PDA

View Full Version : What do people think of Gunlines?



JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 22:04
Hey Warseer community, I was just wondering what you all thought of gunlines. For any army really. I myself play A Gunline Guard force, but I've often read posts by users who don't seem to like/use/understand? gunlines.

Killgore
25-11-2007, 22:10
neutral feelings for me

fielding a latd with 100 mutants at 2k points only to find your oponunt has 5 vehicles armed with heavy bolters and several heavy weapon squads can make you go "hmmm"

Lisiecki
25-11-2007, 22:10
LOL

I hate gun lines, because, why would i want to play against multiple players who never/hardly move there armys?

re do your poll and ill be happy to vote

azimaith
25-11-2007, 22:12
The nature of this edition of 40k is mobile, thus gunline forces really go the way of the dodo when faced with mobile armies of this edition. Thus gunlines aren't popular amongst alot. Some people also consider them to be "autopilot" armies, where all you do is roll dice and do nothing akin to tactical maneuvering.

lord_blackfang
25-11-2007, 22:13
Because they're boring and one-dimensional, and many gunline players complain about enemy units that any balanced army would be able to counter. It's your own fault if the grand sum of your tactics consists of "try to shoot it before it gets here."

RampagingRavener
25-11-2007, 22:13
Neutral feelings. Personally I find them dull to play against, and whenever I've tried to use one, found them dull to use. But they're hardly overpowered, what they have in firepower, they lack in manuverability.

JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 22:13
LOL

I hate gun lines, because, why would i want to play against multiple players who never/hardly move there armys?

re do your poll and ill be happy to vote

Why would I make a completely new thread so that you can vote, when this one is perfectly fine. If you don't like the option I've put for 'I hate them' vote for it anyways and tell us WHY you hate them, otherwise, we'll assume that it's one of the things in the options list.


Because they're boring and one-dimensional, and many gunline players complain about enemy units that any balanced army would be able to counter. It's your own fault if the grand sum of your tactics consists of "try to shoot it before it gets here."

I'm sorry you feel that way. Personally, I leave the tactical manuvering to my Armoured Fist squads.

catbarf
25-11-2007, 22:15
Guard have no choice but to either use A. a gunline, or B. Drop Troop Plasma Spam. Which would you rather face?

themandudeperson
25-11-2007, 22:18
Playing against them, I have no problem. Most gunlines are so dependent on their heavy weapons that they won't move. Sure, you face a lot of firepower, but what good will that firepower do if a highly mobile force can get behind area terrain and deny you line of sight to shoot them? Also, you're at a huge disadvantage in claiming table quarters and getting units into your opponent's deployment zone.
Personally, I would never play one because I don't like the whole auto-pilot feeling I would have. Outside of target selection, my army's success is based fully on what they're allowed to shoot and how much my dice like me on a given day.

catbarf
25-11-2007, 22:19
If they don't move at all, then they're a bad player. Even a gunline needs mobile elements to take objectives, respond to threats, and that sort of thing.

azimaith
25-11-2007, 22:20
Guard have no choice but to either use A. a gunline, or B. Drop Troop Plasma Spam. Which would you rather face?

I dunno, I have found utility with both sentinels and chimeras. Granted I also have elysians, but they mostly use meltas, plasma kills to many of em and they cost too much for that :P.

(I think i've got like 4 plasma guns in 2000)

Grimtuff
25-11-2007, 22:21
I've said it once and i'll say it again: "Gunlines, for those people whose idea of tactics is rolling dice."

Sideros Peltarion
25-11-2007, 22:22
I really don't mind gunlines at all. I use a balanced Iron Warrior army that advances then rapid fires plasma guns and heavy bolters from close range. Allthough my army only has one Rhino mounted unit I stay very mobile and use cover to protect squads.
I like to use this army (without changing the list) against as many opponents as I can to learn new tactics against different styles of armies and without any tinkering my army has been able to beat Nids in a city fight, Necrons with a Monolith and close cover, Space Wolves on an almost entirely wooded table etc, all using careful fire and maneuver tactics. Get a good feeling when I beat Eldar at their own game too:D

Halcyon504
25-11-2007, 22:22
I don't mind Gunlines myself. You the player plays as you feel you'll have the most enjoyment out of.

Eulenspiegel
25-11-2007, 22:22
Blacky, thatīs the second strong sentiment against gunlines Iīve read from you in a short time.

Why such hard feelings? Is your favourite army having problems with them? Surely itīs one of the good points of 40k that there are a lot of tactical approaches: cc, gunline, flexible, drop, etc.

Edit:
Whatīs the difference between answer 1 and 3? None I think, so the votes should be added.

AngryAngel
25-11-2007, 22:23
I am nuetral..I find being in a gunline a bit boring mostly. However some armies force me to play a gunline from time to time..at least for a bit. Like nids. Other armies favor extra manuverability against them..like vs tau and necrons for example. Trick is to either make it fully balanced always..or vary up what ya play from time to time. Gunline sometimes..heavily mobile/Mec other times.

Some armies are kinda forced into that use though. Like guard..you could try and use stormtroopers as troops to be more mobile with chimeras. Though I dunno how well that would work.

Lisiecki
25-11-2007, 22:24
Why would I make a completely new thread so that you can vote, when this one is perfectly fine. If you don't like the option I've put for 'I hate them' vote for it anyways and tell us WHY you hate them, otherwise, we'll assume that it's one of the things in the options list.


Because your options are


I don't mind them at all.
I hate them! because: they're bad for my army/cheesy.
I've got nuetral feelings, I neither love, nor hate gunlines

So the only option that i have for not liking them is because there "bad for my army/cheesy"


Also, do, apprently to your lack of an ablitly to read, you seem to have missed the reason i gave for not disliking them, if you had that option in your poll, you would have been able to quickly glance up at what had the most votes, as opposed to trying to read, and failing miserably

JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 22:25
If they don't move at all, then they're a bad player. Even a gunline needs mobile elements to take objectives, respond to threats, and that sort of thing.

Hence the Sentinals and/or Chimeras. I've found that Sentinals work as wonderful Chimera escorts.


Because your options are



So the only option that i have for not liking them is because there "bad for my army/cheesy"


Also, do, apprently to your lack of an ablitly to read, you seem to have missed the reason i gave for not disliking them, if you had that option in your poll, you would have been able to quickly glance up at what had the most votes, as opposed to trying to read, and failing miserably

I saw what you posted, but it IS my choice on how I respond to it isn't it? That's why I gave you the option of saying you hate them for a specific reason, or you can just say why.

Cry of the Wind
25-11-2007, 22:25
I hate them with a passion in fantasy, but in 40k I'm more neutral. They are boring to play with though can be a challenge to fight sometimes. The thing is there really is no game except for you against a dice rolling machine, sure there are some tactics but they all happen in the army list design and deployment phases of the game and not throughout the entire game.

I avoid playing that style when I can just because it gets boring. My guard have chimeras and rhinos driving them around as well as infiltrate and deep strike when they need it. It makes for a more enjoyable game for all.

TitusAndronicus
25-11-2007, 22:29
Boy, THIS is an old topic. Way back in the day when we had to walk to school in the snow with bears chasing us, there was still the problem that a gunline is a damned effective way to fight.

Turtle up and shoot anything that moves. It's always been that way, back to the Romans and beyond. But it's also always been a terrible idea if you can't tie your opponant down, back to the Romans and beyond. There were Roman legions who were attacked from the sides and wiped out because they couldn't turn fast enough. Longstreet begged Lee to pull the Yankees into a gunline -- I might be a Confederate instead of an American if he had done so.

I don't have a problem with them. Part of the give and take of war. But if you plan on bringing one, you can also expect my infantry to use any cover it can to get to you, and my fast movers to flank you. If I didn't bring that army, I'll come up with another plan. Any army is beatable, if you think.

JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 22:30
I hate them with a passion in fantasy, but in 40k I'm more neutral. They are boring to play with though can be a challenge to fight sometimes. The thing is there really is no game except for you against a dice rolling machine, sure there are some tactics but they all happen in the army list design and deployment phases of the game and not throughout the entire game.

I avoid playing that style when I can just because it gets boring. My guard have chimeras and rhinos driving them around as well as infiltrate and deep strike when they need it. It makes for a more enjoyable game for all.

After a few games with a pure gunline list, I went and bought some Chimera's and made a sentinal squadron. Still waiting on the FW Valkyrie too :P

EVIL INC
25-11-2007, 22:36
I actually use them on occasion. You cannot use them all of the time and expect to win all the time though.
While they require a lot of tactics and strategy like placement, when to move/not move (a gunline does not just sit and shoot, you need to move from position to position throughout the course of the game) which order to place which "lines", they are easily countered by a more mobile army if they have forewarning. Likewise, Many people consider the assault armies to be tacticless. They are not as they require tactics in targets to assault, when to assault and when not to, movement ect. A good player can make use of both of these styles of play as well as many others.
My take on them, use them when they are needed, dont when they are not. No matter which "style" you use, you will need to master tactics and strategy and learn to think on your feet. Just remember that no matter which style you use, you will find that people will call it cheese and complain about a "lack of tackics" when it is in fact, thier own lacking that causes them to lose to you.

lord_blackfang
25-11-2007, 22:41
Blacky, thatīs the second strong sentiment against gunlines Iīve read from you in a short time.

