I send up the two light squads along the flanks. Those guys are are now being supported with suppression fire from the heavy weapons teams. Any additional units in the back are going to be combat ineffective due to the volume of suppression fire.Those two squads on the flanks can then close the gap and take out any enemies that were foolish enough to reveal themselves. I want that kind of tactical thinking in my 40k and I can guarantee that that kind of stuff happens all of the time in the universe.
That would be a great game. But that would have to be a game with only infantry and light vehicles. Realistically, infantry should be massacred in the open field by most of the heavier stuff that is in 40k. And that is getting back to the original question, because with 40k in its current state, I no longer see a place for the common not-superheavily-armoured-superhuman rifleman. Either there must be a lot more restrictions on the amount of heavy firepower you can bring out in 40k, or infantry must receive an overhaul so they would focus on specific tasks that allows them to compete with bigger stuff in those areas(like you could allow infantry to dig in at objectives to make them very hard to remove. This would make them better at holding objectives. Or there could also be specialised units like cheap tank-hunting squads (like 5 men all with meltaguns) that ride in fast transports. Basically a more effective and specialised version of melta veterans in chimeras)
Terrain is also a huge factor. In Vietnam we used LRRPs against the VC because they primarily operated in densely forested / mountainous areas. Tanks are going to be at a huge disadvantage when they are having to slog through thick vegetation and suffer from a small visual range.
Are you still pretending that Reconnaissance Patrols are the same thing as front-line battle units? Their abilities should be like those of Alaitoc in 3rd edition.
The Vietnam War was not all like you imagine it. Their were tank battles and artillery duels. They had a meaningful air force.
The country was only about 1/3 forested, too. It's not all jungle. Jungles don't support entire civilizations.
Cheers,
Steven
Noooo I was explaining why they were used and not arguing that they fought in the same as other troops, or that other types of engagements didn't exist. I wasn't talking about the vietnam war as a whole. I was talking about them within the context of where they primarily operated.
I have the opposite problem: Baneblades really aren't good.
In an era where D-weapon templates exist, a massive tank that is nearly 600 points after reasonable upgrades is disastrously bad. An Imperial Knight is better for cheaper.
I run a superheavy tank regiment in 30k that I also play in 40k, and the typical deployment is one Leviathan detachment of three Baneblades and then some supporting troops. But this army isn't good because it doesn't ignore cover (making enemy cover-based infantry like Stealthsuits very difficult to shift), it doesn't have any high-ROF antitank guns (four shots ranging from Str 9-10 at BS3) and has far too many weapons that are functionally useless (like Heavy Bolters) because no one takes Light Infantry vulnerable to Heavy Bolters anymore.
drunken0elf wrote: "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men."
- George S. Patton
This.
"Rifleman" is just another term for the infantry, the average foot soldier. As a former tanker, I can say that infantry, especially the "mech legs", are still a critical component in modern mechanized warfare. And realistically, infantry would have equipment to deal with current threats on the battlefield, such as anti-tank, MANPADs, anti-material, ability to call in support, etc.
Warhammer 40,000, especially the current rules set, doesn't reflect this very well. The Imperial Guard is a fairly well equipped part of the Imperium's armed forces, even units that are considered "expendable" (like the Death Korps or Savlar Chem Dogs). Being the core of the modern Imperium's armed forces, they should have the training and gear to deal with a variety of threats. Some units (like the Cadian regiments) do, but they use them poorly in any story or sourcebook written because it's all about making the SPHESS MUHREENS look awesome (and thus, selling more of their models/minis). And of course, GRIMDARK.
Vaktathi wrote: Tanks can absolutely hold ground depending on the conditions of the engagement.
That said, yes the scale of the game has gotten absurd, though the armored company IG lists have been around in some form for most editions of this game going back to at least 3rd edition.
No tanker in his right mind wants to enter an environment where they have poor sightlines and no infantry support. Armored units are spearheads and linebreakers, you'll never see a modern armored division operate without attached infantry.
In large part yes, but then infantry also generally don't operate without vehicle support either, they usually go hand in hand. There are instances where armor absolutely can hold ground, particularly in more open terrain. German heavy tank units in WW2 for instance were able to successfully engage in defensive holding actions often without direct infantry support when operating from concealed positions and engaging opponents advancing long distances over open ground. Now, this wouldn't work in an urban battlefield obviously, but it all depends on the circumstances.
My point was to return a modicum of power and utility to the humble rifleman, give him an ability in the game that can't be claimed by any other unit.
This is a somewhat hamfisted way to do that I think. Even in 5E, when only non-vehicle Troops could score, that didn't really help balance all that much, and in many situations it may not make sense (e.g. if no enemy is nearby and you have a tank parked on an objective...that objective has no good reason not be be claimed, or why do those Grey Knight Terminators get to score but not those Ultramarines Terminators?). I think infantry simply need more options than "move/shoot/assault", and the overall scale and movement utility of the game re-assessed. The big problem is that 40k is trying to do what 3 different games used to do, and it's just not working.
I remember the old WD Armored Company and the "Lucky Shot" rules. While an army of tanks may not be considered OP these days, I still don't think they deserve special consideration when it comes to making Infantry Troops the only scoring unit in the game.
I think the bigger issues isn't just "infantry", there's lots of battles where having tanks count as scoring could make sense. These battles aren't strategic holding actions, they're short clashes lasting a couple of minutes or less, having some allowance for that can make some sense. The bigger problem isn't having non-infantry units that can score, it's having tons of disposable scoring units that can end up anywhere and everywhere (think small jetbike squads, drop pods, etc) coupled with increasingly insane power bloat of certain kinds of units and armies with units that simply cannot be successfully engaged by common infantry units. Infantry can do things against a Leman Russ company, but not really so much a Knight detachment which has equal firepower and probably better resiliency and certainly better speed with a devastating assault component to boot. Infantry have trouble when some armies get jetbike Troops units that put out more long range mid-strength firepower than an entire IG gunline.
Most fights would be man v man or alien.
Armoured vehicle support wouldnt be as numerous in RL.
But IG players like to think a division of them would be looking after .5 of a squad, and able to control a city block.
All the argument is, Our regular not enough cannons (bolters) are crap. We die to easy. Most IG carrying S6 was the beginning of the problem
I completely hate the scale of Infinity or Gates of Antares, because they are infantry only, and the entire point of infantry is that they are small targets which are difficult to kill. There need to be air strikes and heavy artillery everywhere specifically to have a good infantry game. Tanks would be terrible at resisting air strikes and Knight-engine scale attacks. Knights would be absolutely absysmal at resisting air strikes, especially since they don't have the mass or power generation that Titans do. There should also be more of the profile characteristics involved in whether riflemen are good units or not - attacks, initiative, more active use of leadership.
Now that 40k finally has the model support for flyers, mass bikes, engines, and all those other things that have 12"+ moves, special moves, relentless, and T > 6, infantry rules have to have their own answer to those things. Infantry are the opposite of those things, they are slow, they can't use particularly heavy weapons at all and especially not while moving, and they are really squishy. They are the opposite of relentless. However, the factions all still need and use infantry, so the opposite of relentless must be something good.
I have a system that makes win a fire fight and test their leadership in order to move, lets them do more damage based on their leadership and their position, and gives units defense bonuses based on their experience and against larger creatures, so infantry in cover are hard to kill for aircraft, and scout sentinels and warwalkers are harder to hit for super heavy walkers and GCs, and veterans are harder to kill for regular units.
Isn't most of the problem the fact that "meta" lists used in common play are absolutely disconnected from what an army would deploy based on the stories represented in the fluff?
If we look at the big elephant in the room, the Eldar would be hard pressed to willingly deploy as many wraiths as get tossed around on the table unless you're looking at Lyanden. Wraiths are like a last resort type thing as the use of them is taboo in and of itself. But when you go play somewhere the sight of them is just "meh, whatever, here they are again..."
We get breakdowns of how armies typically behave in our codex, yet many lists don't even deploy what would be typical of their army. Just looking at the typical "Use scouts instead of actual Marines" for the Space Marines is an example, where the durability and dangerous bolters of the Marines are actually feared when they show up by even the Eldar. Scouts would be valuable in seeing what the enemy has and how they're deployed, but they're not going to be the only troops Space Marines are going to send in to a fight. The Tau might not be as scared, but Assault Marines are something they would fear coming from somewhere hidden on the field of battle, even with interceptor possibilities.
