PDA

View Full Version : The Fluffy Way to Play Guard



AllisterCaine
10-06-2008, 22:55
Ive always wondered what would be the fluffy way to play the Imperial Guard as portrayed in the background of 40k. From the books by Dan Abnett, it seems that the guard is much more "modern", as in the use of fire teams and a battle of movement. In the fluff and artwork however, the IG is more commonly portrayed as rank and file troopers that stand and march shoulder to shoulder, unleashing disciplined volleys from their lasguns. So how do they fight?

I tried the 18th century Napoleonic warfare style several times before and I must say it was really cool, especially when all the models were painted. My troops would march in perfect ranks, 2 man deep, 5 wide. Every command squad had a standard and the 2 infantry formations would march shoulder to shoulder forming lines of guardsmen covering the table. Needless to say, it didnt work very well; casualties by turn 3 were usually above 60%.

But thats how Ive always imagined the guard, inspired by the many glorious artworks depicting the guard fighting an epic battle; with the officers struggling to maintain rank and discipline with their swords raised as they march with explosions and bullets flying everywhere, and the banner of the Imperium flying overhead as the infantry lines march steadily onwards.

Its either that or Ive watched Glory or The Patriot one too many times.

Tiller5
10-06-2008, 22:58
The fluffy way for Guard? Get them killed to the last, with minimal casualties on the opposing side! Well, at least thats how the Ghosts work. Oh, wait a minute..... *rereads Abnett books* oh wait, no, the Guard are the most badass bunch of guys out there, who can kick anyone's backside, so the reverse should be true, they can take on armies far larger than their own, and come off with fewer casualties and a victory!
NB, much over-emphasisation here! (if thats a word)

Lord Malorne
10-06-2008, 22:59
Its more th artwork is just that, artwork! meant to inspire, though from the imperial infantrymans primers we see they do fight in a lot more modern method.


Though the artwork is sweet :p.

AllisterCaine
10-06-2008, 23:02
The fluffy way for Guard? Get them killed to the last, with minimal casualties on the opposing side! Well, at least thats how the Ghosts work. Oh, wait a minute..... *rereads Abnett books* oh wait, no, the Guard are the most badass bunch of guys out there, who can kick anyone's backside, so the reverse should be true, they can take on armies far larger than their own, and come off with fewer casualties and a victory!
NB, much over-emphasisation here! (if thats a word)

We can spend years talking about the Abnett Guard, where all you need to take out a Chaos Dreadnought is a lasgun and a frag grenade.

But we are not.

bnf
10-06-2008, 23:03
they can take on armies far larger than their own, and come off with fewer casualties

Yeah, that's why there are so many of the original Tanith Ghosts left ;)

ThousandPlateaus
10-06-2008, 23:04
I think you're doing exactly the right thing.
Sod all this UN/'Sharpe in Space' nonsense that Abnett propogates (I blame the Cadians!)

Tiller5
10-06-2008, 23:08
OK, Tanith tomfoolery aside, I think it boils down to exactly what you want from the game. If you like the sound of recreating tactics from military history, go for it. If you prefer to create your own set of tactics and/or relationships between platoons, even writing stories for them, then awesome! I personally like the character approach, but I don't have the time to invent narratives, or names for that matter.

sigur
10-06-2008, 23:12
I find that the great thing about codex IG is that it really represents the IG very well. I mean, you can't really make "unfluffy" lists with it. On one hand, there's lots of different regiments but on the other hand, the platoons system works really well to represent the structure of the imperial guard.

There are doctrines which twist with the idea of the IG too much though (in my opinion; Drop Troops, Grenadiers, Carapace Armour come to mind). But if you use the "vanilla" list from the codex, you almost always end up with a nice, fluffy force.

AllisterCaine
10-06-2008, 23:15
Yeah I agree, but how does the IG play while on the battlefield? A fluffy list can be easily made but how does the IG employ its tanks and infantry while fighting?

Master Jeridian
10-06-2008, 23:19
So many variables.

What enemy are they facing?

I can see IG lining up firing lines versus Ork and Nid hordes.
I can see more 'modern' tactics being necessary against other IG, etc.


Also, with millions of Regiments, the two extremes of Napoleanic riflemen, and 'modern' elite troops no doubt exist.


My personal take- I like the IG as a 'modern' army, walking in lines 'Somme-like' against heavy machine guns, rapid fire assault rifles, artillery and tanks, is just...well, suicide.

I also like the idea that IG can actually win battles (most importantly because I'll be playing the games of them).
The attitude that 'IG are supposed to lose' and 'your supposed to take horrendous casualties and die', etc baffles me- not because it is peddled by opponents, but because it seems to be peddled by as many IG players.

It's like a reflex excuse for losing.

Hicks
10-06-2008, 23:20
3 heavy support tanks and as many platoons as I can get. All squads armed with one heavy weapon (no specials, that's for command squads) and ranked in close order.

It actually looks really cool on the battlefield and it happens to be my favorite way to use them tacticaly too.

AllisterCaine
10-06-2008, 23:25
quote

See, the way I picture it, is that the IG will be fighting the same way no matter who they are facing or what kind of weapons the enemy has. Their teachings, tatics, and doctrines are so old that against a new enemy, they will still simply stick to the old ways, much like WWI.

Hicks, that what I like to do too, except half the squads have specials while half have heavies, but thats a typical game when Im actually trying to win. Im asking that based on the fluff and artwork, how do you think the IG actually plays.

MrGiggles
10-06-2008, 23:26
I've always had this picture of a complete Guard Infantry company......commanded by Zap Brannigan!

HiredSword.
10-06-2008, 23:32
I've always had this picture of a complete Guard Infantry company......commanded by Zap Brannigan!

quoted just because it put a smile on my face.

If you look at all the guard minis you'll see they're all different- why? because the IG refer to different structures and traditions. I mean really, who can see praetorians scurrying around in 5 men squads in urban warfare, no! every sensible person wants to put them in drill order and real zulu lines at the enemy. Each regiment has it's own fluff. the guard are varied and therefore the fluff is varied.

MegaPope
10-06-2008, 23:34
but how does the IG employ its tanks and infantry whiel fighting?