Why such hard feelings? Is your favourite army having problems with them? Surely itīs one of the good points of 40k that there are a lot of tactical approaches: cc, gunline, flexible, drop, etc.


You'll notice that my original comment was what prompted this thread in the first place...

And I'm pretty sure I never accused them of being overpowered or cheesy, so why do you think I have a problem against them on the battlefield? If you actually read my posts you'd see I think just the opposite - gunlines are crap. What drives me up the wall is that people use crap tactics (and I'm using the term broadly) and then complain about how poorly they perform.

TheOverlord
25-11-2007, 22:48
I don't feel any particular way about gunlines. I mean, they can be very boring to play against (hello DA plasma spamming gunline) but they can also be very fluffy (DKoK) and if played right, those intense moments of mortar after mortar hitting your trench lines as you watch your men get eaten up by artillery can be quite stimulating, and I quite plan on using a gunline horde with the IA renegade list, although with quite a few fast options if at all possible (I've yet to read the thing thoroughly, but it seems to favor static far more than mobile)

And honestly, there's really nothing quite as fun as rolling hundres of dices ineffectively to the enjoyment of everyone in the vicinity :D Say no to plasma!

Eulenspiegel
25-11-2007, 22:51
You may excuse me if I donīt analyze Warseer for posting times and inter-thread-relations.
I read your post but seemingly didnīt understand it as you intented.

If your harsh reply to my innocent post was due to a misunderstanding (because I shun the use of smilies wherever the written text should be enough), then sorry. I donīt promise Iīll make it better next time, though.

Gunline is not a tactical no-brainer as some people make it seem, though.
Sure, there are SOME armies (Tau, Imperial, maybe even Space Marine or Chaos), that CAN be built to be sit-and-shoot, but normally those armies have some mobile elements in them. Countercharge, Objective-grabbing, ....
Even the decision WHAT to shoot is not always a monkeyīs job. The closer the enemy gets, the more threatening close-combat massacres get, the more your choice of targets is important. And moving away your models.

Another way of playing. Iīm surely happy that in 40K you have a lot of different tacitcs to choose from or to fight against.

Colonel Marbi Chora
25-11-2007, 23:01
I think that gunlines are okay, vause I just really started to play with my army (Took me two years but I'm finally doing it!). I mean, for a beginner at allmost any army, a gunline is a concept that should be grasped and tried to evaluate how your army can fair using firepower, then they should try an assult-oriented type. By doing that you can really get how your army moves and fights, if you don't want to listen to other people.

Personally, I like the gunline, becasue i'm imperial guard, and having watched a gunline totally scythe through marines and anything else really, I was intrigued. But hey, that's just me.

Zero_Interest
25-11-2007, 23:06
I just think gun-lines are boring. Yeah now the game takes forever cause I have to get to my opponent cause he refuses to move an inch. I have a friend who plays guard like that. The big problem I have with him doing this is he doesn't use a proper sized table, it's uaually twice the length as width. with means it'll take four turns for me to just get in range. Not to mention he doesn't like using terrain at all so I'm just in the open walking into his bullets. I don't really expect to beat him cause of this it just doesn't seem fair.

JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 23:08
I just think gun-lines are boring. Yeah now the game takes forever cause I have to get to my opponent cause he refuses to move an inch. I have a friend who plays guard like that. The big problem I have with him doing this is he doesn't use a proper sized table, it's uaually twice the length as width. with means it'll take four turns for me to just get in range. Not to mention he doesn't like using terrain at all so I'm just in the open walking into his bullets. I don't really expect to beat him cause of this it just doesn't seem fair.

Your friend has ruined your chances of playing against a gunline player with a positive attitude; Maybe if you didn't cater to his every wim when playing, you would have a chance.

marv335
25-11-2007, 23:09
My standard 1500pt SM force is almost 50/50 gunline/assault force.
I find gunlines are fun to play against.
I have scout bikers in their midst in turn one, and the chaplain led assault squad is there a turn later.
all the while the heavy bolters and missile launchers are wreaking havoc with the rest of the army that isn't in assault.

any army that just concentrates on one thing at the expense of all others is going to have trouble.



I had a regular opponent who used to castle his IG up on a hill in the corner of the table, not move for the whole game and just sit there.
I deep struck a necron monolith into his army :D

Reaver83
25-11-2007, 23:12
if people want to play gunlines great, they probably won't win, unless of course it's an empty board terrain wise

JimmyP0567
25-11-2007, 23:12
My standard 1500pt SM force is almost 50/50 gunline/assault force.
I find gunlines are fun to play against.
I have scout bikers in their midst in turn one, and the chaplain led assault squad is there a turn later.
all the while the heavy bolters and missile launchers are wreaking havoc with the rest of the army that isn't in assault.

any army that just concentrates on one thing at the expense of all others is going to have trouble.


:eek:

Remind me to buy another 2 sentinel squadrons before I play against you, should the situation ever arise.

Onlyhestands
25-11-2007, 23:17
I have a kinda-sorta guard gunline. My tanks, sentinel, and rough riders are mobile(usualy) and push a flank or objective grab. The rest of the army besides my suiciding drop-troops vets make a firebase. However against certain enemies or with certain types of terain they have to be less mobile or else they will get outflanked themselves or run smacked into Mr. Old One Eye parked opposite them. Generaly though I have much more fun being more mobile.

catbarf
25-11-2007, 23:20
I had a regular opponent who used to castle his IG up on a hill in the corner of the table, not move for the whole game and just sit there.
I deep struck a necron monolith into his army :D

Er, not sure on this, but do vehicles get killed/damaged/something if they scatter onto enemy units?

EVIL INC
25-11-2007, 23:25
The table is supposed to be twice as wide from left to right as it is from backwards/forwards. I find that most assaulty armies will try to force thier opponants to play on small square tables as that gives then a HUGE advantage that the points do not account for because the game is meant to be played on larger tables. So your opponant is supposed to be playing you on the table he is. To force him to play smaller tables, is trying to give yourself an dadvantage your not supposed to have.
Now as to the terreign, since you are both supposed to set it up, be sure that you choose stuff that suits you and set it where you want it. Of course, only 25% of the table is supposed to have stuff on it so there is supposed to be open areas. Just dont cross them and make use of what cover is available.

Winimperial
25-11-2007, 23:26
I really don't mind them at all. I use them occasionaly with IG. I've seen Guard players absolutly crush SM armies using massed Guardsman/Leman Russ gunlines covering the entrie table 2 or 3 ranks deep, depending on the table length.

When in doubt, form the gunline!

marv335
25-11-2007, 23:27
the monolith doesn't, to no-ones great surprise, the necrons have a special exemption to the regular rules......;)

Lord_Squinty
25-11-2007, 23:33
I couldnt care less if my oponnent wants to use a gunline, me I never will.
They just look so boring to use - probably why all my armies are for the most part highly mobile.

Plus, if your playing on a 6x4 table with the correct amount of cover, a gunline should be at a HUGE disadvantage.

Bunnahabhain
25-11-2007, 23:55
Give Guard players a decent transport, and you'll halve the number of gunline armies. Trying to play mobile Guard with the current obverpriced and fragile chimeas is very difficult indeed.
Transports that are neither fast, nor skimmers, and contain troops that can't assualt effectively need something, and a points break on them and their contents, so you can actually put enough men in them to achive the objective, and have some points left for the rest of the army, would probabably be it. One Guard squad and their transport should not cost as much as a 10 man tactical squad.

I try to play balanced, mobile Guard, but the siren calls of ' that rubbish chimera that just died to a bolter again could have been another heavy squad, or deep striking plasma gunners,and so actually useful' are strong

max the dog
26-11-2007, 02:17
The problem playing vrs gunlines is they're so darn predictable and yet still so effective. Deploy in high cover, never move, roll lots of dice, repeat, deploy in high cover, never move, roll lots of dice, etc.... Boring boring boring.
I know that guard is kind of forced into a gunline vrs my nids but when Tau and Space Marine's do it too I'm a bit tired of the whole concept.
But all that being said I just love it when a gunline army is forced to play a Recon or Secure and Control mission.

max the dog
26-11-2007, 02:26
Give Guard players a decent transport, and you'll halve the number of gunline armies. Trying to play mobile Guard with the current obverpriced and fragile chimeas is very difficult indeed.
Transports that are neither fast, nor skimmers, and contain troops that can't assualt effectively need something, and a points break on them and their contents, so you can actually put enough men in them to achive the objective, and have some points left for the rest of the army, would probabably be it. One Guard squad and their transport should not cost as much as a 10 man tactical squad.