The common place strategies used on the table have stepped so far from what your own books tell you that your army would use that you're saying "yeah they don't work because of the mass amounts of top notch heavy items used by us." Yet, that's not going to be what these armies use unless they absolutely have to in an escalated conflict. Marines aren't going to be pouring Land Raiders into every conflict that pops up. The IG aren't going to be approved to send masses of Baneblades, Stormlords, etc to conflicts as the costs outweigh the deployment of them even if they would help. Read the description of the Deathstrike as one example.
Of course the problem comes in that we don't worry about this sort of stuff when making lists to use in battles, as they aren't really part of the game. Yes one can argue that points attempt to simulate this, but they really don't.
Forge the narrative. I love it. Makes games play like the books and fluff. Guard units on foot with a few tanks heading into a mountain to find the eldar. Eldar aren't going to show up with Knights and all jet bikes. Makes no logical sense. They'll try to repulse with troops and tanks themselves.
You can't nuke everything that has an enemy on it or valuable worlds would be lost for ever. Heck look at vraks. Even if they wanted to they couldn't nuke it or siege it out.
Play your pricey hobby as you want. Be DMs for once. The rules aren't terrible. The tourney scene is.
Zelarias wrote: Isn't most of the problem the fact that "meta" lists used in common play are absolutely disconnected from what an army would deploy based on the stories represented in the fluff?
If we look at the big elephant in the room, the Eldar would be hard pressed to willingly deploy as many wraiths as get tossed around on the table unless you're looking at Lyanden. Wraiths are like a last resort type thing as the use of them is taboo in and of itself. But when you go play somewhere the sight of them is just "meh, whatever, here they are again..."
We get breakdowns of how armies typically behave in our codex, yet many lists don't even deploy what would be typical of their army. Just looking at the typical "Use scouts instead of actual Marines" for the Space Marines is an example, where the durability and dangerous bolters of the Marines are actually feared when they show up by even the Eldar. Scouts would be valuable in seeing what the enemy has and how they're deployed, but they're not going to be the only troops Space Marines are going to send in to a fight. The Tau might not be as scared, but Assault Marines are something they would fear coming from somewhere hidden on the field of battle, even with interceptor possibilities.
The common place strategies used on the table have stepped so far from what your own books tell you that your army would use that you're saying "yeah they don't work because of the mass amounts of top notch heavy items used by us." Yet, that's not going to be what these armies use unless they absolutely have to in an escalated conflict. Marines aren't going to be pouring Land Raiders into every conflict that pops up. The IG aren't going to be approved to send masses of Baneblades, Stormlords, etc to conflicts as the costs outweigh the deployment of them even if they would help. Read the description of the Deathstrike as one example.
Of course the problem comes in that we don't worry about this sort of stuff when making lists to use in battles, as they aren't really part of the game. Yes one can argue that points attempt to simulate this, but they really don't.
That's one of the nice things about formations, they're generally good representations of what would happen in the fluff. A codex adherant chapter would totally deploy with what the gladius gives them.
Sledgehammer wrote: The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
Yep.... pretty much what sucks about 40k right now. Imperial Guard is just D-Day running up against Nazi machineguns, without a fleet behind you and limited to the amount of men you have in your army case...
Lots of lasguns generate buckets of dice. Buckets of dice kill Monstrous creatures. Its ok to wound on a 6 when you're getting 45 chances to wound after rolling 90 'to hit' dice.
Short of playing against T7+ monsters and FNP units with decent armour, its just vehicles that rifles can't deal with.
And for those- plasma rifles are a thing, and meltaguns are there behind ablative riflemen. Better hope your opponent brought enough rifles to deal with the 40 guys infront of your meltaguns and meltabomb sergeants.
Rifles have a place in 40k- its in massed groups in front of officers shouting loudly.
Sledgehammer wrote: The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
Yep.... pretty much what sucks about 40k right now. Imperial Guard is just D-Day running up against Nazi machineguns, without a fleet behind you and limited to the amount of men you have in your army case...
What's funny is that in the 3rd ed book, you could take conscripts, which iirc had a rule that allowed them to be redeployed when wiped out.
So back then you could, in fact, re-enact D day with the guard.
Nids had a similar rule called without number.
I liked the Andy Chambers era of 40k. Kind of miss it :(
"Realistically," the rifleman doesn't do much killing in modern warfare, to my knowledge. His main job is pinning the enemy and calling in artillery and airstrikes, which is what do the killing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Realistically," a pure light infantry regiment shouldn't be killing much. That's not their job. Realistically.
=Angel= wrote: Lots of lasguns generate buckets of dice. Buckets of dice kill Monstrous creatures. Its ok to wound on a 6 when you're getting 45 chances to wound after rolling 90 'to hit' dice.
Short of playing against T7+ monsters and FNP units with decent armour, its just vehicles that rifles can't deal with.
There are lots of MC's and non-MC units that rifles cannot adequately deal with. A FNP'd Riptide is going to require 540 Lasgun shots on average to put down, far more than anyone is ever going to be able to bring to bear against it. 6 model Canoptek Harvest Decurion Wraith squads are going to require almost 900 Lasgun shots to kill. If you want to get into the realm of the even more ridiculous, if you get something like a kitted out superfriends TWC deathstar with psychic support sporting Veil of Time, Invisibility, and Endurance, and you're looking at ~25-30 *thousand* Lasgun shots to kill that unit. To kill a 10man squad of basic Necron Warriors in a Decurion, you need nearly *300* Lasgun shots. Stuff has just gotten way out of hand for the likes of the Lasgun, the scale of the game has simply bloated too much
I managed to kill quite a few things by throwing a mountain of dice at my friend from FRFSRF from 20 conscripts. Only thing I couldn't deal with were Crimson Hunters and the unbalanced Wraithknight...
The Militarum Tempestus do . Technically it gives their hotshot weapons sniper, rather than rending, and it's quite amusing the first time they ventilate a Wraithknight with it.
I have been drafting some stuff for a killteam though. My problem is that all riflemen do in 40k is shoot. Bounding can't be done. Suppression is impossible. Flanking serve little purpose. There really is no reason to have a light maneuverable infantry regiment when moving up on an enemy is more of a detrement than a benefit.
Whilst 40k is a bad simulation of a 'war' given everything's close proximity, there are ideas that work well. The problem is that they've been overrun in 'shiny new model syndrome'.
I would seriously consider Horus Heresy games, as it maintains them rather well:
a) Monstrous Creatures are fairly rare. Walkers are common, and arguably even more powerful than in 40k - see the Leviathan Dreadnought but they have downsides (such as vulnerability to flanking, as you noted)
b) Ignores Cover is fairly rare*. That means that one of the classic roles of infantry - being dug into cover and being a bugger to dig out - is important. Especially with city-fighting rules which focus over controlling ruins.
c) Rather than 'objective secured' stuff, only non-vehicle troops are scoring. There are a few non-troop units which get implacable advance (making them scoring) but these are invariably medium and heavy infantry - like Veteran Tactical Squads and Legion Terminators. Taking and holding ground being the main job of infantry squads seems right.
d) With relatively few 'variant force organisations' pretty much every army has at least a pair of tactical squads (or equivalent). Which means you must therefore have a useful target for bolters to be shooting at.
* Or if not, it's at least reassuringly expensive.
But at the same time you have tanks like the Typhon and entire armies made up out of Dreadnoughts. Not to mention the support squads with flamers.....
I have faced 30K armies with my Guard. It is not fun
Sledgehammer wrote: The rifle is used by one man, to kill another. There has never been a greater force equilizer in the history of mankind. One must use his brain and his brawn to maximize his killing potential. With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Currently the rifleman cannot use his brain in accordance with his brawn because the flanking of an enemy is ineffectual on the result of an attack. Positioning is in large, irrelevant in regards to you and the enemy. Furthermore the taking out of other infantrymen with the rifle is widely inefficient given the effectiveness and ubiquity of more specialized weaponry.
This saddens me greatly as the triumph of one squad over the other should be representative of the squads capabilities in the expertise of their bodies and minds, and not the quality of their weaponry.
It is truly sad the abuses the Imperium has inflicted on its soldiers. The only place for a rifleman in the Imperial Guard is as fodder. You die by the billions every day, often for lack of ammunition or food, but often by monsters you have no hope of killing.