You're talking play-style here, yes?

Well, on a personal note, I use my Guard (heavy infantry - proud employer of carapace armour!:D) as a proper combined arms force wherever I can. This means:

1) I lead with the infantry, advancing as needed into good firing positions. If possible, I'll have squads or platoons leapfrog each other, so that one section advances while the others provide supporting fire. I do NOT lead with officers - they're there to provide leadership, and to protect the rear areas with a brace of meltaguns.

However, I will say that I don't generally advance with infantry too much while the enemy are still around in force - most things are a lot faster than Guard, and better in combat - I find it best not to shorten the distance they need to travel to my lines in any way. Voluntary pull-backs are used if necessary. Generally, I'll only risk advancing for assault if the odds are between 5 and 10-1 in my favour - this is not an exaggeration.

Rough Riders provide counter-assault capacity, although I'll risk an outright offensive charge with them if a juicy enough target presents itself (Imperial Terminators are my favourites)

2) I make extensive use of armour, both heavy and light. Chimeras provide mobile AP fire support, while my Russes or Demolishers pound tough pockets of resistance. Hellhound either lock down the flanks, or get brought up from concealment to flush out any enemy-occupied terrain features.

I also always take at least one piece of heavy artillery, more if possible - I use them first for counter-battery fire, and then for blasting concealed troops who can mess up my assault force, especially CC specialists.

3) If I've got the points, I'll use Valkyrie-borne troops to add an extra facet to the attack. The Valkyries will spend a turn ortwo simply strafing the enemy, and then drop off their cargo to contest objectives. My stormtroopers often force at least a draw without firing a shot.

Bear in mind that I often play at 3000pts plus (non-Apoc, FOCs in use) - this is where the Guard tends to shine. Any lower in points and you're often lackin an essential part of the combined-arms force that hamstrings the rest of it.

I really don't like having to take the Napoleonic approach, nor do I ever Drop Plasma spam. However, I am at some point going to try out a traitor guard force that operates along WW1 lines -IA5 rules; essentially just a mass of infantry with some artillery support.
This is just a personal view, but I hope it helps.

Quentin
10-06-2008, 23:40
quoted just because it put a smile on my face.

If you look at all the guard minis you'll see they're all different- why? because the IG refer to different structures and traditions. I mean really, who can see praetorians scurrying around in 5 men squads in urban warfare, no! every sensible person wants to put them in drill order and real zulu lines at the enemy. Each regiment has it's own fluff. the guard are varied and therefore the fluff is varied.

Quite true.

For instance, the Death Korp of Kreig Seige regiments use traditional WW1 tactics, a massive artillery barrage and then a mass infantry advance.

Cadians I believe are meant to use more "modern" tactics.

Think about Rough Rider regiments. I imagine there are some that use Medieval-esque equipment and tactics (lances and heavy armour), some that are Napoleonic (Lighter armour, sabres and perhaps rifles, if they are Dragoons) and some more similiar to WW2 bike troops.

Killgore
10-06-2008, 23:47
I feel it depends on how mad their commander was

watch the beginning of the film enemy at the gates for cannon fodder guard 40k ;)

vyper
11-06-2008, 01:23
My general tactic with guards is to create a solid gunline, spend the first three turns shooting to hopefully break up the enemy and then advance.

I've had tyranid players tell me that one of the scariest things they've seen is a couple of hundred infantrymen marching towards them.

Norsehawk
11-06-2008, 01:33
Feed a thousand saps into a meat grinder until it gets clogged, then claim victory.

Bloodknight
11-06-2008, 01:34
Napoleonic ranks plus cuirassiers plus tanks. As a Mordian player there is just no other way to do it fluffy...:)

(but frankly, atm I play drop troops with tank support. I like to win a game once in a while; the codex wants it and I obey if I want to have a bit of fun).


couple of hundred infantrymen marching towards them.

Hey, that overblown number again.
People, if you say stuff like this, at least also tell people that you are not talking about a standard 1500-1750 game (where 150 is already in the very upper spectrum of 1750 if those guys are reasonably armed), it just leads to false conclusions in our opponents who often seem to believe that guardsmen are cheap. "a couple of hundred" is Apocalypse terrain already.

/rant...

Drogmir
11-06-2008, 01:42
I think the most modern in terms of thinking is either the Cadians or the Armageddon Steel Legion, Also Elysian Drop troops + Harkonian Warhawks are essentially advanced paratroopers

Also Tallarn get a mention because they're guerrilla warfare and that style of warfare never seemed to have went out of style. This is also the kind of fighting Gaunt's Ghosts and Tanith First and Only seem to use.

Below them are Death Korps of Krieg and perhaps Mordian? I think Valhallans get a mention here too.

Perhaps on par, perhaps below are Praetorians

Guys like Slevlar Chem troops and the Skull Takers are somewhat licking the bottom of the organized warfare barrel.

AllisterCaine
11-06-2008, 04:14
*sigh*

The point of this thread was to ask the fluffy way to play guard based upon the fluff, background, and novels of the 40k universe.

List of what the thread is NOT about
-guard armies
-how you play
-you army
-themed armies
-guard/modern/40k tatics

Thanks for the contribution anyways though, most of them totally missed the mark but interesting nonetheless...

Drogmir
11-06-2008, 04:20
*sigh*

The point of this thread was to ask the fluffy way to play guard based upon the fluff, background, and novels of the 40k universe.

List of what the thread is NOT about
-guard armies
-how you play
-you army
-themed armies
-guard/modern/40k tatics

Thanks for the contribution anyways though, most of them totally missed the mark but interesting nonetheless...

I counter argue that themed armies does indeed apply to how to fluff play guard.

I can't very well see Cadains fighting Death Korps of Krieg tactics could you?

So if you were going to fluff play guard you would have to tell us what type of guard you were using.

try not to be so quick to throw everyone else's judgment out the window for your own OP or not.

AllisterCaine
11-06-2008, 04:31
I counter argue that themed armies does indeed apply to how to fluff play guard.

I can't very well see Cadains fighting Death Korps of Krieg tactics could you?