I try to play balanced, mobile Guard, but the siren calls of ' that rubbish chimera that just died to a bolter again could have been another heavy squad, or deep striking plasma gunners,and so actually useful' are strong

?????????????
Are you talking about the same AV12 Chimera that the rest of the world uses? If you're having no luck with it then maybe you're using it wrong. It's not a tank, it's an infantry support vehicle. Don't use 1 or 2, use 3 of 4. Better yet 6. It may be a good chunk of points but it's a very good vehicle that does what it's supposed to do, help it's infantry.

pwrgmrguard
26-11-2007, 02:36
I play standard guard and AC, andi find the AC version of a gunline works much better than standard. Might have something to do with a russ's AV 14 armor.

MY standard guard is as mobile as possible, Three grenadiers squads as troops with chimeras, three Drop trooping vetarens squads and a platoon, two squads of rough riders and a hell hound, with all my heavy weapons in the support platoon for the HQ, and a HS hvy weapon platoon. Very effective. Leave the heavies in back, everyone else, use good tactics.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 02:36
I love them. More than anything.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 02:47
the monolith doesn't, to no-ones great surprise, the necrons have a special exemption to the regular rules......;)
I think thats the giant friking pyramid from the sky + common sense on GW's part than anything else. Point in case, Drop Pods.

As for Chimeras, yeah they ain't bad, but they're heinously overpriced right now for that side armor. They need a points dip and a side armor of 11 (or side armor 12, no points change).

Cry of the Wind
26-11-2007, 03:07
As for Chimeras, yeah they ain't bad, but they're heinously overpriced right now for that side armor. They need a points dip and a side armor of 11 (or side armor 12, no points change).


Agreed, it worked for the Hellhound and really those sides don't look any less armoured than the front.

There are some tactics in a gunline, just not interesting ones. Sure target selection is important, but really when isn't it important? I'd rather be able to wrong foot my opponent with a clever move rather than need to rely on good dice to mess up his plans. Gunlines just don't offer that flexibility.

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 03:33
I'm really curious as to what people qualify as a "gun line" in 40K... Guard aren't it. In fact guard are the equivalent of the all night goblin army in fantasy, except that you only get goblins with bows and fanatics...

40k approximates real combat in it's own weird way. While the fact that HtH combat is effective is a huge joke, it's generally balanced for most armies. Combat is all about applying an overwhelming amount of force (in whatever form) to the smallest area possible.

The guard "gun line" that most people are talking about comes about because of game mechanics, not the failing of the player. Guard, per square inch, bring about half the strength of any other army. That means they need twice the table space (hence deploying in a long.... wait for it.... LINE!). Then to compound the problem all their 'strength' is contained in heavy weapons, which are only effective when static.

Now all that is fine, and actually provides the frame work for some interesting assault, retreat, cross fire, baiting options ect, until guard players run into the movement mechanics of the game. Something that few players (ie anyone that hasn't played guard) ever consider. In linear terms, it's 2-3 turns for foot sloggers to assault, while the faster elements of the game have turn 1 or 2 charges. Infantry can assault 12-24" (fleet included) in one turn. Rifles shoot 24", are effective inside of 12".

So, i ask, as a guard player, with a basic infantry squad, how would you play them. Remember the following facts:
1. All their effectiveness is contained in standing still and shooting.
2. You can run from an assault, except that you move slower, so once they are in nominal range you can delay it by one turn. While you run away, you can't shoot back, cause on the move you can only fire upto 12", so your squad is useless.

Now multiply this issue with an assault unit behind cover, that is in range to threaten 3 of your units, but can only be shot at by one or two heavy weapons (no other LOS or range). Do you retreat your 3 units, to have them contribute nothing for the rest of the game (remember if they can shoot their lasguns while on the move, the enemy can assault them), or do you accept the loss and have your last turn shooting with them?

That's why guard are static. It's not economical to move your units. The enemy has killed them either way.

If 40K ever got rid of the ridiculously huge movement rates, guard would become mobile again.

Oh, and the chimera is probably the best transport in the game. Points as is.

As an aside, if people are talking about the SM min/maxed gunline of las/plas with hidden fists everywhere, then it's a different story.

JimmyP0567
26-11-2007, 03:37
I'm really curious as to what people qualify as a "gun line" in 40K... Guard aren't it. In fact guard are the equivalent of the all night goblin army in fantasy, except that you only get goblins with bows and fanatics...

40k approximates real combat in it's own weird way. While the fact that HtH combat is effective is a huge joke, it's generally balanced for most armies. Combat is all about applying an overwhelming amount of force (in whatever form) to the smallest area possible.

The guard "gun line" that most people are talking about comes about because of game mechanics, not the failing of the player. Guard, per square inch, bring about half the strength of any other army. That means they need twice the table space (hence deploying in a long.... wait for it.... LINE!). Then to compound the problem all their 'strength' is contained in heavy weapons, which are only effective when static.

Now all that is fine, and actually provides the frame work for some interesting assault, retreat, cross fire, baiting options ect, until guard players run into the movement mechanics of the game. Something that few players (ie anyone that hasn't played guard) ever consider. In linear terms, it's 2-3 turns for foot sloggers to assault, while the faster elements of the game have turn 1 or 2 charges. Infantry can assault 12-24" (fleet included) in one turn. Rifles shoot 24", are effective inside of 12".

So, i ask, as a guard player, with a basic infantry squad, how would you play them. Remember the following facts:
1. All their effectiveness is contained in standing still and shooting.
2. You can run from an assault, except that you move slower, so once they are in nominal range you can delay it by one turn. While you run away, you can't shoot back, cause on the move you can only fire upto 12", so your squad is useless.

Now multiply this issue with an assault unit behind cover, that is in range to threaten 3 of your units, but can only be shot at by one or two heavy weapons (no other LOS or range). Do you retreat your 3 units, to have them contribute nothing for the rest of the game (remember if they can shoot their lasguns while on the move, the enemy can assault them), or do you accept the loss and have your last turn shooting with them?

That's why guard are static. It's not economical to move your units. The enemy has killed them either way.

If 40K ever got rid of the ridiculously huge movement rates, guard would become mobile again.

Oh, and the chimera is probably the best transport in the game. Points as is.

As an aside, if people are talking about the SM min/maxed gunline of las/plas with hidden fists everywhere, then it's a different story.

*Claps slowly bringing with him a roar of applause.*

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 03:38
Oh, as a quick follow up point, guard as an army only really come into their own in games over 5K with a board that can handle 240" ranged weapons and have 3-4' deep deployment zones (even if no-man's land is still only 24" across)

Hicks
26-11-2007, 03:50
Guard have no choice but to either use A. a gunline, or B. Drop Troop Plasma Spam. Which would you rather face?

Pretty much sums my thoughts. I play a IG gunline and it's a real fun army IMO. Sure most of the game I stand still and shoot, but invariably I have to move stuff. Also, the coolest part of a battle is when something finally reaches my line and I have to do some thinking to prevent the enemy from killing a squad and jumping on the next until all is dead.

Before someone says that a gunline is stupid because the army doesn't move, that person should consider that moving forward with guards on the earlier turns means that heavy weapons can't fire and the opponent will slaughter you in CC sooner. There is just no reason to do it. It's like saying Dark Eldar and Nids are stupid because are too fast.

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 03:54
Free up the manouverabilaty of your heavy weapons, mount them on sentinals/dreds hell even termies'll do the trick

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 03:55
Gunline is just how Guard plays. And I think it is fun - to have the excitement of "Will I or Won't I Blast him before he gets to me".

Realistically, if you were just an average Joe in the 41st milennium, and the only thing that you had going for you was your big guns and tanks, wouldn't you try to stay still and blast that giant Demon thingy before it got to you?

Generally, its been my impression that Non-Gunline Guard armies (other than the good old fashioned Drop Plasma Spam) tend to get pwned.

Malorian
26-11-2007, 03:58
People that hate playing against gunlines don't play with objectives or don't use enough terrain.

If all you are playing for is victory points then obviously every unit has to be causing the most damage every turn, and a gunline is the best way to do that.

But once you actually have to do something like get to the other side, capture bunkers. blah blah then standing around and shooting just doesn't work anymore.

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 03:58
Gunline is just how Guard plays. And I think it is fun - to have the excitement of "Will I or Won't I Blast him before he gets to me".

Realistically, if you were just an average Joe in the 41st milennium, and the only thing that you had going for you was your big guns and tanks, wouldn't you try to stay still and blast that giant Demon thingy before it got to you?

Generally, its been my impression that Non-Gunline Guard armies (other than the good old fashioned Drop Plasma Spam) tend to get pwned.

it's not just big guns and tanks that keep them going it's also the hope that you'll live to see your commisar die

Hicks
26-11-2007, 03:58
Free up the manouverabilaty of your heavy weapons, mount them on sentinals/dreds hell even termies'll do the trick

In the case of IG at least that's not that great of an idea. Sentinels are incredibly expensive for something that can die from one bolter round. A guardsmen squad is much more survivable and can shoot a heck of a lot more.

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 04:00
if you have your sentinal in range of a bolter you've done something wrong, you also split up the sentinals (1 in the comand squad 1 as each fast attack choice) so one full units shooting can never take more than one down

Vaktathi
26-11-2007, 04:08
Oh, and the chimera is probably the best transport in the game. Points as is.