There is, however, a power rising in the east that values the individual human soldier. The Tau Empire brings with it the pulse rifle, the finest weapon of war fielded by rank and file troops. It is able to destroy lightly-armored vehicles outright with a well-placed shot and outranges even the bolt weapons used by humanity's elite Space Marines. Nowhere can the rifleman find a better home than under the banner of the Greater Good!
Sledgehammer wrote: With walkers, monsterous creatures, tanks, skimmers, and heavily armored supermen, the rifleman just seems outmatched.
Two words: Untold Billions.
You'll get this same reply over and over. One on one or squad on one or platoon on one, sure, riflemen are outmatched. You think about the whole concept of IG though, while one platoon would be outmatched, two you break even, three you now overmatch the XYZ. And the idea of IG is you have three platoons. Sure you'll lose 2 of them, but that leaves you with the 3rd as a battle tested spine to stiffen the 2 platoons of replacements you'll get. Add to that, in the IoM, people are plentiful. Chapters may go through hundreds of aspirants just to get a scout. The IG kills no few of their own in training. Harsh worlds where precious resources are mined go through them as fast as transports can bring replacements.
Riflemen work just fine when you can sling regiments by the hundreds into the grinder.
IMO the tabletop game just does a poor job with points pricing to depict the IG as they are depicted in the fluff.
Another point is that 40k is SUPPOSED to represent a company level engagement with 50-100 infantry and supporting vehicles. (designers notes 3rd ed)
Keyword: Supporting- it was never supposed to be about monstrous battle engines. They had a game for that.
GMC and Superheavies have no place in a game of riflemen, not the other way round.
master of ordinance wrote: But at the same time you have tanks like the Typhon and entire armies made up out of Dreadnoughts. Not to mention the support squads with flamers..... I have faced 30K armies with my Guard. It is not fun
A whole army made out of Dreadnoughts is pretty much the worst 30k can muster, and they rapidly feed you VPs as they die.
Then you remember that 40k can muster an army of Wraithknights...
=Angel= wrote: Another point is that 40k is SUPPOSED to represent a company level engagement with 50-100 infantry and supporting vehicles. (designers notes 3rd ed)
Keyword: Supporting- it was never supposed to be about monstrous battle engines. They had a game for that.
GMC and Superheavies have no place in a game of riflemen, not the other way round.
^ This.
The 40k I played in 4th ed was drastically different to the 40k today.
GW lost sight of what 40k was meant to be.
=Angel= wrote: Another point is that 40k is SUPPOSED to represent a company level engagement with 50-100 infantry and supporting vehicles. (designers notes 3rd ed)
Keyword: Supporting- it was never supposed to be about monstrous battle engines. They had a game for that.
GMC and Superheavies have no place in a game of riflemen, not the other way round.
Yes, this is what I've been saying. My infantry should be proficient in whatever their task is. (In my case ambushing and flanking other enemy infantry). The vehicles are there to support them in their task and not the other way around.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Man, I like monstrous battle engines and tank companies.
Rather than having "lost sight", perhaps they changed it? Most of the designers frlm 3rd Edition aren't even at GW anymore.
The thing is there was already a game system called Epic that had exactly that, and there was a supplement for 40k called Apocalypse that was balanced for that sort of combat. There was no need to merge apoc and standard 40k. There was no need to introduce SHV, GC and D weapons in sub 3000 points.
Sledgehammer wrote: My infantry should be proficient in whatever their task is. (In my case ambushing and flanking other enemy infantry). The vehicles are there to support them in their task and not the other way around.
Well, my infantry still is the main power in my army (SoB). They're still good at what they do, but I do have to play very aggressively and one single unlucky Outflank or other mistake in positioning will cost me another squad.
Ofc, I use infantry because that's what I have. Other more frequently updated armies have better options that make their infantry obsolete at the points cost. Just look at the marines, for example - the only way to make them bring the massive amount of battle brothers a marine force should have is to give them free transports via the Gladius!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Man, I like monstrous battle engines and tank companies.
Rather than having "lost sight", perhaps they changed it? Most of the designers frlm 3rd Edition aren't even at GW anymore.
The thing is there was already a game system called Epic that had exactly that, and there was a supplement called Apocalypse that was balanced for that sort of combat.
There was no need to merge apoc and standard 40k.
I didn't like epic. 6mm Baneblades were basically tiny blobs of metal, devoid of any character or meaningful detail, and had weapons modeled on them that weren't even in the rules. 28mm WYSIWYG Baneblades are awesome, and fun to paint; easily weathered and detailed.
And I didn't like having apocalypse be the purview of large tanks because it was too big. Why bring a Baneblade when you could bring a Titan? The only Apoc games I ever played were team affairs larger than 3000 points. Why not a 2000 point game with a Baneblade? I am sure there was one out there supporting an Imperial infantry or mech company. Why not a Titan at 1250 points, representing the scouting party and its Skitarii ranging out in front of a larger Titan off the field?
And what if your opponent does not have a SHV, or sufficient AT to take it down? What if its a GC, which are considerably harder to take down? It encourages list tailoring, as you have to design the army list specifically to counter it. The game needs less list dependency, not more.
What about D weapons? What is to stop you from deleting a squad a turn with your SHV? At high points level a single squad isn't such a big deal, but losing entire squad at once at 1250 points? That's pretty harsh.
Like, if the strength of the SHV scaled with the size of the game, and if D weapons weren't allowed then maybe. Atm though its pretty silly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And what if your opponent does not have a SHV, or sufficient AT to take it down?
What if its a GC, which are considerably harder to take down?
It encourages list tailoring, as you have to design the army list specifically to counter it. The game needs less list dependency, not more.
What about D weapons? What is to stop you from deleting a squad a turn with your SHV? At high points level a single squad isn't such a big deal, but losing entire squad at once at 1250 points? That's pretty harsh.
Like, if the strength of the SHV scaled with the size of the game, and if D weapons weren't allowed then maybe. Atm though its pretty silly.
If my opponent lacks sufficient AT to kill a Baneblade, my opponent also would have had problems with a Leman Russ squadron - same number of hull points, same armour thickness on the front and sides. You don't need a SHV of your own to have enough Anti-Tank. Gargantuan creatures are a mechanical issue, getting things like Feel No Pain and Armour Saves that SHVs don't have, and yes, they would require rebalancing - not categorical banning.
What about D weapons? They wound on a 2+, and a 6 ignores all saves. That really isn't that bad depending on the AP of the weapon. It's mostly for killing superheavies, which you say is a problem. D weapons hardly delete a squad a turn if there is cover or it is not AP1 or 2. I know very few superheavies that can outright delete a squad a turn any more than a battletank squadron could.
D weapons really aren't that bad, trust me, I use them routinely.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And what if your opponent does not have a SHV, or sufficient AT to take it down?
What if its a GC, which are considerably harder to take down?
It encourages list tailoring, as you have to design the army list specifically to counter it. The game needs less list dependency, not more.
What about D weapons? What is to stop you from deleting a squad a turn with your SHV? At high points level a single squad isn't such a big deal, but losing entire squad at once at 1250 points? That's pretty harsh.
Like, if the strength of the SHV scaled with the size of the game, and if D weapons weren't allowed then maybe. Atm though its pretty silly.
If my opponent lacks sufficient AT to kill a Baneblade, my opponent also would have had problems with a Leman Russ squadron - same number of hull points, same armour thickness on the front and sides. You don't need a SHV of your own to have enough Anti-Tank. Gargantuan creatures are a mechanical issue, getting things like Feel No Pain and Armour Saves that SHVs don't have, and yes, they would require rebalancing - not categorical banning.
What about D weapons? They wound on a 2+, and a 6 ignores all saves. That really isn't that bad depending on the AP of the weapon. It's mostly for killing superheavies, which you say is a problem. D weapons hardly delete a squad a turn if there is cover or it is not AP1 or 2. I know very few superheavies that can outright delete a squad a turn any more than a battletank squadron could.
D weapons really aren't that bad, trust me, I use them routinely.
The D flamer is total gak but its sorta an oddity for D weapons (and I don't know what ground up finecast resin they where snorting when they thought that was a good idea). Most of the single shot D weapons are manageable but it really stinks for AV14 as it basically bypasses everything AV14 offers and treats your Land Raider or Battlewagon front armor like its a Trukk or Land Speed (the speeder is better off as it can jink). Vehicles currently suffer and the increase in Str D makes them even more irrelevant.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Aren't most D weapons AP2? I rarely see a D weapon that cannot ignore armor saves.
