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.

Do I really need to keep all three heavy guns grouped together within two inches of each other to use them? That seems totally counter intuitive to how heavy weapons like this would be used on a real battlefield, where I imagine they would probably be strong anchor points spread out across a longer firing line with overlapping fields of fire. Like when would you ever want three heavy machine guns all crammed in the same shooting position?

Am I missing something here? How are you supposed to use these units? I am a noob but this just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

You can always put them into infantry squads to have them spread out as anchorpoints.

One of the big differences between real combat and 40k is that suppressing fire with a single machine gun doesn't really work in 40k. So there are real-world tactics you kinda have to give up on.

That said, if you bring enough firepower you can make your opponent keep his troops heads-down. It just won't be a single heavy weapon team, it usually has to be a collection of heavy tanks or something similar.

Tree_Beard wrote:
Do I really need to keep all three heavy guns grouped together within two inches of each other to use them? That seems totally counter intuitive to how heavy weapons like this would be used on a real battlefield, where I imagine they would probably be strong anchor points spread out across a longer firing line with overlapping fields of fire. Like when would you ever want three heavy machine guns all crammed in the same shooting position?

Am I missing something here? How are you supposed to use these units? I am a noob but this just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

You're missing nothing.

We're not allowed to have nice things.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tree_Beard wrote:
Do I really need to keep all three heavy guns grouped together within two inches of each other to use them? That seems totally counter intuitive to how heavy weapons like this would be used on a real battlefield, where I imagine they would probably be strong anchor points spread out across a longer firing line with overlapping fields of fire. Like when would you ever want three heavy machine guns all crammed in the same shooting position?

Am I missing something here? How are you supposed to use these units? I am a noob but this just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

You're missing nothing.

We're not allowed to have nice things.

I don't know how well Guard are doing at the moment, but "My squad can't ignore unit coherency" seems like an odd thing to complain about.

Tree_Beard wrote:
Do I really need to keep all three heavy guns grouped together within two inches of each other to use them? That seems totally counter intuitive to how heavy weapons like this would be used on a real battlefield, where I imagine they would probably be strong anchor points spread out across a longer firing line with overlapping fields of fire. Like when would you ever want three heavy machine guns all crammed in the same shooting position?

Am I missing something here? How are you supposed to use these units? I am a noob but this just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

No, you're not missing anything. Squads have to maintain unit coherency. This is nothing new to 10e.

As for how to use them? You deploy somewhere with good sight lines & hopefully in cover, point the guns towards the enemy & fire away. Ideally you can get them deployed in an elevated position like 2nd+ story of a ruin & make use of plunging fire.

OP isn't asking to ignore unit coherency. They're asking why the teams are so counterintuitive.

I've never been silent about how daft it is that Guard, effectively, have one end of the scale flipped while never adjusting the measures.

We're in an age now where Weapon Teams aren't part of the 3 "named" Guard units. Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

Heavy weapon teams just aren't a good unit period. They are just way too squishy for their price.

BUT they work okay as part of an infantry squad. I prefer several 20 man units to make good use of the strategem to return a unit.
With take aim (and not moving), Lascannoms hit on a 3+ and can dish out quite some hurt. Autocannons with their two shots can do some work as well.

Unfortunately, this edition is pushing me more and more into tanks, so infantry with heavy weapons have stayed on the shelf the last months. Additionally, I don't believe them surviving the Codex drop ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
OP isn't asking to ignore unit coherency. They're asking why the teams are so counterintuitive.

I've never been silent about how daft it is that Guard, effectively, have one end of the scale flipped while never adjusting the measures.

We're in an age now where Weapon Teams aren't part of the 3 "named" Guard units. Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

This is a neat idea to add some more realistic positioning of heavy weapon teams especially if infantry squads disappear as a unit option

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

Yes, as far as I can tell this sort of thing would make much more sense. Each team of two men with a heavy gun should be its own unit. Problem solved.

40k veterans: What would be the problem with such a proposal?

So we're clear:

I'm saying we bring back what the Doctrines book had, modified to better match now:

Anti-Material Team: Lascannon equipped team. Missile Launcher team, in a pinch.
Anti-Infantry Team: Heavy Bolter or Autocannon equipped team
Mortar Team: Self-explanatory.
Missile Launcher Team: Again, self-explanatory.

Each team could be given some kind of rule benefitting their given role.

Tree_Beard wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

Yes, as far as I can tell this sort of thing would make much more sense. Each team of two men with a heavy gun should be its own unit. Problem solved.

40k veterans: What would be the problem with such a proposal?

I'm pretty sure this was a thing back in 2nd edition. You could split off your HWT from their squad and they became a new unit with a couple restrictions, like not being able to move towards the enemy, or something like that.