Wow...I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Side AV10, often cost more than what they transport, has to deal with auto-disembark unlike other transports that cost about the same (85-120pts) and have similar firepower (if a bit shorter range) that happen to be skimmers (which can also ignore terrain).

Hicks
26-11-2007, 04:08
I wasn't saying that mine always die to bolter fire, I was saying that they are so fragile that even bolters can down them. The things have paper thin armor, are really tall and are walkers, any heavy weapon can down one form afar.

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 04:12
I wasn't saying that mine always die to bolter fire, I was saying that they are so fragile that even bolters can down them. The things have paper thin armor, are really tall and are walkers, any heavy weapon can down one form afar.

I totaly agree but I still think that if used carefuly they are worth their points

big squig
26-11-2007, 04:14
I don't like gun lines because I think they are poor. Of all the types of armies I see, gun lines by far lose the most games.

dr.oetk3r
26-11-2007, 04:35
Very, very boring. I play guard and i always move because i'd kill myself to escape the boredom if i stayed still.

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 04:51
Chimera's are great cause they aren't transports. They are light tanks able to pack an AC, HB and HS. That's effectively a predator at a reduced price and BS. If you can afford (i mean money wise) enough of them, then HK, ML, HB, HS is the way to roll.

As to their side Ar of 10, it only really comes into play if you're using them as a transport (shame on you).

As to them being over priced, how do you figgure? They cost 85 points bare bone, 93 useful, and 105 in decadent mode. A guard squad is 85 when mildly useful, 105 if they get carapace Ar. The chimera can roll 6" and fire to full effect, is impervious to small arms fire (up to St5) and when it needs to can sprint 12" or swim.

If you're finding your chimera's dieing, then you simply don't have enough vehicles on the board. If you don't have enough cover to cover their flanks with/pop out from behind, then the shield wall tends to do ok on the open plains. start with a nice conner tank (hell hound) with side 12 Ar. pile your Chimeras track to track untill you run out of them, then finish the end with a LRBT. Range of main guns should increase away from the hell hound.

Oh, and as a final note, for those who like to run sentinels (nothing wrong with it) as soon as you are tempted to put 2 or 3 in a squadron, just take a chimera instead. Every extra HW you want costs an additional 35 points, while on the chimera it's 5, 12, 10 (HB, HS, HK)

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 04:56
Oh, and as a final note, for those who like to run sentinels (nothing wrong with it) as soon as you are tempted to put 2 or 3 in a squadron, just take a chimera instead. Every extra HW you want costs an additional 35 points, while on the chimera it's 5, 12, 10 (HB, HS, HK)

yeah but I like my autocannons

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 05:20
Oh, one last thought before i pack it in. if you want to play a 'dynamic guard' then you just have to correct the issue i brought up before, which is force/square in.

This is done by running a mech grenadier list. Carapace Ar or sharp shooters are wastes doctrine wise, since your basic troopers cost as much as grenadiers then anyways.

6 squads of 6 grenadiers (x2 PG, Vet Sarge w/ PG & PS Melta Bombs) 6x106=636
3 LRBT (Smoke, Ex Ar, x3 HB) 3x163=489
4 Sentinels w/ Las Cannon & HK 4x65=260
Senior Officer (PP, CA, ID) 4 MG=115

That's 1500 points and moves 6" a turn, every turn. There's some flexibility in the list, since you can swap out the LRBT's sponsons for Demolisher upgrades, or make the command squad bare bones and get Demolishers...

The infantry marches behind the tanks so the enemy can't draw line of sight to them.

__||__
|LRBT|
|xXXx|
------
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.

Pick the most densly packed (with terrain to block LOS) coridor to your objective and roll panzers. Any thing that pops into sight gets 15 HB shots or 3 Battle Cannon/Demolisher rounds and if they are dumb enough to get close enough (ie tank hunting troops) the tanks back up 6" while the ST's advance and pour 18 plasma shots into them.

The sentinels are used to discourage vehicles making pop up attacks, by attempting to do it first. Ditch the HK's in the first turn. No questions asked, since as soon as the enemy can see your sentinels, they will start dieing. But 8 Anti-tank shots in the first turn will knock down a LR/Monilith/Wraithlord ect.

The other fun one is using the light infantry doctrine with cammo. Your entire army infiltrates. go all infantry and place them in cover, everywhere. keep each unit in LOS of at least 2 or 3 other units. That way when the enemy comes to massacre one unit, it's stuck in difficult terrain while 2 or 3 of your units shoot it up. Your 4+ cover saves will drive the enemy to distraction, since nothing will kill the infantry fast enough.

It's a victory points denial strategy which is supper funny to watch when done right.

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 05:21
Deamon, you can put AC's on chimeras too. it's just 15 points... IA ftw.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 05:23
I'm really curious as to what people qualify as a "gun line" in 40K... Guard aren't it. In fact guard are the equivalent of the all night goblin army in fantasy, except that you only get goblins with bows and fanatics...

40k approximates real combat in it's own weird way. While the fact that HtH combat is effective is a huge joke, it's generally balanced for most armies. Combat is all about applying an overwhelming amount of force (in whatever form) to the smallest area possible.

Your taking the game as being a who can kill more contest, theres more to it than that. Its all well and good to kill, but capturing objectives is generally a more productive task. For that you only need to apply force to particular areas in which case the guard model works fine with mobile weapons.



The guard "gun line" that most people are talking about comes about because of game mechanics, not the failing of the player. Guard, per square inch, bring about half the strength of any other army. That means they need twice the table space (hence deploying in a long.... wait for it.... LINE!). Then to compound the problem all their 'strength' is contained in heavy weapons, which are only effective when static.

This is inaccurate. A great amount of guard fire power comes from *special weapons* every single one of which can be fired in some fashion even after moving. Its only when people buy heavy weapons to the exclusion of special weapons do they force a gunline.



Now all that is fine, and actually provides the frame work for some interesting assault, retreat, cross fire, baiting options ect, until guard players run into the movement mechanics of the game. Something that few players (ie anyone that hasn't played guard) ever consider. In linear terms, it's 2-3 turns for foot sloggers to assault, while the faster elements of the game have turn 1 or 2 charges. Infantry can assault 12-24" (fleet included) in one turn. Rifles shoot 24", are effective inside of 12".

Which can be extended by using mobile platforms like tanks, sentinels, or assault weapons like the grenade launcher. Its doubtless that guard will be assaulted by an assault based army, but that doesn't need to equate to the kind of combat conga line of death that occurs and is exacerbated by the gunline model. Moving 6 to the center of the board with special weapons capable fire is great way to get mobility. Same with using transport by chimera, ferrying the guardsmen 12" on the first turn to a location they want to get to, then standing back in support.



So, i ask, as a guard player, with a basic infantry squad, how would you play them. Remember the following facts:
1. All their effectiveness is contained in standing still and shooting.

Flat out wrong. Special weapons, assault weapons, mobile platforms.



2. You can run from an assault, except that you move slower, so once they are in nominal range you can delay it by one turn. While you run away, you can't shoot back, cause on the move you can only fire upto 12", so your squad is useless.

Special weapons, yes, they do exist. Same with assault weapons. Besides, running from an assault, if it would deny you shooting, may simply be a poorer choice than simply being assaulted and rapid firing. Thats the point.



Now multiply this issue with an assault unit behind cover, that is in range to threaten 3 of your units, but can only be shot at by one or two heavy weapons (no other LOS or range). Do you retreat your 3 units, to have them contribute nothing for the rest of the game (remember if they can shoot their lasguns while on the move, the enemy can assault them), or do you accept the loss and have your last turn shooting with them?
Artillery, fair terrain placement, both can solve your problems. In addition you can use moving platforms like long ranged sentinels or chimeras to fire on them from an long angle from a large distance across the board. Once again, this is only true if your *unwilling* to move your army or to add elements that can move and fire.



That's why guard are static. It's not economical to move your units. The enemy has killed them either way.

This is incorrect. Guard are static because its a playstyle some people enjoy. They can also be very fast moving to extremely fast with drop troops. Tanks, walkers, and infantry can all move, and they all have weapons that can fire on the move.



If 40K ever got rid of the ridiculously huge movement rates, guard would become mobile again.

Sure blame it on everyone else that you don't move your models. Theres alot of board space out there, if you refuse to utilize it thats not other armies fault.



Oh, and the chimera is probably the best transport in the game. Points as is.

Hardly, devilfish beat it so badly in the transport department its not even funny. Chimeras are decent IFV's but their side armor harms their role in delivering troops by opening it up to long angled small arms.


Chimera's are great cause they aren't transports. They are light tanks able to pack an AC, HB and HS. That's effectively a predator at a reduced price and BS. If you can afford (i mean money wise) enough of them, then HK, ML, HB, HS is the way to roll.

As to their side Ar of 10, it only really comes into play if you're using them as a transport (shame on you).

Yes, guard are not mobile because they are slow. But how dare you utilize a transport option that moves faster than guard walk.