Yep.
Anyhow, it is not D weapons that are the problem. Units like the triple Vindicator Line Breaker or the Typhon that can put down massive S10 AP1 10/7" blasts that ignore cover are the real threat. if my opponent brings these I am royally boned because no matter what I do he will remove big portions (read: several entire sections) of my army a turn.
Im going to reiterate a previous statement and say that I think Troops will be in a much much better place if they got rid of Obsec tied to formations and such like it is now and simply went to Troops=Obsec (troops only was a bit restrictive).
Troops should be the bread and butter and even if they arent able to kill they are the ones holding the objectives. They are designed like a swiss army knife and should be used in that capacity as well. I somehow believe it is hard for an insane chaos dreadnought to hold an objective unless he was there by himself and not dealing with any enemies at all.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Aren't most D weapons AP2? I rarely see a D weapon that cannot ignore armor saves.
Yep.
Anyhow, it is not D weapons that are the problem. Units like the triple Vindicator Line Breaker or the Typhon that can put down massive S10 AP1 10/7" blasts that ignore cover are the real threat. if my opponent brings these I am royally boned because no matter what I do he will remove big portions (read: several entire sections) of my army a turn.
The triple vindicator thing falls apart if you get a single shaken result. You can't penetrate av 11 once?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalchaos34 wrote: Im going to reiterate a previous statement and say that I think Troops will be in a much much better place if they got rid of Obsec tied to formations and such like it is now and simply went to Troops=Obsec (troops only was a bit restrictive).
Troops should be the bread and butter and even if they arent able to kill they are the ones holding the objectives. They are designed like a swiss army knife and should be used in that capacity as well. I somehow believe it is hard for an insane chaos dreadnought to hold an objective unless he was there by himself and not dealing with any enemies at all.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Aren't most D weapons AP2? I rarely see a D weapon that cannot ignore armor saves.
Yep. Anyhow, it is not D weapons that are the problem. Units like the triple Vindicator Line Breaker or the Typhon that can put down massive S10 AP1 10/7" blasts that ignore cover are the real threat. if my opponent brings these I am royally boned because no matter what I do he will remove big portions (read: several entire sections) of my army a turn.
The triple vindicator thing falls apart if you get a single shaken result. You can't penetrate av 11 once?
You didn't mention that in your post originally. So really the problem for IG, and every other 7.0 codex is invisibility. Because without invisibility, that unit is expensive and easy to neuter. Oh, and it's crap against MCs even with invisibility.
You know when an S10 AP1 Ignores Cover weapon is no longer considered a grave threat relative to other possible capabilities...that the game has reached a point where everything needs to be flushed and rebuilt from scratch
If my opponent lacks sufficient AT to kill a Baneblade, my opponent also would have had problems with a Leman Russ squadron - same number of hull points, same armour thickness on the front and sides.
Squadrons. IG didn't get vehicle squadrons in heavy support until 5th ed. I guessed that was a result of Apocalypse vehicle squadrons bleeding into the game proper.
In a single force org chart, you had 3 Russ or basilisks etc and you either filled the rest of the points with more troops, hellhounds, sentinels, stormtroopers and so on or you started another force org chart- with two more troops and a hq as a requirement.
In practice this meant that there were less armored vehicles and no fliers. There was even a restriction on chimera use- you could take 1 armoured fist squad for every platoon of footsloggers. Steel legion were REQUIRED to take a chimera on every infantry unit, even ones that wouldn't really benefit from the mobility- leaving you less points for heavy support.
As a guard player I welcomed the changes- with veterans moving to troops, extra tanks to fill points, ignores cover artillery- ORDERS.
Now I reckon it was the beginning of the end of any semblance of balance. Taking 9 heavy support choices quickly snowballed down the slippery slope to allies, formations and superheavies and flyers.
If my opponent lacks sufficient AT to kill a Baneblade, my opponent also would have had problems with a Leman Russ squadron - same number of hull points, same armour thickness on the front and sides.
Squadrons. IG didn't get vehicle squadrons in heavy support until 5th ed. I guessed that was a result of Apocalypse vehicle squadrons bleeding into the game proper. In a single force org chart, you had 3 Russ or basilisks etc and you either filled the rest of the points with more troops, hellhounds, sentinels, stormtroopers and so on or you started another force org chart- with two more troops and a hq as a requirement.
In practice this meant that there were less armored vehicles and no fliers. There was even a restriction on chimera use- you could take 1 armoured fist squad for every platoon of footsloggers. Steel legion were REQUIRED to take a chimera on every infantry unit, even ones that wouldn't really benefit from the mobility- leaving you less points for heavy support.
As a guard player I welcomed the changes- with veterans moving to troops, extra tanks to fill points, ignores cover artillery- ORDERS. Now I reckon it was the beginning of the end of any semblance of balance. Taking 9 heavy support choices quickly snowballed down the slippery slope to allies, formations and superheavies and flyers.
Armies entirely made up of Leman Russ tanks have existed in the game since the 2004 Chapter Approved supplement that added Imperial Armoured Companies.
So no, it isn't all Apocalypse's fault - in a single FOC (with no points limits) you could have 11 Leman Russ tanks. In 4th Edition, with the 2006 Chapter Approved article, that went up to 17 if you took the Heavy Armour Doctrine and didn't have a phobia of Demolishers.
The Typhon I will grant you. I find that thing scary as hell too. It's the one thing I've got no real recommendation against.
To both of you fine gentlemen, one word:
"Invisibility"
Another thing in favour of 30k - psykers are a little harder to get hold of, and the ones who get to pick their powers (like Lorgar Transfigured) pointedly don't have access to telepathy.
I didn't like epic. 6mm Baneblades were basically tiny blobs of metal, devoid of any character or meaningful detail, and had weapons modeled on them that weren't even in the rules. 28mm WYSIWYG Baneblades are awesome, and fun to paint; easily weathered and detailed.
The forgeworld 6mm superheavies had a remarkable level of detail on them, though - to more or less the same level as Dropzone Commander stuff does today.
And I didn't like having apocalypse be the purview of large tanks because it was too big. Why bring a Baneblade when you could bring a Titan? The only Apoc games I ever played were team affairs larger than 3000 points. Why not a 2000 point game with a Baneblade? I am sure there was one out there supporting an Imperial infantry or mech company. Why not a Titan at 1250 points, representing the scouting party and its Skitarii ranging out in front of a larger Titan off the field?
Agreed. The only thing needed is to make sure that there's a balance in the scenario. That's why I quite like the 30k Leviathan force org chart - you can take a stupidly overpowered superheavy, but in order to do so you only get an allied detachement's worth of supporting dudes, and since it's your scoring unit, you find yourself having to take risks with it that you wouldn't in a 'normal' 40k game - a Leviathan detachment built around a reaver, for example, forces the titan to advance to take objectives. Which means the carapace mounted weapon rarely gets to fire at non-superheavies and people have a fighting chance of getting at the side armour. In 40k, your superheavies will sit at the back line/midfield behind bubblewrap and shell the enemy whilst objective secured, fast moving, expendable things like bikes and jetbikes do the objective work.
Aren't most D weapons AP2? I rarely see a D weapon that cannot ignore armor saves.
The only one I can think of is the Warlord Titan's Mori-pattern Quake Cannon. I think there's a Khornate daemonic gift or warlord trait that can make you strength D on a 6 to hit, or give you one strength D attack instead of your normal attacks, but I don't know if it replaces the AP value too.
But at the same time you have tanks like the Typhon and entire armies made up out of Dreadnoughts. Not to mention the support squads with flamers.....
Agreed on the flamers, but then flamer squads are infantry too. Admittedly, not riflemen, but still a very efficient small arms unit.
Also, they have their nemesis. Thudd Guns and flamer sections are devastating right up until they see breacher squads coming the other way. A rerollable 3+ save from Hardened Power Armour is a bugger to get through, even more so if the sergeant has Hardened Artificer Armour.
Ashiraya wrote: That scary scary Typhon Siege Tank is 350 points for a single shot still.
It... really is not all that dangerous even to your Russes.
What, are you footslogging an Ogryn army at it?
Camo veterans with tank support.
Unfortunately he runs close quarters units like Deathshroud and parks his Typhon at the back. I have the choice of running towards his CC units and being butchered or standing back and letting him come to me whilst the Typhon removes big chunks of my army.
