Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Most Militarum players seem to view current Heavy Weapon Squads as 'mortars or bust'... without the protection afforded by indirect fire, three T3, W2, Sv5+ models (at 60pts) are just too fragile to be feasible as a standalone unit.

I propose instead that either:

They become a 5th (6th counting Scions) battleline unit of 10/20 models that, for every 4-5 models in the squad, can replace 2 models with a Heavy Weapon Team. This battleline unit would have the same Overwatch-enhancing special ability it currently does (or something comparable that makes it a good firebase/backline unit), but also Sergeants and attachable leaders.

OR

They simply become an attache unit that can be appended to battleline units (not Scions) in the same way Platoon Command Squads can (albeit, maybe not as Leader units).

While it might mean that mortar squads become less viable (IMO they've been a little bit too overused throughout 9th/10th), it would even the playing field for other heavy weapons by making them more durable. It would also provide all Heavy Weapon Squads with access to leader abilities (option 1 moreso than option 2).

I don't know the current heavy weapon team rules, but it sounds like they're in a similar boat to krootox riders. If that's the case, just attaching them to a squad character-style seems like a reasonable approach so long as giving them a bunch of ablative wounds isn't game-breaking. This is sort of kind of how weapon platforms work for eldar guardians, and it seems to work okay.

For a probably-too-complicated approach, you could make them untargetable from outside of 12" while they're within 3" of a friendly infantry unit. So no giving them infantry squad buffs or mixing profiles within a unit, and your opponent can "snipe" them out by getting close, but you won't be losing teams to lascannons from across the table.

They just need to be more durable. If they had something like +1 Save when stationary they'd be far better.

Jarms48 wrote:
They just need to be more durable. If they had something like +1 Save when stationary they'd be far better.

Eh. A couple things there.

1.) Is this unit really on such a knife's edge of being playable/unplayable that +1 to its save will make the difference?
2.) What's the fluff explanation for the better save when not moving, and-
3.) -why doesn't that same logic result in every similar unit in the game getting that same benefit? Should eldar support weapon batteries or heavy weapon platforms also get the +1, for instance?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Eh. A couple things there.

1.) Is this unit really on such a knife's edge of being playable/unplayable that +1 to its save will make the difference?
2.) What's the fluff explanation for the better save when not moving, and-
3.) -why doesn't that same logic result in every similar unit in the game getting that same benefit? Should eldar support weapon batteries or heavy weapon platforms also get the +1, for instance?

1) Yes, they're still incredibly cheap. The only reason people take mortars compared to everything else is the fact that they die to a stiff breeze. If you position them in cover and don't move them now the have a 3+ save.
2) They have a massive gun shield on the model, which realistically should catch small arms fire and shrapnel. They also have sandbags in the kit. Moving = no protection from gun shield and sandbags. Standing still = protection from gun shield and sandbags.
3) Because they don't have a modelled gun shield and sandbags.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
They just need to be more durable. If they had something like +1 Save when stationary they'd be far better.

2.) What's the fluff explanation for the better save when not moving, and-

Don't they have sandbags? Couple that with the gun sorta protecting the crew and it's not necessarily a bad idea.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
They just need to be more durable. If they had something like +1 Save when stationary they'd be far better.

2.) What's the fluff explanation for the better save when not moving, and-

Don't they have sandbags? Couple that with the gun sorta protecting the crew and it's not necessarily a bad idea.

On the model? Nah:https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/astra-militarum-cadian-heavy-weapons-squad-2023

Even if they have sandbags in fluff, those are a static thing. They're not picking up a bunch of sandbags and carrying them every time the unit moves. And even if we accept that a significant number of enemy shots are plinking off of the gun itself, why would the gun only protect them while they're crouched next to it and not when they're holding it close/carrying it?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

On the model? Nah:https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/astra-militarum-cadian-heavy-weapons-squad-2023

Even if they have sandbags in fluff, those are a static thing. They're not picking up a bunch of sandbags and carrying them every time the unit moves. And even if we accept that a significant number of enemy shots are plinking off of the gun itself, why would the gun only protect them while they're crouched next to it and not when they're holding it close/carrying it?

Okay, sure. They removed the sandbags on the new model. The previous model of the last 20 years had sandbags.

They don't need to carry the sandbags with them. However, there's 2 logical steps you could easily make. 1) They started in an entrenched position with sandbags. 2) They entrenched themselves after they found a new position.

The gun won't protect them while they're carrying it. It's in parts and in their bag/on their back.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

On the model? Nah:https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/astra-militarum-cadian-heavy-weapons-squad-2023

Even if they have sandbags in fluff, those are a static thing. They're not picking up a bunch of sandbags and carrying them every time the unit moves. And even if we accept that a significant number of enemy shots are plinking off of the gun itself, why would the gun only protect them while they're crouched next to it and not when they're holding it close/carrying it?

Okay, sure. They removed the sandbags on the new model. The previous model of the last 20 years had sandbags.

They don't need to carry the sandbags with them. However, there's 2 logical steps you could easily make. 1) They started in an entrenched position with sandbags. 2) They entrenched themselves after they found a new position.

The gun won't protect them while they're carrying it. It's in parts and in their bag/on their back.

Then how do they fire it while moving?

Also, if +1 Save is the difference between a good unit and a trash one... Couldn't they just be given a 4+ instead of a 5+?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then how do they fire it while moving?

Also, if +1 Save is the difference between a good unit and a trash one... Couldn't they just be given a 4+ instead of a 5+?