As to them being over priced, how do you figgure? They cost 85 points bare bone, 93 useful, and 105 in decadent mode. A guard squad is 85 when mildly useful, 105 if they get carapace Ar. The chimera can roll 6" and fire to full effect, is impervious to small arms fire (up to St5) and when it needs to can sprint 12" or swim.

How is Side armor 10 impervious to small arms? You can fire at enemies from angles besides head on. This might indicate why you have a problem with mobility.



If you're finding your chimera's dieing, then you simply don't have enough vehicles on the board.

Right, because having more chimeras increases your front and side armor. Come on. This is another depthless vapid response you get all the time on these boards.



If you don't have enough cover to cover their flanks with/pop out from behind, then the shield wall tends to do ok on the open plains. start with a nice conner tank (hell hound) with side 12 Ar. pile your Chimeras track to track untill you run out of them, then finish the end with a LRBT. Range of main guns should increase away from the hell hound.

Once again you completely ignore the total loss of mobility by doing this while complaining above that guard are immobile.



Oh, and as a final note, for those who like to run sentinels (nothing wrong with it) as soon as you are tempted to put 2 or 3 in a squadron, just take a chimera instead. Every extra HW you want costs an additional 35 points, while on the chimera it's 5, 12, 10 (HB, HS, HK)
Every sentinel you add gives you another vehicle that needs to be hit before it stops functioning. It also increases your capability in assault against minor enemies. One of my favorite uses for sentinels is to assault those fast moving hormagaunts, or even bog standard orks. An explosion can often take out more than your shooting alone does, not to mention having up to three of them.



6 squads of 6 grenadiers (x2 PG, Vet Sarge w/ PG & PS Melta Bombs) 6x106=636

I assume you mean 3 squads of grenadiers and 3 squads of storm troopers.



3 LRBT (Smoke, Ex Ar, x3 HB) 3x163=489
4 Sentinels w/ Las Cannon & HK 4x65=260
Senior Officer (PP, CA, ID) 4 MG=115

That's 1500 points and moves 6" a turn, every turn. There's some flexibility in the list, since you can swap out the LRBT's sponsons for Demolisher upgrades, or make the command squad bare bones and get Demolishers...

The infantry marches behind the tanks so the enemy can't draw line of sight to them.

Other armies are capable of moving. Suprise!



__||__
|LRBT|
|xXXx|
------
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.
.s....s.

Pick the most densly packed (with terrain to block LOS) coridor to your objective and roll panzers.

I suppose your assuming your opponent will just let you make a corridor just wide enough for your army to fit through with no LOS from any other side.



Any thing that pops into sight gets 15 HB shots or 3 Battle Cannon/Demolisher rounds and if they are dumb enough to get close enough (ie tank hunting troops) the tanks back up 6" while the ST's advance and pour 18 plasma shots into them.

Great in theory if your opponent lets you totally set up terrain, refuses to assault you, has no artillery, and doesn't simply take other objectives elsewhere.

Your strategy seems very much based on a perfect scenario tailored on it.

Daemon_hunter
26-11-2007, 05:42
I move my more statioary guard into cover, (treelines are my favourite or out of sight if the weapon can fire indirectly) baiting the enemy into position with grenade launcher equiped men while my seninals walk arround picking off isolated unit and my ordanace deals with any major resistance (I have a lot of mortars that help with this too) all in all it runs quite fluidly and has more of a almost tau like quality to it

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 05:55
Wow, azimaith, take a chill pill buddy.

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 06:22
Mmm. capturing objectives tends to require one to kill the enemy. They don't tend to give it up after a rational discussion....

I love the fact that your entire response states that you should just take more tanks and special weapons....
Well damn, don't I feel like an idiot, why didn't I think of that earlier. Oh wait...

Rather than go into a detailed rant, we'll get one thing out of the way and then I'll be done. Either you play guard, and accept the limitations of their vehicles and ranged weapons (all of them) or you don't and see lots of paper tigers waiting for your troops.

Every situation has a nice counter ballance to it. I can deploy my command squad of 4 plasmas into a line breach of assault marine/striking scorpions/howling banshees/tyranid warriors ect, or have my chimera float in the back feild glancing enemy transports with it's AC to allow my men time to redeploy. I do these things. Guard players don't win otherwise.
However, and here we go again with the cognitive dissedence for those who've never played guard before, moving infantry 6" a turn is not enough to respond to something going on over 18" away. That means that given finite resources that are forced to be deployed over a large area (physical number of models, not choice), as fast moving attacker (read every other army) can pick to overload a point in the guard line, since most armies have a unit or two that can move 24" in a turn.

You talk about capturing objectives. So a smart guard player sends 10 grenadiers up with 2 special weapons and a vet w/ PS and PP. decent hitting power. However, to be competative with a 10 man tac squad, or ork mod ect, the guard player has to provide cover fire. That's at a range greater than 12", so.... Heavy weapons! Now being forced to have a heavy weapon in certain squads, makes that squad immobile while it's doing it's job (providing cover for the grenadiers) So let's say that 5 guard squads are devoted to an objective (2 grenadier squads and 3 support infantry squads). The enemy has points for 4 opposing squads. err say two min HB tac squads and 2 small assault squads.

Turn one. Advancing the grens 6" I am about 12 to 16" from the objective, establishing a zone of fire on it for next turn (6" move and 12" shot) while remaining out of range of the tac squad, except for the HB. No targets for my HW are availible cause the Marines are out of sight. The assault marines bound up, behind some cover and out of LOS. One unit sits 14"-16" away from the objective waiting, the other moves so it's 14" to 16" away from one of the squads with a HW in it. The tactical squads advances so it's about 26" away from my grenadiers and 34"-36" from the nearest HW toating squad.

Now I can either retreat the static HW squads out of assault range from the lurking Assault marines, or i can begin firing on the Tac Marines which are going to start shooting at the advancing grenadiers.... If i retreat then the assault marines will shift position and then the grenadiers will be stranded facing 3 units. The grenadiers advance on the objective, moving to within 20" of the Tac marines and 6" from the objective (ie 20-22" from the other lurking assault marines).

HW squads open up on one of the Tac Marine units (we'll be generous and say 3 ML's shooting)... 1.25 dead marines (aka 1). Not worth it for one turn of shooting before they get butchered by the assault marines. So they all run away 6".

Grenadiers are stranded and the tac marines open fire with 5 grenadiers dieing. Grenadiers can't advance and return fire. Hang tough and shoot back. 2 Marines die. Troops that redeployed finally get to shoot, one more marine dies. surviving Tac Marines fire back, killing another 4 grenadiers go down. Thus ends turn 3.

Turn 4: All the guardsmen fire: 3 marines (and finally 1 HB drop). Marines fire back: 3 grenadiers drop.

Turn 5: with the threat of the Tac Marines finally eliminated, the remaining grenadiers advance on to the objective. 3 ML's fire and kill another Marine. Assault squads now move. Squad near the objective assaults the 7 man grenadier squad, the other moves forwards into the open, apprx 14" from the support guard units. The remaining 2 tac marines kill the lone plasma grenadier. The assault phase sees the 7 grenadiers wiped out (taking into account the assault marines shooting too)

Turn 6: 5 or 6 Assault marines are sitting on the objective. 3 ML's can only kill 1 or 2 if very lucky, so won't reduce them below 1/2 strength. Marines hold objective while other assault squad is in a position to attack. Fire everything at threatening assault marines.
3 ML's and 36 las gun shots. 3 Assault marines die. Remaining 3 assault marines attack and kill 6 guards men. Marines hold objective uncontested.

And there you have it. How guard takes objectives without LRBT's

azimaith
26-11-2007, 06:39
Mmm. capturing objectives tends to require one to kill the enemy. They don't tend to give it up after a rational discussion....

That depends entirely on who your enemy is. If my enemy is a gunline if may not require killing any of them at all since they don't respond well to my movement. There are often objectives uncontested.



I love the fact that your entire response states that you should just take more tanks and special weapons....
Well damn, don't I feel like an idiot, why didn't I think of that earlier. Oh wait...

You should, they excel at aiding mobility.



Rather than go into a detailed rant, we'll get one thing out of the way and then I'll be done. Either you play guard, and accept the limitations of their vehicles and ranged weapons (all of them) or you don't and see lots of paper tigers waiting for your troops.

:P I play guard and my armies are always quite mobile, relying on special weapons over heavy weapons to deliver the punch where needed. You can play guard as you like, but claiming they are innantely incapable of playing non-gunline styles is rather silly.



Every situation has a nice counter ballance to it. I can deploy my command squad of 4 plasmas into a line breach of assault marine/striking scorpions/howling banshees/tyranid warriors ect, or have my chimera float in the back feild glancing enemy transports with it's AC to allow my men time to redeploy. I do these things. Guard players don't win otherwise.

Situations being counterable doesn't necessitate guard players always stand still.



However, and here we go again with the cognitive dissedence for those who've never played guard before, moving infantry 6" a turn is not enough to respond to something going on over 18" away.