So if you were going to fluff play guard you would have to tell us what type of guard you were using.

try not to be so quick to throw everyone else's judgment out the window for your own OP or not.

You just gave me a list of armies and the only relevant information to this thread was the guerilla tatic part about the Tallarn raiders. Im not trying to throw everyone else judgement out the window (why the hell would I do that if the point of this thread was to ask for them) but going off topic is not something I want. The guard should work in a similar way, the regiment theyre from should affect their fighting style but as far as fluff and artwork goes, its all pretty much massed infantry in ranks. Many artwork depict the Cadian regiments fighting in the same way as the Dkok. The most notable regiments that deviate from this are probably the Tallarn, Elysian, and the Catachans. Even the Steel Legion fights in a similar fashion in some situations yet their army is fully mechanized (once again based on the artworks).

Drogmir
11-06-2008, 05:49
You just gave me a list of armies and the only relevant information to this thread was the guerilla tatic part about the Tallarn raiders. Im not trying to throw everyone else judgement out the window (why the hell would I do that if the point of this thread was to ask for them) but going off topic is not something I want. The guard should work in a similar way, the regiment theyre from should affect their fighting style but as far as fluff and artwork goes, its all pretty much massed infantry in ranks. Many artwork depict the Cadian regiments fighting in the same way as the Dkok. The most notable regiments that deviate from this are probably the Tallarn, Elysian, and the Catachans. Even the Steel Legion fights in a similar fashion in some situations yet their army is fully mechanized (once again based on the artworks).

Sorry if I ask but I don't seem to remember any Artwork showing Cadian regiments fighting in Trenches just to send waves and waves of guys at the enemy after major bombardment.

Also Steel Legion is based on Blitzkrieg warfare.

So as far as fluff goes in both artwork and stories I do believe each Regiment is different enough that massed infantry in ranks is not really the permanent fluff description of the guard.

But then again maybe I'm reading too much into this, if so ignore me.

legio mortis
11-06-2008, 05:56
From the books by Dan Abnett, it seems that the guard is much more "modern", as in the use of fire teams and a battle of movement.
This trend is also in the Cain books, and other background books such as the Munitorum Manual and the Tactica Imperialis.



In the fluff and artwork however, the IG is more commonly portrayed as rank and file troopers that stand and march shoulder to shoulder, unleashing disciplined volleys from their lasguns.
In the fluff? Black Library stuff is fluff.



But thats how Ive always imagined the guard, inspired by the many glorious artworks depicting the guard fighting an epic battle; with the officers struggling to maintain rank and discipline with their swords raised as they march with explosions and bullets flying everywhere, and the banner of the Imperium flying overhead as the infantry lines march steadily onwards.
I would actually hesitate to say that this is how they commonly fight. Closed ranks against automatic weapons? And that's only the beginning of their problems! The Imperial Guard would have no way of sustaining such casualties.

So you want a fluffy way to play the Guard according to the background? Play them however you want, it's that simple. Do you want a more concise answer? Well, there really is no standard procedure, but the Munitorum Manual states that one of the most common ways the Imperial guard wage war is basically an armored blitzkrieg. That's right, mobility, not the traditional bayonets n' barbed wire that many people think it is.

I wouldn't be so fast to take pieces of artwork as canon material. It's drawn to inspire and look cool. They're basically propaganda pieces.

Commissar Vaughn
11-06-2008, 07:54
I get the feeling that there is actually a lot of variation in how the guard fight: they'll close ranks and fix bayonets to recieve the charge of a horde of savage loonies, against effective firepower they'll take cover and keep moving forward to give the enemy guns less space and time.

Imperial Guard officers are trained from the Tactica Imperialis, most of which while perhaps out of date is at least fairly sensible, and all thy have to do is fit its lessons in around the traditional practices of their own world/regiment.

taffeh
11-06-2008, 08:40
"I say! That chap over there has a pretty nice flag! Guardsmen! Charge!"

Bookwrak
11-06-2008, 08:52
Yeah I agree, but how does the IG play while on the battlefield? A fluffy list can be easily made but how does the IG employ its tanks and infantry while fighting?

The IG numbers in the tens of millions of soldiers drawn from a million different worlds - any military tradition you want to represent can reasonably assumed to exist somewhere in there. As quite plainly shown in the IG codex, there is no singular way for the IG to be depicted.


I get the feeling that there is actually a lot of variation in how the guard fight:
This is explicitly shown in the codex. Cadians will fight differently than Catachans, who will fight different than Last Chancers, who will fight different than a fully mechanized company.

HiredSword.
11-06-2008, 09:03
Is there anything to this thread other than 'guard = varied fighting style'? (a valid point though)

if you really wanted to learn guard playing style then look at what gw based each regiment on. For example, elysians to me represent elite paratroopers, so go to your local library and pick up a book on paratrooper tactics. It's as simple as that. Guard are based on real life armies (modern or otherwise).


If you want more in depth fluff on how to play your army then taking a look at forgeworld's imperial armour books to get an idea on how to play your army.

DarkMatter2
11-06-2008, 09:29
IMHO, aside from a few odd regiments, the Imperial Guard is a combined arms tactic army - blitzkrieg to be more precise.

Its called the "Hammer of the Emperor" because once it gets going it smashes everything it touches.

Massive rolling artillery barrages, air support, titans, tanks, innumerable waves of infantry.

This whole "DIE TO THE LAST MAN!" and "incompetent cannon fodder" thing hardly resembles the way the Guard is portrayed in most fluff.

This is a force that smashes solar systems and wins thousands of battles every year. It is the largest and most powerful force in the galaxy for crying out loud.

Gitzbitah
11-06-2008, 11:02
Check out page 7 of your guard codex. The little blurb about the 'Tactica Imperium' seems to answer your question. They all operate off a different version of a constantly updating and evolving book which they interpret metaphorically and literally. This book has many authors. The fluffy way to play guard is warfare by wikipedia. You would probably be able to find support for any tactic in there.