Armies entirely made up of Leman Russ tanks have existed in the game since the 2004 Chapter Approved supplement that added Imperial Armoured Companies.
So no, it isn't all Apocalypse's fault - in a single FOC (with no points limits) you could have 11 Leman Russ tanks. In 4th Edition, with the 2006 Chapter Approved article, that went up to 17 if you took the Heavy Armour Doctrine and didn't have a phobia of Demolishers.
And there were special rules that effectively gave every enemy gun a form of weak rending, to balance that. Right there, in the Armoured Company rules.
Spoiler:
Lucky Glancing Hits: Even the most heavily armoured vehicle has certain locations which are especially vulnerable. For example, most vehicles have vision slits through which a shot could pass, and often crewmen will open a hatch to look out, which will leave them exposed to enemy fire. Turreted tanks are at risk to shots which hit the 'turret ring' where the turret is joined to the hull, and which can leave the turret jammed in place and unable to move. And, of course, most vehicles are vulnerable to a lucky shot that strikes their fragile tracks, wheels or thrusters and leaves the vehicle immobilised, the chance of a shot striking such a location is very remote, and so in the normal Warhammer 40,000 rules such things are ignored. However, when a large number of vehicles are being used in a game, and in particular in situations where a large number of models are armed with weapons which simply can't do any damage to a vehicle (Imperial Guard armed with lasguns, for example), then it's important that such things as 'lucky hits' are covered.
Because of this, in games where an Armoured Company army is used, the following Lucky Glancing Hits rule must be used. Lucky hits are only used for weapons that don't have any chance of scoring even a glancing hit on the vehicle's available facing (a lasgun shooting at a Rhino, for example). They can't be scored by weapons that roll more than a single D6 for Armour Penetration, or by weapons that allow you to re-roll the Armour Penetration dice (which don't really need the help anyway!).
Roll to hit for the weapon anyway; a lucky hit occurs on a to hit roll of 6. When a lucky hit occurs, roll the D6 , again. If the second roll is also a 6 then a glancing hit is scored - the shot has struck a vulnerable point on the vehicle. On any other roll the shot glances off and has no effect.
If a lucky glancing hit is scored, roll on the Glancing Hit table as normal, However, if the roll is higher than the weapon's Strength, count the hit as causing a 'Crew Shaken' result instead of what is rolled.
Example: A Chimera is heading towards a group of four Space Marines armed with bolters. Normally the Space Marines' bolters (Strength 4) couldn't penetrate the Chimera's front armour of 12, but with the Lucky Hit rule there is a chance of inflicting some damage, so the Space Marines blaze away at the vehicle. The Space Marines roll to hit, and get 2, 4, 6 and 6. The 2 and the 4 are ignored, but the 6s have a chance of scoring a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls the D6 again, and gets a 3 and a 6! The 3 does no damage, but the 6 causes a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls on the Glancing Hit table, and scores yet another 6. However, the maximum score allowed is equal to the bolter's Strength of 4, so the roll inflicts a 'Crew Shaken' result rather than destroying the vehicle.
They also introduced Vehicle Morale and rules penalizing armored companies who brought zero infantry support (they couldn't get closer than 12 inches to infantry in cover- a squad of guardians could block the advance of the most expensive tank on the board)
The designers understood that while fielding an army of tanks can be lots of fun, it may not be as much fun playing against them using rules designed for 28mm soldiers. And while today's designers may understand that, their response is 'buy more models'.
Ashiraya wrote: That scary scary Typhon Siege Tank is 350 points for a single shot still.
It... really is not all that dangerous even to your Russes.
What, are you footslogging an Ogryn army at it?
Camo veterans with tank support.
Unfortunately he runs close quarters units like Deathshroud and parks his Typhon at the back. I have the choice of running towards his CC units and being butchered or standing back and letting him come to me whilst the Typhon removes big chunks of my army.
Do you still have your Bastion-Breacher shells from 5th ed?
(I only have the 5th ed Guard codex).
If you do, a few of those should reduce it to rubble in short order.
Ashiraya wrote: That scary scary Typhon Siege Tank is 350 points for a single shot still.
It... really is not all that dangerous even to your Russes.
What, are you footslogging an Ogryn army at it?
Camo veterans with tank support.
Unfortunately he runs close quarters units like Deathshroud and parks his Typhon at the back. I have the choice of running towards his CC units and being butchered or standing back and letting him come to me whilst the Typhon removes big chunks of my army.
Do you still have your Bastion-Breacher shells from 5th ed?
(I only have the 5th ed Guard codex).
If you do, a few of those should reduce it to rubble in short order.
Nope. We only have Earthshakers now - the Medusa, Colossus and Griffon where all dropped from the game.
Well that's dumb. The Bastion-Breacher shells were insanely scary back in 5th but in today's clown house meta they would be welcome.
I mean, if you're playing against a 30k list, you should take the 30k IG equivalent (Imperialis Militia) and see how happy he is when you are vomiting flareshielded Fast-or-AV14 Malcadors all over the place.
Armies entirely made up of Leman Russ tanks have existed in the game since the 2004 Chapter Approved supplement that added Imperial Armoured Companies.
So no, it isn't all Apocalypse's fault - in a single FOC (with no points limits) you could have 11 Leman Russ tanks. In 4th Edition, with the 2006 Chapter Approved article, that went up to 17 if you took the Heavy Armour Doctrine and didn't have a phobia of Demolishers.
And there were special rules that effectively gave every enemy gun a form of weak rending, to balance that. Right there, in the Armoured Company rules.
Spoiler:
Lucky Glancing Hits: Even the most heavily armoured vehicle has certain locations which are especially vulnerable. For example, most vehicles have vision slits through which a shot could pass, and often crewmen will open a hatch to look out, which will leave them exposed to enemy fire. Turreted tanks are at risk to shots which hit the 'turret ring' where the turret is joined to the hull, and which can leave the turret jammed in place and unable to move. And, of course, most vehicles are vulnerable to a lucky shot that strikes their fragile tracks, wheels or thrusters and leaves the vehicle immobilised, the chance of a shot striking such a location is very remote, and so in the normal Warhammer 40,000 rules such things are ignored. However, when a large number of vehicles are being used in a game, and in particular in situations where a large number of models are armed with weapons which simply can't do any damage to a vehicle (Imperial Guard armed with lasguns, for example), then it's important that such things as 'lucky hits' are covered.
Because of this, in games where an Armoured Company army is used, the following Lucky Glancing Hits rule must be used. Lucky hits are only used for weapons that don't have any chance of scoring even a glancing hit on the vehicle's available facing (a lasgun shooting at a Rhino, for example). They can't be scored by weapons that roll more than a single D6 for Armour Penetration, or by weapons that allow you to re-roll the Armour Penetration dice (which don't really need the help anyway!).
Roll to hit for the weapon anyway; a lucky hit occurs on a to hit roll of 6. When a lucky hit occurs, roll the D6 , again. If the second roll is also a 6 then a glancing hit is scored - the shot has struck a vulnerable point on the vehicle. On any other roll the shot glances off and has no effect.
If a lucky glancing hit is scored, roll on the Glancing Hit table as normal, However, if the roll is higher than the weapon's Strength, count the hit as causing a 'Crew Shaken' result instead of what is rolled.
Example: A Chimera is heading towards a group of four Space Marines armed with bolters. Normally the Space Marines' bolters (Strength 4) couldn't penetrate the Chimera's front armour of 12, but with the Lucky Hit rule there is a chance of inflicting some damage, so the Space Marines blaze away at the vehicle. The Space Marines roll to hit, and get 2, 4, 6 and 6. The 2 and the 4 are ignored, but the 6s have a chance of scoring a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls the D6 again, and gets a 3 and a 6! The 3 does no damage, but the 6 causes a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls on the Glancing Hit table, and scores yet another 6. However, the maximum score allowed is equal to the bolter's Strength of 4, so the roll inflicts a 'Crew Shaken' result rather than destroying the vehicle.
They also introduced Vehicle Morale and rules penalizing armored companies who brought zero infantry support (they couldn't get closer than 12 inches to infantry in cover- a squad of guardians could block the advance of the most expensive tank on the board)
The designers understood that while fielding an army of tanks can be lots of fun, it may not be as much fun playing against them using rules designed for 28mm soldiers. And while today's designers may understand that, their response is 'buy more models'.
Have you read the 4th edition rules? All of that is gone. Two years later.