It will if your using rapid fire or an assault weapon.



That means that given finite resources that are forced to be deployed over a large area (physical number of models, not choice), as fast moving attacker (read every other army) can pick to overload a point in the guard line, since most armies have a unit or two that can move 24" in a turn.
Which is why it pays to be mobile enough to flow with the battle and respond to incoming threats.



You talk about capturing objectives. So a smart guard player sends 10 grenadiers up with 2 special weapons and a vet w/ PS and PP. decent hitting power. However, to be competative with a 10 man tac squad, or ork mod ect, the guard player has to provide cover fire. That's at a range greater than 12", so.... Heavy weapons!

Whats your point? The presence of heavy weapons doesn't make you a gunline, the absence of movement does. A guard army with heavy weapons in the backfield isn't a gunline. A guard army that doesn't move and just tries to shoot you until you reach him is.



Now being forced to have a heavy weapon in certain squads, makes that squad immobile while it's doing it's job (providing cover for the grenadiers) So let's say that 5 guard squads are devoted to an objective (2 grenadier squads and 3 support infantry squads). The enemy has points for 4 opposing squads. err say two min HB tac squads and 2 small assault squads.

If your enemy has 4 squads and hes a space marine hes got about twice the points there that you have or he probably doens't have enough to stop you.



Turn one. Advancing the grens 6" I am about 12 to 16" from the objective, establishing a zone of fire on it for next turn (6" move and 12" shot) while remaining out of range of the tac squad, except for the HB. No targets for my HW are availible cause the Marines are out of sight. The assault marines bound up, behind some cover and out of LOS. One unit sits 14"-16" away from the objective waiting, the other moves so it's 14" to 16" away from one of the squads with a HW in it. The tactical squads advances so it's about 26" away from my grenadiers and 34"-36" from the nearest HW toating squad.

One, why did you plant your HW squads so close to the enemy. Two, why don't you open fire from another squad elsewhere on the board. Utilize a long angle of fire and range to get an angle on them. IE a battlecannon from 72" away.



Now I can either retreat the static HW squads out of assault range from the lurking Assault marines, or i can begin firing on the Tac Marines which are going to start shooting at the advancing grenadiers.... If i retreat then the assault marines will shift position and then the grenadiers will be stranded facing 3 units. The grenadiers advance on the objective, moving to within 20" of the Tac marines and 6" from the objective (ie 20-22" from the other lurking assault marines).

One, you shouldn't have made the mistake of waltzing the HWs up so close. Two, you shouldn't have made the mistake of sending the grenadiers with no mobile support. If I were playing this i'd simply have a squad or even two in a chimera along with one to two sentinels nearby. Just because your mobile doesn't mean you have to deploy all over the board.



HW squads open up on one of the Tac Marine units (we'll be generous and say 3 ML's shooting)... 1.25 dead marines (aka 1). Not worth it for one turn of shooting before they get butchered by the assault marines. So they all run away 6".

No reason to run, your going to get caught, instead fire, kill what you can, and prepare for assault. Utilize counter assault units, possibly ogryns, or prepare to swamp em with guardsmen.



Grenadiers are stranded and the tac marines open fire with 5 grenadiers dieing. Grenadiers can't advance and return fire. Hang tough and shoot back. 2 Marines die. Troops that redeployed finally get to shoot, one more marine dies. surviving Tac Marines fire back, killing another 4 grenadiers go down. Thus ends turn 3.

Its highly unlikely you're going to kill 5 grenadiers from a tac squad with 2 heavy bolters. Furthermore, why is all the cover apparently on the space marine side?



Turn 4: All the guardsmen fire: 3 marines (and finally 1 HB drop). Marines fire back: 3 grenadiers drop.

Turn 5: with the threat of the Tac Marines finally eliminated, the remaining grenadiers advance on to the objective. 3 ML's fire and kill another Marine. Assault squads now move. Squad near the objective assaults the 7 man grenadier squad, the other moves forwards into the open, apprx 14" from the support guard units. The remaining 2 tac marines kill the lone plasma grenadier. The assault phase sees the 7 grenadiers wiped out (taking into account the assault marines shooting too)

Turn 6: 5 or 6 Assault marines are sitting on the objective. 3 ML's can only kill 1 or 2 if very lucky, so won't reduce them below 1/2 strength. Marines hold objective while other assault squad is in a position to attack. Fire everything at threatening assault marines.
3 ML's and 36 las gun shots. 3 Assault marines die. Remaining 3 assault marines attack and kill 6 guards men. Marines hold objective uncontested.

And there you have it. How guard takes objectives without LRBT's
Sure, if you let your opponent set up all the terrain and play with half his points value(IE wheres the rest of you army) . The point of mobile warfare are to allow you to appy pressure where you want it. If thats the objective your going to put more pressure there than anywhere else. Instead you have effectively like 250 or so points of guard fighting off 300-400 points of marine with all the terrain in the marines advantage. Thats one of the reasons why people generally avoid putting heavy weapons in bog standard squads. You can't move them and use all those lasguns you pay for.

I can see why you don't think guard are mobile when you play like that.

Stella Cadente
26-11-2007, 06:44
I hate them, BUT not because there bad for MY army, but because they show an obvious lack of variation and imagination on your part.

Unless your guard, then you don't really have much in the way of choice

azimaith
26-11-2007, 06:52
Great, i'll go tell my elsyians, harakonis, and mechanized chimeras that they can't possibly work despite previous experience :P

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 06:53
If they say anything back to you I suggest checking yourself into the nearest mental institution.

big squig
26-11-2007, 06:58
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with azimaith. Guard are prolly one of the best sabotage armies out there. They are simply brutal as a shock attack force. I know, that's how I play my light infantry army.

They are great at bait and traps, long range artillery, rapid fire assaults, grabbing objectives. Played properly they can be one of the most tactical and effective armies without being a gun line.

I also find that gun line guard (along with gunline marines and gunline tau and gunline eldar and gunline anything else) tend to do much much worse that their mobile counterparts.

Donnie Darko
26-11-2007, 14:39
you two are hilarious.

First, the points are pretty even. 507 of guard, vs 436 of SM's (12 Assault marines w/ 2 flamers and 10 tac marines w/ 2 HB's)

Second, the heavy weapons squads weren't deployed "far forwards" they were 36" away from the enemy deployment zone. On a standard board that at your table edge.

Terrain assumption wasn't poor either. HW's could have been in terrain, no difference. Grenadiers shouldn't have been advancing through cover. It slows them down for a neglible beniffit. Their Ar Sv is good enough. Doesn't protect them from assault. The only reason why the marines had a cover advantage, was because their assault marines are just as effective 14-16" away, as they are from 2" away. Hence they are more flexible.

Now for all your beautiful suggestions, like mobile support and counter assault units, where are your points comming from. The guard player has already devoted 70 additional points to this. You're asking him to commit 75 points of ogryns or 66 points of rough riders? Then you want a chimera and squad (with only one extra special weapon? why not be smart and just mount the grenadiers) Each chimera is another 85 bare points. So what now guard is committing and additional 254 point for rough riders, 2 sentinels w/ AC and a chimera?

That's 761 to his 436. Why wouldn't the SM bring over some additional assets too? Like land speeders, devastators and a whirl wind?

See, all your assumptions are based around the hope that your opponent is incompetent, or out for a fun game. No body in their right mind will ever play guard on their own terms, and guard don't have the mobility to make anyone play on their terms.

I also love the line... "or prepare for the assault" All the guard players that think letting an assault unit loose in your lines with a d6" over run is a good idea? Counter assault unit? How is that a good idea. A strong assault will wipe out one unit, over run into the next and if you're lucky it'll stop there by bogging them down into CC by throwing in another. That's three units to their one. But i forgot, apparently guard are 1/3 their points cost these days...

Also, by your last comment, it seems that you favor heavy weapon squads over standard infantry squads with a heavy weapon? IF this is true, please explain to me why your opponents are so kind, and simply don't wipe them out in a single turn of shooting? HW squads are force multipliers, and so are excellent targets of oportunity. You can't screen them with troops any more, so why are your enemies not killing them?

Not to mention that 3 ML's cost 95 points. For 150 I get 20 men and 2 ML's. Much more survivable (think 3 times not even factoring in that they're two seperate squads). for an extra 20 i get two plasma guns. Now there's twice the fire power, 3 to 4 times the survivability and wait for it... it's 20 points cheaper.

But wait you say... the Plasma guns need to be within 24" to be effective, the ML squad can hang back and be safe. I challenge you to show me a fair and well laid out board with good 48" fire lanes ~.^ Most engagements occur within 24".

This is on top of the fact that you continuously miss the point of this discussion. We're not talking about whether guard can be played well or not. This thread is about a "gun line" force and whether or not it's an acceptable opponent. As soon as you take sentinels, rough riders, chimeras, tanks et al. Or play a drop troop army, or light infantry they stop being gun lines.

To finish up this little tirade.

Please read my concluding statements. they tend to include lots of information. If you took the time to strain yourself and read all the above material, then that last line shouldn't be too much more work.