The artwork you're talking about is showing what sort of battles? The epic defenses where whole regiments are blown to pieces while Titans walk in the background? Naturally you'll see massed gunlines. Anything involving Titans is an absurdly huge set piece battle. There are quite a few illustrations of a small group of guardsmen engaging enemies in various ways. This is just going from the codex, which is our most likely source of fluffy tabletop representation. The steel legion has a squad fighting orks with a tank in the background. The Catachans are on patrol in the jungle. The Cadians are hugging available battlefield cover in a more modern advance. The Mordians and Cadians get a shot of the massed gunline battle- against Tyranids.

They fight in whatever way their commander wants them to. If he is a good commander, then they will adapt to local conditions and the nature of their opponents. If he is a bad commander, they will stick to their one tactic. That is both common sense, and very much supported by the fluff and artwork of the codex.

Gen.Steiner
11-06-2008, 11:26
People, if you say stuff like this, at least also tell people that you are not talking about a standard 1500-1750 game (where 150 is already in the very upper spectrum of 1750 if those guys are reasonably armed), it just leads to false conclusions in our opponents who often seem to believe that guardsmen are cheap. "a couple of hundred" is Apocalypse terrain already.

/rant...

Well, I have written a 2,000 point list that has 176 Guardsmen and 30 Rough Riders in it... ;)

The correct way to play Guard is to read the Tactica Imperialis. If you can't do that (because it doesn't exist ;)) then the best thing to do is to play the way that works for you. It's fluffy, because the TI is massive (umpteen billion volumes) and contains every known tactic and strategy from over 10,000 years of warfare from across the Imperium. :)

Condottiere
11-06-2008, 11:50
I'll think I'll throw in my two cents worth.

It comes down to basically this, any way that you think you'd like to fight an IG regiment is fluffy, because it's all been tried at least once, results vary based on the troop quality, equipment, actual doctrine trained for, current doctrine employed, officers, enemy, environment and luck.

IG regiments are recruited from all over the galaxy, and you can have armoured fist units with the very latest equipment from advanced industrialized worlds to footslogging, poorly trained, badly equipped, backward units led by unimaginative officers.

Havock
11-06-2008, 12:07
Deoends entirely where the regiment played comes from :)

A low-tech world? That just happens to have a small plasma-producing admech asteroid nearby? Everybody walks around in WWI-style clothing, with wood-crafted autoguns but there are some plasma guns around.

Fluffy? Yes. Fun looking on the table? Very likely, the contrast is there.

Lord Cook
11-06-2008, 12:24
While AllisterCaine's view of the Imperial Guard may be the stereotypical Guard tactic, it certainly isn't the only one. To say that Guard regiments always fight the same way is clearly wrong. Every fluff source we have, whether it be the codex, the Primer, the Munitorium manual, BL books, etc. shows us that the Guard is by and large a highly trained and well adaptable force that will use tactics and weapons appropriate to its current enemy.

And for God's sake, will people stop spouting that nonsense about "destroying a dreadnought with a lasgun". Read the extract again and see that the dreadnought honestly didn't give a damn about anything Mkoll was doing, including the lasgun explosion.

Bunnahabhain
11-06-2008, 12:37
The fluffy way to play Guard is with a much higher points limit than normal, and within the FOC.

Forces should rely on their troops, with other elements in the heat of battle and this is especially true for the Guard, where the iconic images from the background are that of the ordinary Guardsman in the centre of battle. If you're at a higher points limit, then it forces the focus back onto the ordinary trooper, and not the elite units.

Unless there is established background for a Regiment specialising in fighting in some less normal way (Steel legion fully mechanised infantry, elesian drop troops, catachan jungle infiltraiting, Mordian and Praetorian close ranks, death korps siege units....) I see the Guard fighting in a combined arms fashion, which again, works better at much higher points levels. Of course, in a war, a drop troop light infantry unit might well end up manning trenches in a siege lines, or something else that they don't specialise in.
The long range Artillery support and air support the Guard should have are still missing, but they don't fit all that well into 40k.

To really play Guard in a fluffy way, play Epic.

Master Jeridian
11-06-2008, 13:16
Agreed, Epic is the way to truly see IG in action.

Armoured Blitzkriegs of Leman Russ. Air support. Infantry Companies. Airborne Storm Trooper units (Valkyrie mounted). Artillery Batteries. Etc.


40k is too small for IG to work, and is arbitrarily trapped in a predefined field.

How well would modern armies work if they had to fight within a football field? How well would their artillery and range help then?

The only units designed to fight such up close and bloody battles are elite troops (like Vet's, Storm Troopers) and heavy armour (like Leman Russ)- so shockingly these are predominant in 40k.

Tauva
11-06-2008, 13:25
a nice representation of how i see gaurd fighting is in the book thirteen hours, which i thought was great, many didnt. it was effectively trench warfare, but they had no armoured supportso it worked for the story. if the gaurd have massed vehicle support i can see them charging foreward in the vehicles wake (a la yarrick fortress of arrogance story)

EvilMinion
11-06-2008, 13:31
I think the "fluffy" Gaurd would be far more heroic than on the tabletop with more heavy weapons platoons and bucket loads of tanks!!

Sureshot05
11-06-2008, 14:02
I've found the best way to get fluffly guard is with pva glue and fur...

Damage,Inc.
12-06-2008, 18:34
I have always felt the Guard perform much more like a modern, standard army than like an ancient gunline. You simply do not go half way across the galaxy in spaceships to end up using WWI tatcics every engagement. Although somewhat rigid in command structure, the Guard is still flexible enough to counter the threat that a wide variety of races pose, on an enormous variety of planets. They Guard perform duties from front line combat to policing newly acquired planets while the Administratum slowly builds of their presence.

The Guard also employ assets from the Imperial Navy such as aircraft and aerial weapons. This as well as the close range barrages provided by their organic artillery prove that there is a system for calling in support assets and coordinating attacks, something that was simply absent before WWII.

Yes trenches and gunlines are still used, at times. Yes there are cavalry. But by and large this is an organization tasked with making war on a million different worlds with men from many different backgrounds. They have been doing it for 10,000 years and so far have not failed, even against things like hive fleets, uber-marine black crusades, and alien insurrections.

Yes the models reflect different periods but that is not so much indicative of how they fight but the fact that people like to play with semi-historical models. That's why we still hash out Zulu and D-Day scenarios. The Munitorium could not afford to have an interstellar fighting force that is not adaptable. "The Tallarn XXI are the closest unit to Oceania IV, but they're desert fighters, we can't send them."