To be fair though, who really brought enough tanks to be able to play an armoured company? One player? Two? I almost never saw them as most IG players preferred two or three tanks with some Infantry support.
Of course, back then two or three tanks where a major threat to the enemy and would be a serious issue if they ignored them. These days two or three tanks is a waste of points - you need five or six minimal in order to have them last long enough to avoid the HP sanding.
Armies entirely made up of Leman Russ tanks have existed in the game since the 2004 Chapter Approved supplement that added Imperial Armoured Companies.
So no, it isn't all Apocalypse's fault - in a single FOC (with no points limits) you could have 11 Leman Russ tanks. In 4th Edition, with the 2006 Chapter Approved article, that went up to 17 if you took the Heavy Armour Doctrine and didn't have a phobia of Demolishers.
And there were special rules that effectively gave every enemy gun a form of weak rending, to balance that. Right there, in the Armoured Company rules.
Spoiler:
Lucky Glancing Hits: Even the most heavily armoured vehicle has certain locations which are especially vulnerable. For example, most vehicles have vision slits through which a shot could pass, and often crewmen will open a hatch to look out, which will leave them exposed to enemy fire. Turreted tanks are at risk to shots which hit the 'turret ring' where the turret is joined to the hull, and which can leave the turret jammed in place and unable to move. And, of course, most vehicles are vulnerable to a lucky shot that strikes their fragile tracks, wheels or thrusters and leaves the vehicle immobilised, the chance of a shot striking such a location is very remote, and so in the normal Warhammer 40,000 rules such things are ignored. However, when a large number of vehicles are being used in a game, and in particular in situations where a large number of models are armed with weapons which simply can't do any damage to a vehicle (Imperial Guard armed with lasguns, for example), then it's important that such things as 'lucky hits' are covered.
Because of this, in games where an Armoured Company army is used, the following Lucky Glancing Hits rule must be used. Lucky hits are only used for weapons that don't have any chance of scoring even a glancing hit on the vehicle's available facing (a lasgun shooting at a Rhino, for example). They can't be scored by weapons that roll more than a single D6 for Armour Penetration, or by weapons that allow you to re-roll the Armour Penetration dice (which don't really need the help anyway!).
Roll to hit for the weapon anyway; a lucky hit occurs on a to hit roll of 6. When a lucky hit occurs, roll the D6 , again. If the second roll is also a 6 then a glancing hit is scored - the shot has struck a vulnerable point on the vehicle. On any other roll the shot glances off and has no effect.
If a lucky glancing hit is scored, roll on the Glancing Hit table as normal, However, if the roll is higher than the weapon's Strength, count the hit as causing a 'Crew Shaken' result instead of what is rolled.
Example: A Chimera is heading towards a group of four Space Marines armed with bolters. Normally the Space Marines' bolters (Strength 4) couldn't penetrate the Chimera's front armour of 12, but with the Lucky Hit rule there is a chance of inflicting some damage, so the Space Marines blaze away at the vehicle. The Space Marines roll to hit, and get 2, 4, 6 and 6. The 2 and the 4 are ignored, but the 6s have a chance of scoring a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls the D6 again, and gets a 3 and a 6! The 3 does no damage, but the 6 causes a lucky glancing hit. The Space Marine player rolls on the Glancing Hit table, and scores yet another 6. However, the maximum score allowed is equal to the bolter's Strength of 4, so the roll inflicts a 'Crew Shaken' result rather than destroying the vehicle.
They also introduced Vehicle Morale and rules penalizing armored companies who brought zero infantry support (they couldn't get closer than 12 inches to infantry in cover- a squad of guardians could block the advance of the most expensive tank on the board)
The designers understood that while fielding an army of tanks can be lots of fun, it may not be as much fun playing against them using rules designed for 28mm soldiers. And while today's designers may understand that, their response is 'buy more models'.
they removed the movement restrictions and pseudo rending from the AC is fairly short order, the army was laughably unplayable in its original incarnation. They went wayyyyy overboard in handicapping that list.
Medusa is still in FW and a legal purchase for a heavy slot for IG. I like to grab some medusa carriages in my normal CAD lists so I can have a really really hardy shooter behind an ADL or on a skyshield. They also get the ignore cover order, which is awesome, and they are pretty hard to kill, be careful of leadership, so grab a commissar lord or a company banner to help with leadership. If you dont like the price of FW theres a nice conversion thread going on right now in general discussion about how to make your own carriages.
I'm sorry but those who say "rifleman has no place in modern combat", or is "ineffective as a weapon" don't understand modern combat. If nations want to annihilate each other they just use ICMBs.Thankfully, that isn't usually the intended outcome for ether side in a conflict. So as far as conventional war goes (taking into consideration the rules for that engagement), you still need rifleman to clear out urban areas, areas with civilians present or areas where tanks can't enter or to hold objectives. They also have a much lower profile. Also don't forget that the modern rifleman has a lot of sting, in the form of anti-tank (i.e javelins) and Man portable SAMS. Even if the rules of engagement were "cause as many civilian casualties as you like", indiscriminate bombardments are extremely expensive and never seem to actually kill defending infantry. The British dropped 1 700 000 shells on german positions before the battle of the somme, but didn't manage to kill many germans.
With regard to 40k. The fluff involves tank commanders driving their tanks closer so they can hit the enemy with their swords. Don't over think it.
With regards to the game. If you want more infantry play, play at a smaller points value. (like 1000 pts).
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'm sorry but those who say "rifleman has no place in modern combat"or is "ineffective as a weapon" don't understand modern combat.
I think the larger point was that they arent the greatest generator of enemy casualties in conventional force on force battle, and that in some situations other units can effectively hold geound, not that infantry are utterly pointless.
The British dropped 1 700 000 shells on german positions before the battle of the somme, but didn't manage to kill many germans.
well...when theyve had plenty of forwarning, are manning what were probably the strongest defensive positions in history up to that point, and the british not only use mostly completely ineffectual munitions but also have gargantuan numbers of dud rounds, this tactic tends not to work as well
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'd further add that the mujahideen (a light infantry force) managed to see off the modern mechanised might of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Well, sort of. They did the same thing that the US encountered in Vietnam, which was outlast the Soviets will to stay. The casualty count was monstrously in the Soviets favor, its just that they couldnt maintain control over the people and the wilds, much like the US could not in Vietnam. With regards to something akin to a 40k battle, the Soviets would win just about every time, with relatively rare exceptions.
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'd further add that the mujahideen (a light infantry force) managed to see off the modern mechanised might of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Well, sort of. They did the same thing that the US encountered in Vietnam, which was outlast the Soviets will to stay. The casualty count was monstrously in the Soviets favor, its just that they couldnt maintain control over the people and the wilds, much like the US could not in Vietnam. With regards to something akin to a 40k battle, the Soviets would win just about every time, with relatively rare exceptions.
I think alot of these issues with comparing these wars is that they still somewhat followed the "rules of engagement" even if loosely that you cant just level out towns and villages. In the modern sense even the soviets had the eyes of the world on them and they couldnt be completely seen as bloodthirsty conquerors. Now compare this to the British invasion of Afghanistan, the American/Seminole conflict in Florida, or the Maori Wars of New Zealand (and to some degree even the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). Those conflicts had grossly outnumbered forces holding out against well armed and equipped foes who could care very little about the health and well being on the locals. Many of these conflicts were won by smart forces that utilized their opponents tactics against them and doing what guerilla forces do best, making their enemies waste time and resources shooting at nothing.
I think the key for understanding here is that light infantry regiments need to be mobile, flexible, and most of all, hidden. In this respect we cannot recreate that on the tabletop because you cannot make your IG infantry do this. In order to accomplish this you would basically need an army of SM Scouts. Everyone could have infiltrate, outflank, and camo cloaks and be loaded up with close range high impact weapons like demo charges and melta guns so they can make hit and run attacks and move out, dividing enemy fire and making them lose sight of their objectives while pursuing such elusive forces. This could easily be a doctrine thing, although the Elysians come pretty darn close to accomplishing this (and do so in style!) and are a big contender of a competent modified light infantry list. Hopefully if they get updated to the current edition we can use this to our advantage in playing infantry lists.