Tree_Beard wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

Yes, as far as I can tell this sort of thing would make much more sense. Each team of two men with a heavy gun should be its own unit. Problem solved.

40k veterans: What would be the problem with such a proposal?

Yes?

Because all the people who think the team is too squishy for its points when it contains 6 members will suddenly see how resilient it is when it only includes two models?

Heavy weapons squads are more like support strongpoints in the vein of WWI heavy machine gun and mortar teams, rather than modern support weapons. The latter was represented by the teams embedded within infantry squads as mentioned. Infantry squads may well be disappearing in the next codex though.

The Imperial Guard often fights in a style akin to positional warfare rather than manoeuvre warfare. Concentrated support weapons makes more sense under that paradigm.

PenitentJake wrote:

Tree_Beard wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making HWTs get split into 3 subtypes, each having Lone Operative and a unit size of 1 isn't as crazy as it used to sound

Yes, as far as I can tell this sort of thing would make much more sense. Each team of two men with a heavy gun should be its own unit. Problem solved.

40k veterans: What would be the problem with such a proposal?

Yes?

Because all the people who think the team is too squishy for its points when it contains 6 members will suddenly see how resilient it is when it only includes two models?

3 teams split into 1 team units will be more durable due to overkill. Some firepower directed against each team will be wasted that previously spilled over into the next team. Morale also becomes entirely irrelevant.

This would have mattered more before split fire, but still has an impact. Of course, this assumes the three teams are still a single choice, otherwise the volume is too small to care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So we're clear:

I'm saying we bring back what the Doctrines book had, modified to better match now:

Anti-Material Team: Lascannon equipped team. Missile Launcher team, in a pinch.
Anti-Infantry Team: Heavy Bolter or Autocannon equipped team
Mortar Team: Self-explanatory.
Missile Launcher Team: Again, self-explanatory.

Each team could be given some kind of rule benefitting their given role.

Those were still teams of three in unit coherency, it doesn't change much? You would still need a rule to split teams out from squads.

One way they used to be used was with the "Wall Of Martyrs - Imperial Defence Emplacement". Put the squad of 3 2-person HWT models in a trench, for cover. Or the bunker, if there were enough fire points to shoot out of.
They're stationary yet protected, and able to pick off their preferred target type, or deny parts of the battlefield.
The bunker denied them being given orders though.

Now though, you are forced to use them like an old cannon line. I expect you are supposed to take multiple squads, or a HWS to one side, and an infantry squad with another WHT on the other.

ccs wrote:

As for how to use them? You deploy somewhere with good sight lines & hopefully in cover, point the guns towards the enemy & fire away. Ideally you can get them deployed in an elevated position like 2nd+ story of a ruin & make use of plunging fire.

Sure, but the 3-team unit requirement actively inhibits that. If I have access to a concealed, elevated firing position with great sight lines but its not big enough to fit three whole heavy weapons inside it, I cant effectively use the position, which is never a problem that a real commander would have.

Sentient fungus, regenerating murder robots and spindly death bugs are also issues that real commanders don’t really need to consider. It’s a game, and some of the abstractions may not map across to reality. If it bothers you that much, try out some house rules.

For what it's worth in our homebrew variation of 40K, the Guard's heavy weapons teams deploy as and count as a unit but each gun with crew act independently of each other so they can set up beyond normal coherency restrictions.

 Flinty wrote:
Sentient fungus, regenerating murder robots and spindly death bugs are also issues that real commanders don’t really need to consider. It’s a game, and some of the abstractions may not map across to reality. If it bothers you that much, try out some house rules.

Can you help me understand what the 3-team requirement instead of allowing between 1-3 teams for the unit is meant to be abstracting?

Apologies, my earlier response was overly flippant due to a stupendously terrible day.

In topic, it is abstracting how the Imperial Guard is organised. They are a monolithic organisation more interested in following rigid doctrine rather than modern tactical flexibility.

In the other hand, it is just the decision of the games designers, who are not terribly interested in either game balance or making the Guard map closely to current doctrine.

So with all due respect I really do recommend trying out some home brew rules if it will increase your enjoyment of the game

You could say the same of any coherency rules.

Unit rules in general are an abstraction from real life where units are far more flexible in operation than they are in 40K. That being said, we don't want to have every model operating completely independently in a game of 40K like they conceivably could in real life.

 alextroy wrote:
Unit rules in general are an abstraction from real life where units are far more flexible in operation than they are in 40K. That being said, we don't want to have every model operating completely independently in a game of 40K like they conceivably could in real life.

That being said, it wouldn't hurt to give Guard the capability to have any frigging models that can operate independently given that we don't have it.