The Guard deserve a better portrayal in the fluff.

borithan
12-06-2008, 19:47
IMHO, aside from a few odd regiments, the Imperial Guard is a combined arms tactic army - blitzkrieg to be more precise.

Massive rolling artillery barrages, air support, titans, tanks, innumerable waves of infantry.
Doesnt sound very blitzkrieg to me. Blitzkrieg wouldn't have time for rolling barrages, or waves of infantry. The whole point of blitzkrieg is to hit hard at a small point, and then to keep on rolling forward, too fast for your enemy to respond. Rolling barrages are the result of set piece battles, which are usually to take a specific objective, and/or wear down your enemy in attrition warfare. Blitzkrieg would have an opening heavy barrage, yes, but then the whole point is that the attacking force would thereafter be moving too fast for a rolling barrage to be any good.

Guard fight in a variety in ways, but the impression i get is that the norm would be a set piece battle. Some units do specialise in fast moving armoured formations, but as far as I can tell most of the guard are footsloggers. Therefore I imagine they fight more like the stereotype of the British army circa late WW1 and during WW2, ie combined arms, relatively professional, but in a very deliberate manner. Not the napoleonic gun lines seen in many of the pictures (at least normally), but not as rapid or fluid as blitzkrieg, or modern armoured warfare.

legio mortis
12-06-2008, 20:00
Guard fight in a variety in ways, but the impression i get is that the norm would be a set piece battle. Some units do specialise in fast moving armoured formations, but as far as I can tell most of the guard are footsloggers. Therefore I imagine they fight more like the stereotype of the British army circa late WW1 and during WW2, ie combined arms, relatively professional, but in a very deliberate manner. Not the napoleonic gun lines seen in many of the pictures (at least normally), but not as rapid or fluid as blitzkrieg, or modern armoured warfare.
Yet the Munitorum Manual has the most common offensive technique as being an armored blitzkrieg. How often do you read about the Guard going on the offensive with mass infantry outside of set siege scenarios? In all reality, I don't see lasguns really being fired all that often outside of cities and jungles. Armored vehicles and aircraft rule the rest.

cailus
13-06-2008, 02:02
I think people forget that the Guard do not fight just human allies and that they do not just fight on nice old pleasant planet Earth with it's breathable atmosphere and consistent gravity.

People also seem to be ignoring the fact that the equipment and background do not point to more modern fighting styles.

In fact judging by the equipment the Guard is issued in both the background and the game I'd say that the Guard fight more in a World War I fashion than a post-World War II fluid style fashion.

The IG seem to be lacking in a number of key features of modern militaries:

1. Man-portable light machine guns (ala Minimi or even M-60). Modern infantry tactics are based around these weapons. Even ignoring hero scale, most IG heavy/special weapons are anti-tank weapons which realistically have no chance of hitting an individual trooper and would have no real suppressive capabilities. Even the autocannon and heavy bolters are rather large weapons bigger than say a Browning M2 (the autocannon is closer to a 20mm Oerlikon) and thus probably not man portable suppression weapons.

2. Extremely slow tanks. Modern warfare emphasises speed as much as it does firepower. In fact given that most IG Leman Russes are equipped with what appear to be fragmentation based projectiles and have a large number of heavy bolters I'd suggest that they are in essence infantry support weapons. The background seems to support this as there are references to tank platoons/companies being assigned to infantry regiments. Pure armoured spearheads seem rare. The IG approach therefore seems more similar to the way the French army was set up before 1940 and we all know how poor they performed with this approach when faced with concentrated yet often inferior German Panzers.

3. It would appear that the nature of the IG's alien enemies dictate an almost defensive approach to waging warfare. Most of the IG's enemies seem to be operate either on an extremely mobile firepower base (Tau, Eldar, Chaos Space Marines, even Necrons with their Monoliths/teleportation) or on a massed horde approach (Orks, Nids).

Hence in many of these instances the Guard would not be able to conduct offensive operations (how do you launch an offensive against someone that teleports an entire army onto the field or that hides in the webway?).

Against the Nids and Orks, offensive operations would be possible but given the speed of IG armour, lack of transport and the nature of the enemy (basically an infestation) would dictate a slower more World War I-esque approach with massed artillery barrages to obliterate large chunks of an enemy that generally knows nothing about fortifications with a slow infantry/tank advance whereby every little hole gets fried.

4. A general disregard for human life in the Imperium while machines are worshipped as sacred. This would support the notion of massed waves of infantry thrown into meat grinder type situations.

I think with regards to the type of terrain the Guard fights, armour would be a relative luxury. I am not sure whether IG vehicles have self-contained atmospheres otherwise crews have to wear large protective suits in an already cramped interior or tanks are not used at all. Secondly the terrain includes much more inhospitable environments than earth, so tanks and heavy armour could be of limited use in at least a large minority of situations.

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
13-06-2008, 04:16
If you want to play the Guard "fluffy" here is what you need to do.

Game Rules
1. IG Infantry platoons gain without number
2. First 3 Turns IG player starts with nothing on the board
3. IG player can roll 9 basilisk shots a turn for the first three turns
4. Turn 4 all IG units come in from the board edge
5. Game lasts 20 turns or until the IG player suffers 4 million casualties. Which ever happens first.

This would bring the battle much more inline with the fluff :)

cailus
13-06-2008, 05:11
If you want to play the Guard "fluffy" here is what you need to do.

Game Rules
1. IG Infantry platoons gain without number
2. First 3 Turns IG player starts with nothing on the board
3. IG player can roll 9 basilisk shots a turn for the first three turns
4. Turn 4 all IG units come in from the board edge
5. Game lasts 20 turns or until the IG player suffers 4 million casualties. Which ever happens first.

This would bring the battle much more inline with the fluff :)

Very nice!

BigEaZyE
13-06-2008, 06:52
Sharpe in space ftw.

borithan
13-06-2008, 07:05
The IG seem to be lacking in a number of key features of modern militaries:

1. Man-portable light machine guns (ala Minimi or even M-60). Modern infantry tactics are based around these weapons.
Certainly have a point here


the autocannon is closer to a 20mm Oerlikon
Would say larger than that... maybe 30mm or even larger.