I think the real problem people have in trying to run horde lists is that they are running them without support. By this I mean they need to have either air cover, mechanized, or artillery support fire to allow them to make their advances (you wont be able to shoot the wave of men effectively if you are being bombed into oblivion at the same time). While a bit overpriced, the DKoK siege list can work well to give a nice horde style list with troops that will not fall back supported by heavy artillery, rapiers, and thudd guns. Additionally the really really REALLY good horde list currently belongs to Heretics and Renegades with their Unending Host detachment and is FUN AS HELL!!!! It gives you the ability to load up on meltas and have nearly limitless men on the field who give each other cover. Too bad its filthy chaos worshippers! Without special rules like infiltrate, camo cloaks, or even improvements in leadership, and other similar things the idea of the light infantry horde list will not do well in the current game, barring some major changes.
Martel732 wrote: There is no cover or support in 40K. Most horde lists can't engage scatterbikes effectively at 36" and so they straight up lose right there.
Thats why mobility and things like infiltrate and things like outflank can really make the difference. Also HWT with ignore cover lascannons can also do some work to scatter bikes as well.
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'd further add that the mujahideen (a light infantry force) managed to see off the modern mechanised might of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Well, sort of. They did the same thing that the US encountered in Vietnam, which was outlast the Soviets will to stay. The casualty count was monstrously in the Soviets favor, its just that they couldnt maintain control over the people and the wilds, much like the US could not in Vietnam. With regards to something akin to a 40k battle, the Soviets would win just about every time, with relatively rare exceptions.
I think the key for understanding here is that light infantry regiments need to be mobile, flexible, and most of all, hidden. In this respect we cannot recreate that on the tabletop because you cannot make your IG infantry do this. In order to accomplish this you would basically need an army of SM Scouts. Everyone could have infiltrate, outflank, and camo cloaks and be loaded up with close range high impact weapons like demo charges and melta guns so they can make hit and run attacks and move out, dividing enemy fire and making them lose sight of their objectives while pursuing such elusive forces. This could easily be a doctrine thing, although the Elysians come pretty darn close to accomplishing this (and do so in style!) and are a big contender of a competent modified light infantry list. Hopefully if they get updated to the current edition we can use this to our advantage in playing infantry lists.
Yes, and that is exactly how I want to run my dudes. All my guys are modeled with camo cloaks and are intended to operate in densely forested terrain where larger vehicles and mechanized troops will be restricted in their capabilities. In that kind of environment they are perfectly equipped to ambush and take out the majority of enemy forces that are unfortunate enough to encounter them.
In part my problem with the system is that rifles cannot even do damage to other infantry. Whether an enemy is out in the open charging you head on, or you are flanking an unsuspecting enemy, the rules do not differentiate. The person engaging in a head long attack is going to be aware of your presence and at least trying to dodge your fire. The flanked person is unaware of your presence and thusly should be able to be taken out swiftly and easily by a rifleman. Bolters Basically I want the lowest tier of weapons to actually be useful to their users. Right now they are more than anything just a wound to soak up before you lose your plasma gun.
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'd further add that the mujahideen (a light infantry force) managed to see off the modern mechanised might of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Well, sort of. They did the same thing that the US encountered in Vietnam, which was outlast the Soviets will to stay. The casualty count was monstrously in the Soviets favor, its just that they couldnt maintain control over the people and the wilds, much like the US could not in Vietnam. With regards to something akin to a 40k battle, the Soviets would win just about every time, with relatively rare exceptions.
I think the key for understanding here is that light infantry regiments need to be mobile, flexible, and most of all, hidden. In this respect we cannot recreate that on the tabletop because you cannot make your IG infantry do this. In order to accomplish this you would basically need an army of SM Scouts. Everyone could have infiltrate, outflank, and camo cloaks and be loaded up with close range high impact weapons like demo charges and melta guns so they can make hit and run attacks and move out, dividing enemy fire and making them lose sight of their objectives while pursuing such elusive forces. This could easily be a doctrine thing, although the Elysians come pretty darn close to accomplishing this (and do so in style!) and are a big contender of a competent modified light infantry list. Hopefully if they get updated to the current edition we can use this to our advantage in playing infantry lists.
Yes, and that is exactly how I want to run my dudes. All my guys are modeled with camo cloaks and are intended to operate in densely forested terrain where larger vehicles and mechanized troops will be restricted in their capabilities. In that kind of environment they are perfectly equipped to ambush and take out the majority of enemy forces that are unfortunate enough to encounter them.
In part my problem with the system is that rifles cannot even do damage to other infantry. Whether an enemy is out in the open charging you head on, or you are flanking an unsuspecting enemy, the rules do not differentiate. The person engaging in a head long attack is going to be aware of your presence and at least trying to dodge your fire. The flanked person is unaware of your presence and thusly should be able to be taken out swiftly and easily by a rifleman. Bolters Basically I want the lowest tier of weapons to actually be useful to their users. Right now they are more than anything just a wound to soak up before you lose your plasma gun.
I see what you are saying but I think thats why FRFSRF and other orders exists to emulate this concept of a debilitating salvo of fire. Unfortunately its not exactly easy or prudent to be able to use it all over the place. I would be in favor of Sgts being able to issue orders, or better yet, Voxes having unlimited range to make sure you can get your orders off when then need to happen.
MadMarkMagee wrote: I'd further add that the mujahideen (a light infantry force) managed to see off the modern mechanised might of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Well, sort of. They did the same thing that the US encountered in Vietnam, which was outlast the Soviets will to stay. The casualty count was monstrously in the Soviets favor, its just that they couldnt maintain control over the people and the wilds, much like the US could not in Vietnam. With regards to something akin to a 40k battle, the Soviets would win just about every time, with relatively rare exceptions.
I think the key for understanding here is that light infantry regiments need to be mobile, flexible, and most of all, hidden. In this respect we cannot recreate that on the tabletop because you cannot make your IG infantry do this. In order to accomplish this you would basically need an army of SM Scouts. Everyone could have infiltrate, outflank, and camo cloaks and be loaded up with close range high impact weapons like demo charges and melta guns so they can make hit and run attacks and move out, dividing enemy fire and making them lose sight of their objectives while pursuing such elusive forces. This could easily be a doctrine thing, although the Elysians come pretty darn close to accomplishing this (and do so in style!) and are a big contender of a competent modified light infantry list. Hopefully if they get updated to the current edition we can use this to our advantage in playing infantry lists.
Yes, and that is exactly how I want to run my dudes. All my guys are modeled with camo cloaks and are intended to operate in densely forested terrain where larger vehicles and mechanized troops will be restricted in their capabilities. In that kind of environment they are perfectly equipped to ambush and take out the majority of enemy forces that are unfortunate enough to encounter them.
In part my problem with the system is that rifles cannot even do damage to other infantry. Whether an enemy is out in the open charging you head on, or you are flanking an unsuspecting enemy, the rules do not differentiate. The person engaging in a head long attack is going to be aware of your presence and at least trying to dodge your fire. The flanked person is unaware of your presence and thusly should be able to be taken out swiftly and easily by a rifleman. Bolters Basically I want the lowest tier of weapons to actually be useful to their users. Right now they are more than anything just a wound to soak up before you lose your plasma gun.
I see what you are saying but I think thats why FRFSRF and other orders exists to emulate this concept of a debilitating salvo of fire. Unfortunately its not exactly easy or prudent to be able to use it all over the place. I would be in favor of Sgts being able to issue orders, or better yet, Voxes having unlimited range to make sure you can get your orders off when then need to happen.
It isn't just a lack of orders. It is a game mechanic issue. For instance you can't realistically expect a group of 20 guys to stealthily creep up or flank and enemy position. This is why you have a somewhat spread out and highly specialized force. It is what makes a combat unit like that different than traditional infantry.
So lets say I flank an ork squad of 20 boys some how (lol never going to happen) and they wish to shoot at the orks. That veteran squad w/frfsrf is getting 20 hits and 6.6 wounds. Then that leaves the 6+ armor. That leaves about 5 dead orks. So now an entire squad of boys has been outflanked within 12 inches. This then means that I'm going to get shot next turn, and then charged. There really isn't even a point in the exercise at all if that is the outcome. That entire squad should be wiped out or become combat ineffective due to the sudden and devastating assault.
Well for one, killing 5 Orks out of twenty is hardly what I would consider devastating, and hardly what they as a fictional species would consider devastating.
Secondly it seems like you assume that every time you move you'll be able to outflank an enemy with out detection. You wouldn't, thats a fact of war.