Tree_Beard wrote:

ccs wrote:

As for how to use them? You deploy somewhere with good sight lines & hopefully in cover, point the guns towards the enemy & fire away. Ideally you can get them deployed in an elevated position like 2nd+ story of a ruin & make use of plunging fire.

Sure, but the 3-team unit requirement actively inhibits that. If I have access to a concealed, elevated firing position with great sight lines but its not big enough to fit three whole heavy weapons inside it, I cant effectively use the position, which is never a problem that a real commander would have.

You aren't a real commander & 40k has never come close to modeling reality. So stop worrying about "in reality....".
And here in 10e it's almost impossible for models not to have cover. You almost have to go out of your way to achieve that.

If you’re playing with friends, house rule it. Honestly, this game gets a lot better when you start modifying it.
The issue would be if you had 3 HW teams and deployed 2 in good positions but then parked the 3rd out of sight and protected just so you didn’t lose the unit for VP etc. That’s when it breaks down.

ccs wrote:

You aren't a real commander & 40k has never come close to modeling reality. So stop worrying about "in reality....".
And here in 10e it's almost impossible for models not to have cover. You almost have to go out of your way to achieve that.

The issue here is that the rule is going out of its way to restrict what could otherwise be semi realistic tactical choices with your army (e.g. "I want one heavy MG on that rooftop and another on in that second story window.") for what appears to be no real gameplay benefit... at least none that immediately come to mind for me.

Your army is also some kind of reinforced company crammed into a frontage that would make Napoleonic officers feel uncomfortable, your troops unable to be more than arm's reach from one another or they become combat ineffective, and that heavy MG on the rooftop has a maximum range of about a hundred yards.

There's also no gameplay benefit to suppressive fire, fire and maneuver, ambush, crossfire, or overlapping fields of fire to begin with. Basically none of the real-world tactics of infantry combat apply.

I really don't think it's heavy weapon team squad coherency that spoils the realism of the game.

Tree_Beard wrote:

ccs wrote:

You aren't a real commander & 40k has never come close to modeling reality. So stop worrying about "in reality....".
And here in 10e it's almost impossible for models not to have cover. You almost have to go out of your way to achieve that.

The issue here is that the rule is going out of its way to restrict what could otherwise be semi realistic tactical choices with your army (e.g. "I want one heavy MG on that rooftop and another on in that second story window.") for what appears to be no real gameplay benefit... at least none that immediately come to mind for me.

It’s coherency that applies to EVERYONE.
IG not getting a special rule that lets them ignore it is the same as Marines not getting a special rule so they can ignore it, or Tyranids, or GSC, or Custodes, or…

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tree_Beard wrote:

ccs wrote:

You aren't a real commander & 40k has never come close to modeling reality. So stop worrying about "in reality....".
And here in 10e it's almost impossible for models not to have cover. You almost have to go out of your way to achieve that.

The issue here is that the rule is going out of its way to restrict what could otherwise be semi realistic tactical choices with your army (e.g. "I want one heavy MG on that rooftop and another on in that second story window.") for what appears to be no real gameplay benefit... at least none that immediately come to mind for me.

It’s coherency that applies to EVERYONE.
IG not getting a special rule that lets them ignore it is the same as Marines not getting a special rule so they can ignore it, or Tyranids, or GSC, or Custodes, or…

I'm not saying unit coherency shouldn't be a thing, I'm fine with that. What I'm saying is that for the HWTs specifically, the unit would both look and behave in a much more natural, expected way, if the index card simply said "1-3 Heavy Weapon teams" make up the unit, instead of always 3.

 bullyboy wrote:
If you’re playing with friends, house rule it. Honestly, this game gets a lot better when you start modifying it.
The issue would be if you had 3 HW teams and deployed 2 in good positions but then parked the 3rd out of sight and protected just so you didn’t lose the unit for VP etc. That’s when it breaks down.

OMG yes. Please give me 20 point action monkeys who demand over comitment of shooting by the opponents 20 units. Investigate signals would be amazing.

Imagine me splitting my neophyte squad into 10 induvidual models.

 Niiai wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
If you’re playing with friends, house rule it. Honestly, this game gets a lot better when you start modifying it.
The issue would be if you had 3 HW teams and deployed 2 in good positions but then parked the 3rd out of sight and protected just so you didn’t lose the unit for VP etc. That’s when it breaks down.

OMG yes. Please give me 20 point action monkeys who demand over comitment of shooting by the opponents 20 units. Investigate signals would be amazing.

Imagine me splitting my neophyte squad into 10 induvidual models.

The problem is this whole discussion ignores that heavy weapons teams are a relic of old game design.

The current game design paradigm would have had them as something like a separate unit or a "if this unit is stationary..." thing.