2. Extremely slow tanks.
Certainly look that way... but we don't really know that. We know they aren't fast, but we don't know they are particularly slow either. Still, I would suspect they are quite slow.



The IG approach therefore seems more similar to the way the French army was set up before 1940 and we all know how poor they performed with this approach when faced with concentrated yet often inferior German Panzers.
Well... the French did have concentrated armour units... problem was they were in the wrong place, all rushing to Belgium.

The most important thing that the Imperial Guard generally do not have which make blitzkrieg tactics impossible is mechanised infantry.

Yes, they have it, but it seems to be largely small in scale and used more as a relatively small mobile reserve (represented by armoured fist squads, and most machanised infantry companies). And yes, they do have large mechanised infantry units, but one of the things that is meant to be special about the Steel Legion is that they are universally mounted in Chimeras, which suggests it is not the norm. Infantry need to keep up with tanks for a blitzkrieg, and most of the army could not. Units like the Steel Legion would be able to used Blitzkrieg tactics, but most of the Imperial Guard are footsloggers, and so it seems fairly likely that often armies lack any large mechanised units, and so would have to largely rely on the more deliberate tactics of infantry armies.

LuciusAR
13-06-2008, 10:51
They ‘fluffy’ way to play Imperial Guard is anything 20th century from about the outbreak of WW1 right through to today, dependent on the world your regiment is from all options are valid and the book related fluff supports this. The rank and file method as seen in the artwork its pure dramatic licence, if you look at the cover of any codex you will see forces standing shoulder to shoulder as bullets whip round them.

Standing in rank and file, in the open, in any warfare situation where automatic weapons are involved would swiftly result in any unit (even space marines) being annihilated within a matter of minutes if not quicker. Even in 1914 or during the human wave onslaughts of the Eastern Front in WW2, soldiers certainly did not stand in this manner.

That 40k allows any squad to stand close together without cover, Napoleonic style (as imperial guard armies in 40K games are known to do) and get away with it astonishing enough, that there are specific rules that encourage it (close order doctrine) is just plain extraordinary.

Bizarrely enough the way Imperial Guard should be played can be seen by playing a game of Flames of War. As in this game, for infantry at least, cover is everything. Try standing close together in the open in this game and see what happens. It’s not pretty. Discovering this game about a year ago pretty much killed 40K for me. But that’s for another thread….

Lord Cook
13-06-2008, 11:13
That 40k allows any squad to stand close together without cover, Napoleonic style (as imperial guard armies in 40K games are known to do) and get away with it astonishing enough, that there are specific rules that encourage it (close order doctrine) is just plain extraordinary.

But think about it in terms of the 40k universe. What if you're fighting a horde of hormagaunts in a city? It would be absolutely retarded to run around in four-man fire teams hugging cover, because you're going to get jumped by a pack of 'nids and ripped to pieces. By advancing in a solid wall of troops, not only do you concentrate your firepower sufficiently to cut down the waves of attackers before they reach you, but you also allow each soldier to cover his comrades when it comes to bayonet work. Your flanks are also covered by the men to either side, allowing you to hold a defensive position.

Look at the infantry square. The whole basis of the square is that any cavalryman attacking it is the same width as two men standing next to each other. The square is four ranks deep. That means every single cavalryman attacking the square is facing 8 bayonets and 8 musket shots. He's dead in other words. Now a hormagaunt is easily the size of a large dog. Genestealers are even bigger. Attacked by such creatures, I don't see why a solid formation of bristling guns and bayonets is a bad idea. Orks are the same, and there are probably plenty of greenskins who don't always carry ranged weapons. People need to stop thinking of Guard tactics in terms of fighting modern armies with automatic weapons and consider what sort of tactics you would need to fight an enemy who will ignore all casualties and charge forward into combat as soon as possible. Some supposedly 'obsolete' tactics might warrant a return.

Iracundus
13-06-2008, 11:41
In fact judging by the equipment the Guard is issued in both the background and the game I'd say that the Guard fight more in a World War I fashion than a post-World War II fluid style fashion.

2. Extremely slow tanks. Modern warfare emphasises speed as much as it does firepower. In fact given that most IG Leman Russes are equipped with what appear to be fragmentation based projectiles and have a large number of heavy bolters I'd suggest that they are in essence infantry support weapons. The background seems to support this as there are references to tank platoons/companies being assigned to infantry regiments. Pure armoured spearheads seem rare. The IG approach therefore seems more similar to the way the French army was set up before 1940 and we all know how poor they performed with this approach when faced with concentrated yet often inferior German Panzers.



We actually do know the speed of IG vehicles from FW and they are quite slow. The Leman Russ tank has a listed speed of 35 km/hr on road and 21 km/hr off road. By contrast, T-72 which is now far behind the tech curve has an on road speed of 60km/hr.

DarkMatter2
13-06-2008, 11:57
I disagree with this idea that the Guard is strongly infantry based.

Hell, just play IG Epic. You have gigantic rocket batteries, tank squads, Titans, aircraft, artillery.

Its all about Firepower.

Commissar Vaughn
13-06-2008, 12:52
Some supposedly 'obsolete' tactics might warrant a return.


I think this is very true.

The wonderful thing about the guard is simply that it caters to almost any style you want, more so than any other army. It can be an innumerable sledgehammer if you want, but this isnt the only option and I doubt if its the norm. For the majority of planets in the Imperium (mining worlds/moons, and agriworlds) the population and thus the garrison are tiny, maybe a few platoons at most(probably the veteran remnents of a regiment that fought in a crusade or long campaign) and they certainly wont be using the same tactics as freshly raised regiment drafted in during a local emergency!