"...without LRBT" look at that. 2 little words. All it took and you could have saved all those poor wasted characters. My previous example was specifically designed with no tank support in mind.
Why? Easy i say. Because a smart guard player realize that tanks for guard actually fill the roll they are designed to do. They don't transport men around in combat, they transport heavy weapons so they can fire on the move. That way you don't have to put HW's in your infantry.

Fire support squad w/ 3 AC's: 95. Exterminator w/ 3 HB's: 143. Rolls 6" has smoke ex ar, Ar 14 and an extra twin linked AC.

But again. Same thing as before. Include tanks with infantry and poof, no more gun line.

So I'm curious. Do you keep disagreeing cause you're just arguing that guard doesn't have to play as a gun line (cause i've never said they do) or are you disagreeing that an infantry guard list doesn't have to play as a gun line?

Eulenspiegel
26-11-2007, 14:46
Well I think we have at least answered the original question:

What do people think of Gunlines?
Whatever they feel, they feel strongly about it.

Earthbeard
26-11-2007, 14:54
Perfectly fine tactic, I've used it and played against.

No real different than the the run forward assault tactic.

Leave gunline players be, if you can't beat them, adjust your list and utilise better tactics!

dcikgyurt
26-11-2007, 15:04
I have to say that sometimes the gunline is an almost necessary tactic (especially against CC horde armies). I currently field an army that can either act as a gunline (well most of it) and blow my opponent to chunks before they get too near me, or can race forward and get a second turn assault (a tactic I generally use against gunlines, especially Tau or Guard).

JimmyP0567
26-11-2007, 15:24
Well I think we have at least answered the original question:

What do people think of Gunlines?
Whatever they feel, they feel strongly about it.

Based on the argument that I've read, I would have to agree.

Wraithbored
26-11-2007, 16:14
Gunlines are a one trick pony, ie they loose to anything that has mobility. And therefore find them useless and very boring to play against.

Shibboleth
26-11-2007, 19:12
I like the idea of a "protect the gunline" theme.
There's more tactical thought involved in figuring out what counter assault units you'll need, while making sure there's still the firepower there.

Polonius
26-11-2007, 19:44
I think there is also a large difference between what people consider gunlines. Is a gunline an army that literally never moves, or does it include those armies that only include a few mobile elements?

I really enjoy playing my all infantry IG, which is mostly a gunline, but I include rough riders, command squads, and heavy bolter/flamer squads for mobility.

As for not requiring tactics: gunlines are easy to be decent with, but do require some skill to master. As has been stated, given a lack of terrain and a large enough board, the gunline should win with a monkey rolling the dice.

On a standard board, with proper terrain, a skilled opponenet and an objective based mission, however, gunlines become a challenge. Heavy weapons cram into all available fire lanes, special and rapid fire weapons come into their fullness, and the continual questions about whether to sacrafice squads or try to avoid combat rear.

catbarf
26-11-2007, 19:52
That's just it. A gunline that never moves will lose. Horribly. Even a straight-up SHOOT IT ALL Guard army needs some mobile counterassault.

Agelmar
26-11-2007, 22:05
I hate gun lines because they are boring to play against. Otherwise, I don't really care.

TheOverlord
26-11-2007, 22:09
Gunlines can be fun to play against though.

If you're playing another gunline, and the whole board is trenched, with hundreds and hundreds of men hugging cover as artillery shells bombard every inch of the table. This will be especially good when both of you take turns to charge out from the trenches to be cut down by rifle and machine gun fire.

Good for a laugh, I think :D

TitusAndronicus
26-11-2007, 22:30
and a long...long...long day.

TheOverlord
26-11-2007, 22:32
True, but honestly, what game is worth it if it takes less than 4 hours to play each game :D

big squig
27-11-2007, 02:12
Do people here really have any success with gunlines? Because I've been playing for 10 years and gunlines lose nearly 99% of the time in my experience.

CommisarMolotov
27-11-2007, 02:16
Do people here really have any success with gunlines? Because I've been playing for 10 years and gunlines lose nearly 99% of the time in my experience.

They're not too bad in straight-up Cleanse, depending on the armies and players involved...

elvinltl
27-11-2007, 02:56
Gunline only work in Fantasy. Now we have transport which can zoom behind or in front of your Gunline and vomit all sorts of CC units. The power of technology.

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:02
Tau that's all I have to say for you all to understand my veiws haha

azimaith
27-11-2007, 03:04
Tau don't operate on a gunline if thats what your implying. In fact tau makea remarkably bad gunline army.

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:06
no i play a kroot mercenary army.

Polonius
27-11-2007, 03:07
Do people here really have any success with gunlines? Because I've been playing for 10 years and gunlines lose nearly 99% of the time in my experience.

Again, it depends what you define as a gunline. I play all infantry IG, and I do fairly well. I've won more games than I've lost, but I use Rough Rider, deep strikings squads, and cheap HB/flamer squads to add mobility.

azimaith
27-11-2007, 03:08
no i play a kroot mercenary army.


I didn't ask you what army you played. I said tau make a poor gunline force, worse than normal gunlines are.

I do think people are misunderstanding how i'm using gunlines. There are probably different ideas of what a gunline is. To me a gunline is an army that focuses entirely on stationary positions firing until they can't fire anymore. An army with 2 platoons of standing guard and a armored fist+hell hound isn't a gunline. An army with 4 platoons of guard and heavy weapons platoons all sitting around not moving and shooting is.


Again, it depends what you define as a gunline. I play all infantry IG, and I do fairly well. I've won more games than I've lost, but I use Rough Rider, deep strikings squads, and cheap HB/flamer squads to add mobility.

I wouldn't consider that army a gunline personally.
Gunlines to me are the: "I've got 3 heavy weapon platoons, maxed out command platoons and normal guard and I sit here and shoot you until you close with me, then I die.

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:11
And you wouldn't consider 6 fire warrior teams with pulse rifles, 9 broadsides, 9 crisis team all with missle pods and burst cannons a gunline? I sure would.

elvinltl
27-11-2007, 03:13
Tau that's all I have to say for you all to understand my veiws haha

Railguns don't even work properly on WaveSerpents! Let alone infamous Falcons.

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:14
Railguns don't even work properly on WaveSerpents! Let alone infamous Falcons.

But they do work well on everything else.

Polonius
27-11-2007, 03:16
I do think people are misunderstanding how i'm using gunlines. There are probably different ideas of what a gunline is. To me a gunline is an army that focuses entirely on stationary positions firing until they can't fire anymore. An army with 2 platoons of standing guard and a armored fist+hell hound isn't a gunline. An army with 4 platoons of guard and heavy weapons platoons all sitting around not moving and shooting is.


Gunlines to me are the: "I've got 3 heavy weapon platoons, maxed out command platoons and normal guard and I sit here and shoot you until you close with me, then I die.

Well, according to your definition, gunlines are extremely one dimensional, and easily countered. I think people are using gunline, SAFH, and shooty army more or less equivilantly, when they are very different things.

azimaith
27-11-2007, 03:26
Gunlines by their name are a line of guns. Theres a difference between being shooting oriented and being a gunline. You can be shooting oriented and yet not be a gunline thats so reviled.


And you wouldn't consider 6 fire warrior teams with pulse rifles, 9 broadsides, 9 crisis team all with missle pods and burst cannons a gunline? I sure would.
A rather silly gunline with backward set ups on crisis teams. It wouldn't work that well either, at that point cost your talking games of
2000+ points with basically no upgrades. A couple of pieces of centrally located terrain and half the army is rather useless.

And this is all besides the illegal lack of a crisis commander.

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:40
I would obviously have a crisis commander. But that example list was more of...an example for a type of gunline. Look at tham though why wouldn't they be considered gunline. Thats like saying nids are better at gunline and tau are good for assult.

elvinltl
27-11-2007, 03:43
Ermm.. I assume gunline armies have superior FirePower to take down anything in the 40k Universe?

azimaith
27-11-2007, 03:49
I would obviously have a crisis commander. But that example list was more of...an example for a type of gunline. Look at tham though why wouldn't they be considered gunline. Thats like saying nids are better at gunline and tau are good for assult.

Because tau are more expensive than guard, have no squad heavy weapons, and rely entirely on their crisis suits fore fire support.

With 2000 points you could build a guard gunline that would probably outnumber that tau army 2-1 and have more firepower (with the exact same disadvantages.)

marneus54
27-11-2007, 03:56
Yes guard do have a nasty gunline. But for tau range why would they move. They most certainly wouldn't move towards the enemy. I would sit back find fire lines and pop a few shots off before being assulted.

Edit: that's my version of a tau firing line. Nothing moving until it has to.

killstreak
27-11-2007, 06:02
I've said it once and i'll say it again: "Gunlines, for those people whose idea of tactics is rolling dice."

thats going into my sig

azimaith
27-11-2007, 06:07
Yes guard do have a nasty gunline. But for tau range why would they move. They most certainly wouldn't move towards the enemy. I would sit back find fire lines and pop a few shots off before being assulted.

