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.

So the HWT is a bad unit unless your putting mortars on them and sticking the out of LOS. A single Assualt Cannon can wipe out the entire squad and low LD means they don't even accept orders well.

I think durability issue could be fixed slightly by adding a special rule to them.

In the Dawn of War games HWT operate independently and can "dig in" to gain a huge defensive bonus and rate of fire increase. They become immobile and act as defensive emplacements.

What I think the 40k version of HWT could do is have a "Dig in" Special rule that makes the squad immobile at the beginning of a movement phase. The squad would then get +1T and +1 cover save while it is dug in. That would eliminate most of the pesky STR 6-7 fire power that doubles out HWTs. +1 cover would allow for a tougher unit but would still be subject to barrage, Ignores Cover etc...

For Infantry Blobs you could treat all HWT in that blob the way 2nd ed treated them, making them split off from the infantry squad into their own units. I would force any HWT in a platoons infantry squads to form its own HWT unit. This would let the Heavy weapons lay down supporting fire and keep the Blob mobile, you know like real modern infantry formations.

What do you think?

I think they are fine. Still a way to getting several cheap heavy weapons without having to invest in loads of lasgun armed troops to not fire effectively. The example you give of an assault cannon it mute. The non-mortar HWT should be well out of range of the assault cannon. These chaps should be in cover, ideally on objectives and well well well away from the 24" range of standard weapons.

Mortars are just funny - where did that come from, oh it didn't hurt us anyway, ha ha.-

They still have the going to ground rules to get a better save. If GW did buff the HWTs then expect a pts increase as well. The ML will possibly get flakk at their next iteration, I suppose if GW wanted to they could add options for them to take a small ADL panel (for a pts cost) so you had to worry less about finding cover.

Anyway if an IG player wants some more robust heavy support there are lots of tanks to go to in the fast attack and heavy support sections and fortifications available to them.

HWT's are actually not cheap. You pay 60 points base. 30 points for Guardsman and 10 points per mortar. A bit over costed seeing that all other mortars are 5pts a piece in the codex.

There plenty of longer range STR6 weapons in the game. And all you need is one hit to make a unit run off the table. Remember you placed your HWT far back to maximize your range? Guess how close that table edge now?

The HWT is overcosted to start and fragile to boot.

Increasing toughness has never been part of digging in. +1 to cover i can see, as long as they remain immobile for the whole game, but cover is too much.

I like the DKoK weapon teams. its only 90 points for 3x lascannons. And they get combined squad if in the Siege Regement. That means i can grab a PIS and 2x heavy wep teams for a durable LD8 team with a vox in the squad to help with orders. Worked absolute wonders in the 8000 point game we played yesterday. Absorbed 3 rounds of firing from a stormlord and never lost a weapon base.

They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.

I think they should be artillery like rapier and sabres without the special rules and have a sarge and vox in the crew.

Sinji wrote:
They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.

It'd partially fix their problems. Instead of 1 str:6 shot making them run, 2 str:4 or better shots would likely make them run.

They still have:
Low Ld
No Vox
No ablative wounds

When all that adds up, even with EW they'd still be garbage. I like the "dig in" idea, and have suggested something like it before however it's not much of a fix. +1 T and +1 Cover Save would help them a little, but you're still left with the other issues above. The best way to fix them in my opinion is to allow them access to combined squads.
I'd take HWS a fair amount if I could put them in my PIS. The price could remain the same too, since a HWS is essentially paying for the privilege of adding another HWT to an infantry squad.

Although if that was the case, removing them entirely and adding the option to take a second HWT for a PIS at 15pts + the cost of the weapon would just be so much easier.

I was reading the old cityfight supplement and it had a couple of interesting rules for IG infantry.

Namely that you could "combat squad" infantry squads. So for example, if you had a 10 man squad with a lascannon, a meltagun, a sarge, and a vox, you could have the vox and 2 guardsmen stick with the heavy weapon team to guard it, and then have the sarge run up with 3 more guardsmen and the meltagun. Would only really mean something in small games, but I thought it was cool.

The other let you split up heavy weapon squads, where they became immobile, and had a fixed field of fire. If they were within a certain distance of a vox or a "leader" (sarge, commander) they could move like normal. Otherwise they stayed put and shot at whatever came in range.