Now on the table top, it would add to many additional rules in order to implement a level of planning you want. You'd need to make rules for detection, for moving in the prone. Look outs, proper scouts, the proper usage of cover. Its the way it is, because GW wants to keep the game somewhat simple for people to follow, not give them about thirty different charts they want to roll on each phase.
If you want a bit more "tactical" flexibility see about using blips or pieces of paper to mark where a squad is and then not be able to see it unless it fires or you are with in range of a LoS weapon.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Well for one, killing 5 Orks out of twenty is hardly what I would consider devastating, and hardly what they as a fictional species would consider devastating.
Secondly it seems like you assume that every time you move you'll be able to outflank an enemy with out detection. You wouldn't, thats a fact of war.
Now on the table top, it would add to many additional rules in order to implement a level of planning you want. You'd need to make rules for detection, for moving in the prone. Look outs, proper scouts, the proper usage of cover. Its the way it is, because GW wants to keep the game somewhat simple for people to follow, not give them about thirty different charts they want to roll on each phase.
If you want a bit more "tactical" flexibility see about using blips or pieces of paper to mark where a squad is and then not be able to see it unless it fires or you are with in range of a LoS weapon.
Of course 5 orks is nothing, that was the point. They flank them and do nothing still.
My intention was not to say that all of my forces should be able to outflank, but rather that other forces would draw fire, and / or suppress enemy units so that specialized and maneuverable squads could then outflank and take out the enemy.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Make more weapons have pinning then, or give certain ones Suppressing Fire which could be an improved version of Pinning with more negatives.
But then you need to worry about the fact that there are so many units that don't care about pinning or Leadership Based effects.
Exactly. The problem goes right down to the basics of the game's mechanics, and is why I'm not just talking about this from a guard perspective. I want all factions to have more utility for their infantry and riflemen.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: The easiest way to do that would to just take the rules back a couple of editions to less vehicles, no LoW, no formations.
Aye, but then you have people with lots of expensive tanks and other big models they can't use. Those guys will be unhappy and stop buying GW plastics, and that's not good (for GW).
One of the other options is actually equip your mobile squads with something more effective than lasguns.
Such specialized 'sneak' squads could still be equipped with man-portable weapons, such as flamers. If your heavier assets do pin an enemy, or at least make them focus the heavier assets, then you can drop flamethrowers on their heads, and flamers will do considerably more damage to 20 orks than lasguns. You could even add shotguns and charge the remnant - at least then you get the extra attack for charging and they lose their furious charge bonus.
I actually have an opponent who does just this - he runs a Knight and a Leman Russ (at 1500) and then a bunch of flamer or melta squads (not always in Chimeras but sometimes he'll trade a squad for a Chimera). While my primary heavy units are engaging the Knight and the Russ, the Guardsmen have some time to move upfield, and usually they're in the perfect spot to shoot and charge my units just as the Knight and Russ go down, which is turn 3ish (sometimes 2, sometimes 4) but between the Move Move Move! order and camo cloaks he can usually hug terrain and be safe from my lighter assets as he sprints across the board.
Unit1126PLL wrote: One of the other options is actually equip your mobile squads with something more effective than lasguns.
Such specialized 'sneak' squads could still be equipped with man-portable weapons, such as flamers. If your heavier assets do pin an enemy, or at least make them focus the heavier assets, then you can drop flamethrowers on their heads, and flamers will do considerably more damage to 20 orks than lasguns. You could even add shotguns and charge the remnant - at least then you get the extra attack for charging and they lose their furious charge bonus.
It's really quite a maneuverable infantry army.
The problem is that this is about the rifleman. There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle. It shows that not only were you quicker than your opponent, but also smarter than them. Flamers and specialist weapons should be there for specific purposes. Flamethrowers are there to clear out bunkers and fortified positions (they are also very heavy and go on the back, making camo cloaks a no go). Plasma is good against heavily armored infantry, the melta against vehicles and the rifle intended for use against other infantry. Flame throwers are just not suited to this role, or at least shouldn't be.
The squad is specialized in that they are light on equipment and given camo cloaks so that they can move quickly through dense underbrush, remain hidden and then take out the enemy,
Unit1126PLL wrote: One of the other options is actually equip your mobile squads with something more effective than lasguns.
Such specialized 'sneak' squads could still be equipped with man-portable weapons, such as flamers. If your heavier assets do pin an enemy, or at least make them focus the heavier assets, then you can drop flamethrowers on their heads, and flamers will do considerably more damage to 20 orks than lasguns. You could even add shotguns and charge the remnant - at least then you get the extra attack for charging and they lose their furious charge bonus.
It's really quite a maneuverable infantry army.
The problem is that this is about the rifleman. There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle. It shows that not only were you quicker than your opponent, but also smarter than them. Flamers and specialist weapons should be there for specific purposes. Flamethrowers are there to clear out bunkers and fortified positions (they are also very heavy and go on the back, making camo cloaks a no go). Plasma is good against heavily armored infantry, the melta against vehicles and the rifle intended for use against other infantry. Flame throwers are just not suited to this role, or at least shouldn't be.
The squad is specialized in that they are light on equipment and given camo cloaks so that they can move quickly through dense underbrush, remain hidden and take out the enemy,
You're conflating 40k and Real Life. In real life, flamers can shoot much further than in 40k, but they are also less harmful (at least, I imagine so against things as tough as Orks!). Flamers in 40k are the premier anti-infantry weapon, because the way you kill enemy infantry is by hitting them lots of times, and Lasguns just don't cut it anymore.
Also, you've not got a great imagination, if you think the horrible World War 2 style backpack-fueled Flamers are the only Flamers in 40k. Maybe your Regiment makes unauthorized Lasgun modifications to split the beam into needle-thin cutting lasers that spread into a cone but uses the whole charge-pack in one go (Assault 1, Template). Or perhaps your Flamers are Meltas with the barrel crudely sawed off, leaving an unfocused blast of energy as its discharge rather than a concentrated antitank beam.
Heck, maybe all your flamer people are latent Pyromancers.
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
Obliterating the enemy and everything near by with your orbiting starship's weapons is cooler.
Spacecraft > planes
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
Obliterating the enemy and everything near by with your orbiting starship's weapons is cooler.
Spacecraft > planes
Dropping a building on top of your enemy is even cooler.
Psykers>Spacecraft
Meanwhile back on the farm, I think if we gave Infantry, Not troops, but all Infantry Models, ObSec in a CAD it would work towards making Bodies feel more useful. The game as Escalated to the point where most weapons weaker than s6 just don't cut it and anyone carrying a bolter or a Lasgun is just an extra bulletcatcher for the guy with the Plasma Gun or Melta( or Grav ect.)
I feel there should be more restrictions on GMC/SVH in 40k as well. Outside of Imperial Knight armies, who don't really have a choice in the matter, you shouldn't be able to take more than 25% in SVH/GMC. Those Models should be more like Centerpieces for your army.
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
You guys all spell 'close combat' in a very odd manner.
I hear you OP. Unfortunately 40k is more of a shoot-em up than a strategy game. It's largely won by 1) bringing the right guns to the battle 2) Targeting to maximum efficiency. Between that and the swingy play the rules tend towards, you're not left with a tactically rewarding game. Fun but tactics and squad level actions take a back seat here my friend.
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
You guys all spell 'close combat' in a very odd manner.
Anti-spirals, please. Everyone knows throwing galaxies around in a mech of improbable is the best way to fight.
Sledgehammer wrote: There is nothing cooler, and nothing more reflective of your capabilities in warfare, than in your obliteration of an enemy with your rifle.
Heresy. There is nothing cooler in warfare than obliterating the enemy and everything nearby with an airstrike. Planes > rifles. Indisputable truth.
You guys all spell 'close combat' in a very odd manner.
Clearly none of you has seen the light. What you describe is just pressing a few buttons or waving a pointy stick about. It is nothing compared to hearing the roar of your engines and feeling the wind in your hair as the thunder of your cannons obliterates the enemy whose fallen bodies are then crushed underneath your iron treads as their friends attempt in vain to stop you, their attacks futile against your armoured might. Truly there is nothing compared to the thrill of commanding the power of such a behemoth of steel and fire as you advance implacably across the field; a slow but inevitable doom to your enemies. Truly tanks are superior to anything else.
Tanks and armored vehicles can seize ground, but they can't hold it. Returning that ability to Infantry Troops forces people to take, y'know, Infantry Troops. If your army is composed of nothing but tanks, then you'll need to adjust your tactics accordingly (i.e., tabling).
The hammer does.