By saying that all chimera mounted(or indeed any other type of apc, or truck;the imperium must have millions of variations) regiments are rare compared to normal infantry regiments your missing an important point; Even if there is only one mech/motorised regt for every thousand infantry regts in the Guard, there are still going to be millions of them! Same goes for any other type; recce/grenadier/light infantry/armoured/paratroops etc etc
Armoured fists are either drawn from the parent company and mounted in the regts alloted chimeras(that would be part of the support company along with cooks and cleaners!) or a unit seconded from a Mechanised regt that has been split between the other regmnts in a brigade to provide them with a rapid response force. Wellington did something similar with his rifle battalions: He assigned one coy to each brigade in the army to increace their skirmish line by about 33%.

Therefore; pretty much any way you can play guard is a fluffy way!

And on the FOW point: Im of the opinion that the way the armies are laid out in that game would be near perfect for guard!

borithan
13-06-2008, 15:09
By saying that all chimera mounted(or indeed any other type of apc, or truck;the imperium must have millions of variations) regiments are rare compared to normal infantry regiments your missing an important point; Even if there is only one mech/motorised regt for every thousand infantry regts in the Guard, there are still going to be millions of them! Same goes for any other type; recce/grenadier/light infantry/armoured/paratroops etc etc
Yes, in pure numbers there will be loads of them... however, the proportion does matter, as that will give an indication about how common they will be in any particular battle zone. It doesn't matter if you have 1 million armoured infantry units, if they are all divided among a million battle zones, and in each battle zone only make up 0.1% of the force. Proportion does matter. OK, in some places they will be of a much higher proportion, and so widespread use would be feasible, and so blitzkriegs would be possible. And then that means in others there will be even fewer mechanised units, so they will rely on foot troops even more.

Frankly often what GW say makes little sense. In the new rulebook there is a story about a battle with the Tau, where they send 7 regiments to reinforce the local forces. 7. OK, I accept that doesn't tell us solid numbers (In the Taros campaign book there is one regiment which is essentially a division, an another which is traditional regiment/brigade size), but if, as it says, one whole regiment can be wiped out in 1 day, 7 regiments is pathetic. Similar with the Damoclese Gulf Crusade, where if I remember correctly they send 12 regiments as the core of the force. Erm... 12, to attack dozens of worlds? Sorry, no. You would need millions of men to invade a planet from scratch, even a relatively un-militarised one like Earth as it is today. OK, if the planets are all next to empty (a new/poorly developed colony) then 12 regiments would be fine, but not in the universe suggested by 40k, and if they remember correctly they end up on one of the full septs of the Tau empire.



Armoured fists are either drawn from the parent company and mounted in the regts alloted chimeras(that would be part of the support company along with cooks and cleaners!) or a unit seconded from a Mechanised regt that has been split between the other regmnts in a brigade to provide them with a rapid response force.
Yes, but this means they cannot do Blitzkrieg. They form a mechanised reserve, but taking the limited transport of the infantry units, or splitting up a mechanised regiment will not enable you to use blitzkrieg tactics. For that you need to concentrate forces. At best, using this method, they could do armoured dashes to objectives, then hold out while the main infantry regiments come and rescue them. They couldn't maintain the offensive, which is a vital part of blitzkrieg.



Therefore; pretty much any way you can play guard is a fluffy way!
Pretty much true, I would imagine.



And on the FOW point: Im of the opinion that the way the armies are laid out in that game would be near perfect for guard!
And it is a WW2 game... and my suggestion was that they normally fight like the British in WW2...

ADF
13-06-2008, 15:18
The correct way to play Guard is to read the Tactica Imperialis. If you can't do that (because it doesn't exist ;)) then the best thing to do is to play the way that works for you. It's fluffy, because the TI is massive (umpteen billion volumes) and contains every known tactic and strategy from over 10,000 years of warfare from across the Imperium. :)

Well, you coull actually read Tactica Imperialis published by our beloved Black Library, if you manage to aquire a copy from the secondary market... ;)

http://www.blacklibrary.com/product.asp?prod=60040181011&type=Book

I believe that there is no "fluffier" answer to your question, because after all, there are too much diversities between the regiments to nail down a single fighting style.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
13-06-2008, 15:21
The fluffy way to play any army is to use their codex. The Imperial Guard is an organization of billions, the piddling tactical level skirmishes of 40k don't really need to represent anything in my view.

Our games happen at such a small scale they may represent only a small part of a larger engagement where all those fluffy units are fighting just out of the players sight. Or the "unfluffy" army might just be a few units cobbled together for a specialist role. So I'm not convinced any 40k army is ever unfluffy.

Not to say it's a bad idea to take themed armies. Personally for my Cadians I try to use combined arms, with a varety of vehicles and specialist infantry supporting a strong core of basic guardsmen.

projectkmo
13-06-2008, 15:53
I feel like the thread has gone from Fluffy conversation to too much real world comparison....

If you imagine our world, Earth...as the Warhammer Universe....and all of the countries of the Earth are Worlds of the Warhammer Universe.. and they were all asked to fight as one Army...

yes, there would be similarities...you could even lay down some doctrines.... but they are All different in where they come from...the enviroment they grew up in, trained in etc... they are all going to be different in many ways...even with some military similarities...

The best way to play Fluffy... is to decide what you like..what interests you.. IE... do you want desert raiders...Ice world raiders... Jungle Fighters...Hive world gangers....etc etc etc...Or a combo of them all... Make your own fluff if you wanna be creative... just stay within reason.. and enjoy your "Fluffy" army.

Its fluffy play style is up to you....again, within reason.

have fun with it...that's what its supposed to be about. =)

Supremearchmarshal
13-06-2008, 16:17
We actually do know the speed of IG vehicles from FW and they are quite slow. The Leman Russ tank has a listed speed of 35 km/hr on road and 21 km/hr off road. By contrast, T-72 which is now far behind the tech curve has an on road speed of 60km/hr.

Imperial vehicles are clearly based on ww2 vehicles. In fact, one could argue they're worse - for example the Leman Russ is very similar to the Tiger II, but while more heavily armoured it is also larger and slower...
And the Predator is a slightly faster T-34 with a much larger profile, proving that SM stuff isn't really any better.
But this is getting off-topic.