Edit: that's my version of a tau firing line. Nothing moving until it has to.

Guard gunlines not very nasty unless you let it be nasty be terrain set up.

Same with tau. Why wouldn't tau do that? Because tau have excellent redeployment capabilities in the form of skimming tanks and many units that move 12" a turn which helps them redeploy. Even tau armies with unmounted firewarriors will utilize their mobile assets to the best of their ability rather than just standing around and waiting to get assaulted.

big squig
27-11-2007, 06:07
I'm just saying, I run tournies at my local game store and I see armies that are really stationary do the worst. Every time there's one of those tau players with 6 maxed out squads of fire warriors and 3 hammerheads. The army is terrible. Or the maxed out marine infantry that just sit back and fire a single lascannon from each squad and nothing else. Or the 90 ork boys that simply walk forward in a giant line. Or the concealed guardian army with maxed out starcannons that never leaves the d-zone. Or the guard army that takes full platoons, but only shoots the heavy weapons.

They are almost always at the bottom of the rankings.

honestly, I don't think the army being shooty is the problem. Every army I play is shooty (minus the bugs) even my orks are shooty. The armies that I see do worse are the ones that are way way way too focused on one thing...like sitting still the whole game. An effective army can lean towards one combat philosophy, but it needs some balance in it to play competitively.

WorLord
27-11-2007, 06:10
I gave up playing gunlines when 3rd edition did away with overwatch fire.

Against gunlines, I don't usually have problems as long as I avoid the old "march up the middle" tactics. Pick a weak flank, drop a fast unit in to lock the troops there down in CC, and roll the enemy forces up straight down the line. In my experience, most gunline armies are fairly weak in CC - just too expensive to kit troops up to excel in both ranged and assault roles.

EmperorEternalXIX
27-11-2007, 06:15
Where do players like me fall?

My army is technically gunline marines, but I don't stand and fire at all, and I mix many assault elements in. I hate the idea of standing still to fire a ten man squad 24 inches, as I think that it's not nearly as effective as a massive rapid fire/pistol barrage. I like my army to mobile close-range gunfighting, and I don't even use hardly any assault cannons or lascannons, either. I always move my squads in supportive formations of twos or threes, also.

So am I a gunline army or what?

big squig
27-11-2007, 06:19
Where do players like me fall?

My army is technically gunline marines, but I don't stand and fire at all, and I mix many assault elements in. I hate the idea of standing still to fire a ten man squad 24 inches, as I think that it's not nearly as effective as a massive rapid fire/pistol barrage. I like my army to mobile close-range gunfighting, and I don't even use hardly any assault cannons or lascannons, either.

So am I a gunline army or what?
That's an assault army. You don't have to be in CC to be considered an assault army, you just need to get up into firefights. And, from my experiences, the army that gets up for rapidfire is usually the most versital.

Amnar
27-11-2007, 07:18
I used to play a gunline marine army years ago. I got sick of not having a movement phase.

Ouroboros
27-11-2007, 09:00
I don't really have a problem with them myself. They can seem overpowered yes, but they're only really overpowered in the "lets just kill each other" type of non mission.

If you're playing anything that requires you to capture counters, the table center, or god help you move into his deployment zone you're going to have a much harder time of things than a more balanced army would have. This is before you even start taking unfavorable terrain into acount. This is something else gunlines tend to suffer from more than other armies, they're also the armies most vulnerable to things like Falcon Eldar and formerly Daemon bombs.

They're just like any other one trick pony army. They're good if they can play to their strengths, (winning first turn on a table with nice firelanes and no mission) but will suffer significantly if any of those elements don't come together.

Razarael
27-11-2007, 12:03
I've been losing to them on a fairly regular basis, both Tau and IG gunlines. I don't mind them though. I don't see the point in griping about something that's not going to change or that I have no control over. My entire outlook is this- I'm going to be playing against them, and while I can, I want to try to beat a gunline by changing my tactics and not changing my composition. I may not win often, but it's a challenge, and thus... I have fun.

Son of Makuta
27-11-2007, 14:03
I hate gunlines because they're boring as hell. If I may explain. I play 'nids and it seems that many of my opponents discard all tactical knowledge (apart from the irritating jump shoot jump technique!) in the face of my thrashing horde of Genestealers and Gaunts. (I have a near 50/50 split between the two types, with the Gaunts being 32 Termagants and 24 Hormagaunts.) Funnily enough, no matter how many of them I actually use, it seems to have the same effect...

I play against Tau a lot and the games get rather repetitive. They also involve me winning. I've only ever lost against Tau with my Tyranids once, and that was because I forgot things like Scout moves and it was Seek and Destroy in any case. Even when, as a noob of 6 months' gaming experience, I took on a veteran of 12 years, it was a draw in my favour.

I'd conclude that Tau suck, except that when I tried out my Eldar on them, I was owned. Admittedly I haven't used the pointy-ears a lot, but it's presumably just the nids being deadly.

Back to gunlines. Guard tend to sit and shoot in the face of my army anyway. Let's face it, all thoughts of 'retreat and lay down crossfire' isn't much good when your entire front line is facing down lots of hungry Genestealers and your deployment's only 12" deep. In Apoc I suppose it'd be a lot different, but in ordinary 40K manoeuvring goes outta the window when it comes to evading a Tyranid swarm. Only once has a Tau army actually worked the way it's supposed to, and that was when I used a load of Genestealers - numbers small enough for the Tau to shoot holes in (on the flanks) and encircle, but deadly enough to still kill 'em, making for a great game and an eventual draw.

EVIL INC
27-11-2007, 14:15
They are anything BUT a one trick pony army. on another note, anyone who considers it a matter of replacing tactics with rolling dice, knows nothing about the game and should go to checkers or chess. It is a valid and usefull tactic. If the terreign setup allows you to effectively use a gunline, use it. If it does not, then use an assault style tactic. Use what is neccessary for the situation and mission. The effective players can do that. The inneffective player just complains when beaten by it (or any other tactic) and are unable to effectively use thier own army using tactics that the terreign set-up and mission call for.

cruise
27-11-2007, 16:56
One of my regular opponents is a tank-heavy gunline IG army. Yeah, it's annoying trying to take down 3 tanks with a balanced army without resorting to taxied fire dragons, but that's the challenge for me.

People view problems in one of two ways. either asking, "How do I get it to go away?" or, "How do I beat it?" Achieving the second will teach you a lot more in the long run.

The_Dragon_Rising
27-11-2007, 16:59
Because they're boring and one-dimensional, and many gunline players complain about enemy units that any balanced army would be able to counter. It's your own fault if the grand sum of your tactics consists of "try to shoot it before it gets here."

QFT. My answer = this 1.

Black Antelope
27-11-2007, 17:13
I’m neutral, because I have to play against them constantly. However, I do appreciate that against a Nid hoard when you have all infantry with few transports (ie most non-tourney armies) there isn’t a much better tactic. And I disagree with the fact the gun lines have no tactics. Certainly deployment can make a lot of difference, and being able redeploying a gun line to counter different threats is a skill I see very rarely.

inquisitor solarris
27-11-2007, 17:16
i don't find it a problem i would only use it if it was either it was against tyranids, orks or a meatgrinder mission apart from that i'll keep moving especially if it's apocalypse i'll dive in for objectives and then hold

Stormtrooper Clark
27-11-2007, 17:39
I don't have a problem with it personally, I mean, this is sci-fi ain't it? With pew pew laz0r guns and such. Plus it's always fun to watch a gun-line Guard player when your Banshees reach his Infantry XD XD.

TheLionReturns
27-11-2007, 18:03
Difficult question for me to answer. Do I mind playing against them? Definitely not. Long range weapons were developed for a reason and its a perfectly valid mode of warfare. Also I find it a good challenge to beat a good dug in opponent with firepower. Would I like to play using one however? Definitely not. I love the manouvering side of the game. Using a gunline myself is too much like just rolling dice to be fun for me.

I don't think gunlines in 40K are anywhere near as bad or boring as those in fantasy for example. However, I believe one of the major reasons that people complain about facing gunlines is that people don't use enough terrain in their games. An open field makes a gunline practically impossible to breach. More terrain means that firelanes need to be covered by a gunline and manouvering then becomes important, both for reinforcing defensive points from the defenders point of view, and advancing under cover from the attackers point of view.

Personally I would also like to see a greater emphasis placed on battlefield objectives even as far as making the game impossible to win by casualties alone if the objective is achieved. A gunline would still be viable in this sense but not optimal and therefore more of a challenge. Probably enough to make me want to play one.

Defcon
27-11-2007, 19:01
Guard have no choice but to either use A. a gunline, or B. Drop Troop Plasma Spam. Which would you rather face?

Or to use Slave Levies.

Grindgodgrind
27-11-2007, 19:49
Personally, I don't mind. So much of my Marine army is mounted on bikes, that a turn or two of turbo boosting usually gets me really close, if not in my opponents lines before he's managed to bring down too many of my marines...then it's divide and conquer.

Would I play one? No, I'd rather have an army that incorporates some movement, for sure.