For several editions they couldn't. Just imagine it as them rapidly trying to assemble their weapon and bipod/tripod then firing. Thus having a lower BS.

You could do that, would be simpler, but it would apply to those models that moved. Less thematic but more impactful.

Jarms48 wrote:
Okay, sure. They removed the sandbags on the new model. The previous model of the last 20 years had sandbags.

They don't need to carry the sandbags with them. However, there's 2 logical steps you could easily make. 1) They started in an entrenched position with sandbags. 2) They entrenched themselves after they found a new position.

1. Well, sandbags would basically just be cover. Benefitting from cover until the unit moves could be a fun and fluffy guard rule, but why would only heavy weapons teams benefit from it? Surely other squads of guardsmen should be able to pile up sandbags the night before too. So it feels weird as a bespoke heavy weapons team thing.
2. Huh? Like, between the time it took them to move to their new position and the start of the shooting phase, they busted out some E-tools and dug a fresh foxhole and then set the gun back up? I guess you could litter the entire battlefield with sandbags so that there's always another wall of sand wherever they move, but that's mildly silly and then raises the question of why other units or the enemy aren't also benefitting from the endless piles of sandbags.

The gun won't protect them while they're carrying it. It's in parts and in their bag/on their back.

Isn't the whole idea of the gun protecting them that there's just a big metal thing standing vaguely between them and at least some of the enemy? Why does a hunk of metal only deflect bullets when it's on a mount in front of you and not when it's strapped to your back or carried in your arms? If anything, clutching one of those huge things to your chest seems like it would cover more of your profile, not less.

Jarms48 wrote:
You could do that, would be simpler, but it would apply to those models that moved. Less thematic but more impactful.

Admittedly, I'm probably over-thinking this. But I think it's fair to say that the +1 saves when holding still thing is unintuitive enough that simplicity probably wins out over thematics here.

Again, the idea of having a rule (detachment bonus?) representing units digging in before the battle is cool. It's just awkward trying to justify making it a heavy-weapons-team-only rule or trying to explain how the piles of sandbags and fox holes suddenly appear wherever you go.

IMO the justification could be (and I'm not sure I'm a fan of the idea, just trying to give it the best interpretation) that HWTs are a static unit that by doctrine finds a fixed position and takes cover while infantry squads may not be moving in game terms but are still moving around, picking different angles to shoot from, etc, within the general area they are in.

Jarms48 wrote:They just need to be more durable. If they had something like +1 Save when stationary they'd be far better.

Improving their Save by +1 (stationary or not) isn't suddenly going to make them viable IMO. You're still looking at three T3, W2 models. A single heavy bolter, rolling well, can still take out the entire 60pt unit from across the battlefield. Even buffing their Toughness by +1 as well (in the same way that ordnance batteries, artillery carriages, etc. have higher Toughness) would fail to make a huge amount of difference.

I like the 'attache' idea most because:
* They can't be targeted directly (by precision weapons maybe?) and get lots of ablative wounds.
* It's fluffy in that many modern rifle platoons will attach specialist heavy weapon teams as needed.
* It gives them access to leader abilities (when the unit they attach to is also joined by a leader).

The main issue is that it might get confusing for some people allocating wounds between 1W and 2W models. I personally think each team should operate as two 1W models, where the loader (if alive) assists the gunner, but that's probably a discussion for another day.

Wyldhunt wrote:For a probably-too-complicated approach, you could make them untargetable from outside of 12" while they're within 3" of a friendly infantry unit. So no giving them infantry squad buffs or mixing profiles within a unit, and your opponent can "snipe" them out by getting close, but you won't be losing teams to lascannons from across the table.

Or something like this, which would additionally synergise with the 'improved overwatch when near friendly infantry' aspect of their special ability.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Improving their Save by +1 (stationary or not) isn't suddenly going to make them viable IMO. You're still looking at three T3, W2 models. A single heavy bolter, rolling well, can still take out the entire 60pt unit from across the battlefield. Even buffing their Toughness by +1 as well (in the same way that ordnance batteries, artillery carriages, etc. have higher Toughness) would fail to make a huge amount of difference.

I like the 'attache' idea most because:
* They can't be targeted directly (by precision weapons maybe?) and get lots of ablative wounds.
* It's fluffy in that many modern rifle platoons will attach specialist heavy weapon teams as needed.
* It gives them access to leader abilities (when the unit they attach to is also joined by a leader).

The issue with making them act similar to leaders is stacking buffs. Attaching them to something like a DKOK blob with 20 models and say a platoon command squad will make them quite strong. Now that entire unit gets their overwatch ability and the aura from the ability now measures from all the additional models. If a single DKOK model dies they get +1 to Hit basically removing the penalty from moving with heavy, or alternatively stacking with heavy and removing a -1 to Hit. Then there's also the +1 to Wound if half the DKOK models die. The extra OC they get from banners and the PCS's own ability.

+1 toughness doesn't really work either, from memory if you make a HWT T4 then the entire Infantry Squad is then considered T4. That's why I say +1 to their save or flat 4+ save is the best buff. As now if they're in cover that can be improved to 3+, or 3+ and +1 AP if you give them take cover as well (so suddenly that HB is now AP0).

That's true, but not necessarily a dealbreaker IMO... just something that adds to both units' tactical versality and warrants some extra consideration re: unit costs.

For the record, I don't think they should get +1 T as an attache unit. I was just using that as another example of a buff that may not achieve the necessary durability (which might not even be feasible via statline buffs).