For regular 40k, I wish they would be 2 guys based seperately with a gun free standing like they used to be. Maybe give the gun a profile, like make it a T5 artillery piece with +4 save (because +3 with T7 would be ridiculous) That way they're tougher, to represent them digging in and having a gun shield, but not reaching "grot kannonz" level of stupid, with T7 grots taking autocannons to the face and laughing it off like it was nothing. But that'll never happen because almost everyone has their teams mounted on 60mm bases now.

Sinji wrote:
They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.

If my immortal daemon prince can't have Eternal Warrior, Bob and Joe meatbag shouldn't get it either.

If I may come with a completely different question concerning Heavy weapon squads:

When chosen through a platoon from Troops choice, do these squads also count as scoring?

 minigun762 wrote:

Sinji wrote:
They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.

If my immortal daemon prince can't have Eternal Warrior, Bob and Joe meatbag shouldn't get it either.

Well your immortal daemon prince is not two individual people. They whole concept of lumping two guardsman on one base and one profile is a flawed one, Eternal Warrior would actually work to represent two models on one base. They will still be hella squishy though.

Well, let's say that you could do a special thing, where you could take an autocannon heavy weapons squad, and a heavy bolter heavy weapons squad and, if you took them in tandem, you could spend 20 points to give them a MASSIVE durability advantage, or do the same thing with an autocannon squad and a lascannon squad, and the same upgrade only cost 15 points.

Well let me tell you...

Leman Russ Exterminator - hull heavy bolter, sponson heavy bolters

Leman Russ Exterminator - hull lascannon, sponson multimeltas

voila, problem solved, and you don't even need to change any rules.

The issue with taking LRs is that, I don't want to waste a HS slot on well...autocannons. That HS slot has so many more amazing options.

The other point is that internal balance should be a priority. In my opinion, a well designed codex should make me want to take everything. Having units that are so weak and easily out-classed by others performing a similar role is just poor design and I'd welcome change that made me think about it.

"Is a more durable, AV:14 tank a better choice than a less durable HWS that can also score?" is a more interesting question than:
"Do I have a LR Exterminator in my model collection?"

I would never expect that Ailaros proposes Forgeworld Armored Battlegroup

Well, really your question is if autocannons should be bothered with at all, regardless of slots. I suppose you get the same anti-tank killing power out of a multimelta/lascannon vanquisher as two lascannon HWSs, so you could always go down that route.

And yeah, HWSs have terrible balance, the ability to score is meaningless in any situation wherein you get killed off the board. Plus, having extra scoring units isn't as important in purge, relic, or will games, and in big guns, the russes also get to score. Really, it's only 1/3rd of the missions that the fact that HWSs score makes a difference and, once again, that assumes that they survive. Compared to gaining relentles and AV14/13, it's a no-brainer to take the tanks.

If you really wanted to fix HWSs, I think the best, easiest solution is to make it so that you're not stuck taking them only in squads of 3. If I could take a 9x lascannon HWS for 300 points, I'd actually consider it.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, really your question is if autocannons should be bothered with at all, regardless of slots. I suppose you get the same anti-tank killing power out of a multimelta/lascannon vanquisher as two lascannon HWSs, so you could always go down that route.

And yeah, HWSs have terrible balance, the ability to score is meaningless in any situation wherein you get killed off the board. Plus, having extra scoring units isn't as important in purge, relic, or will games, and in big guns, the russes also get to score. Really, it's only 1/3rd of the missions that the fact that HWSs score makes a difference and, once again, that assumes that they survive. Compared to gaining relentles and AV14/13, it's a no-brainer to take the tanks.

If you really wanted to fix HWSs, I think the best, easiest solution is to make it so that you're not stuck taking them only in squads of 3. If I could take a 9x lascannon HWS for 300 points, I'd actually consider it.

They should get a sarge too.

In regards to a "Dig In" special rule, why not just give them the ability to go to ground without taking the normal penalty. That's what real life Mortars and the like do anyway. As far as Eternal Warrior, I concur with minigun762, if my Space Marine Attack Bike (again two mans on one base) don't get to be eternal warriors, than HWTs shouldn't either.

No one said that only HWTs should get EW.
EW would be logical for all other models that consist of two individuals, the topic is just not about any two man model but the HWTs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IMO all SM should have at least two wounds with all the double/special organs so the attack bike could be 3-4. But this quite off topic.