To answer the original question: The Guard are so numerous almost anything is viable. However, the very numbers of the Guard - coupled with the general Imperial attitude to human life - would mean they're mostly considered expendable and would be used with little thought about their survival.

borithan
13-06-2008, 17:05
Imperial vehicles are clearly based on ww2 vehicles. In fact, one could argue they're worse - for example the Leman Russ is very similar to the Tiger II, but while more heavily armoured it is also larger and slower...
Doesn't look much like a Tiger II to me. Too weird a shape. The tiger II has a very regular shape in comparison, and has sloped armour, rather than the slabs on the Russ. To me it looks more like some 1920s/30s Russian tank that I saw once in a Spanish Civil War game I once played. Gen. Steiner might know what it was, as it was one of his units in the game. It was tall and rather old fashioned looking (though better than what I had, which was an FT-17 with 37mm gun, though that wouldn't look much out of place in some 40k guard armies either).

And I would argue that Imperial vehicles are based more on WW1 than WW2 vehicles. Hell, the Land Raider once looked like a close relation of British WW1 tanks... and I have seen at least one land-raider conversion based on a WW1 tank kit.

Commissar Vaughn
13-06-2008, 17:19
However, the very numbers of the Guard - coupled with the general Imperial attitude to human life - would mean they're mostly considered expendable and would be used with little thought about their survival.

Ive never been happy with that: It doesnt sound right. It sounds like the commanders from 2 years in the middle of the 1st world war have been used as the character basis for every Guard officer in the galaxy for 10000 years, which strikes me as stupid cos humans tend to be a bit more varied than that.
For every butcher who gets his men killed by heroic and interesting tactics (like "CHARGE!") theres an unsung hero who won all his fights and kept his men alive but much duller but more effective tactics!

If you wanna use yer guard like that fair do's, but this Guard commander doesnt! I know most of my lads will die but I wont throw them away: they'll die when I say its time and not before!

borithan
13-06-2008, 17:28
Ive never been happy with that: It doesnt sound right. It sounds like the commanders from 2 years in the middle of the 1st world war have been used as the character basis for every Guard officer in the galaxy for 10000 years, which strikes me as stupid cos humans tend to be a bit more varied than that.
It is explicitly stated in the new rulebook (and I think it has been said before) that human life is cheap in the Imperial guard, considered about as disposable as munitions. And that the Imperial Guard often use attrition as a deliberate tactic.



For every butcher who gets his men killed by heroic and interesting tactics (like "CHARGE!") theres an unsung hero who won all his fights and kept his men alive but much duller but more effective tactics!
More interesting tactics tend to be the ones that keep people alive. Boring is sending your men walking across the open battlefield, where they will get slaughtered. Interesting is using cover and maneuver correctly, providing proper Artillery/air/armour/walking fridge support etc.

Commissar Vaughn
13-06-2008, 17:38
Interesting is using cover and maneuver correctly, providing proper Artillery/air/armour/walking fridge support etc.

Interesting for us wargamers: for the people who read about it in the newspapers after it happens its boring as hell. Sending your men slowly across no-mans land is more interesting cos it looks like you're being decisive (to the knowlessmen in the street) and not faffing about like a wimp. Shows youve got balls, and the huge casualty lists prove it!

Attrition is a good and useful tactic occasionaly...but it only works if you remember its the other side your supposed to be grinding down, not your own! Its no use fighting a battle of attrition just to run out of men....

borithan
13-06-2008, 18:10
Interesting for us wargamers: for the people who read about it in the newspapers after it happens its boring as hell. Sending your men slowly across no-mans land is more interesting cos it looks like you're being decisive (to the knowlessmen in the street) and not faffing about like a wimp. Shows youve got balls, and the huge casualty lists prove it!
Nah, I think most people have an idea that sending troops across open ground is stupid, due to the quite wide knowledge of WW1. Now, charges by heavy armour they might think would work.

Supremearchmarshal
13-06-2008, 21:05
Doesn't look much like a Tiger II to me. Too weird a shape. The tiger II has a very regular shape in comparison, and has sloped armour, rather than the slabs on the Russ. To me it looks more like some 1920s/30s Russian tank that I saw once in a Spanish Civil War game I once played. Gen. Steiner might know what it was, as it was one of his units in the game. It was tall and rather old fashioned looking (though better than what I had, which was an FT-17 with 37mm gun, though that wouldn't look much out of place in some 40k guard armies either).

And I would argue that Imperial vehicles are based more on WW1 than WW2 vehicles. Hell, the Land Raider once looked like a close relation of British WW1 tanks... and I have seen at least one land-raider conversion based on a WW1 tank kit.

Sorry, I meant the technical specs (height, width, weight, armour thickness etc.) are comparable to ww2 tanks. But I agree, they look more like ww1 tanks (the sponson weapons also add to the ww1 image).


Attrition is a good and useful tactic occasionaly...but it only works if you remember its the other side your supposed to be grinding down, not your own! Its no use fighting a battle of attrition just to run out of men....

Well there's not many races out there that the IG do not outnumber many times over - even if they lose 10 men for each enemy, they'll win im most cases.

Also it just so happens that the 2 races that do have comparable numbers, Orks and Tyranids, care even less about casualties.

Col. Tartleton
14-06-2008, 05:20
Heres my image of a semi standard Imperial Guard Company and how its armed and deployed:

Made up of 6 60 man platoons. Each squad has 10 men except the first and second which are led by the Lieutenant and Platoon Sergeant (vet sergeant) respectively and are 5 men in number. Each of the 10 man squads are armed with a missile launcher or heavy bolter and grenade launcher. Grenade launchers are depending on field conditions switched out with flamers and if available or required, meltas and plasmas.

This formation is led by a Captain and his command group who are equipped with a few aforementioned special weapons.

Squads fight in 5 man units and are equipped with headsets and their sergeant and corporal act interdependently. Lasguns are roughly equivalent to a AK-47/M-4/TAR-21 Assault Rifle and is used as such. Missile Launchers are equivalent to the SMAW. Grenade Launchers are like M79s or MGLs. Heavy Bolters work like Mk 19s on the battlefield.

Overall, the equipment and tactics of the more advanced M41 warrior are those of the Vietnam era US. Although most units would either hoof it or have APCs rather than heavy Aircav support and transport. The expense and semi limited usage of APCs and VTOL are too much to be commonplace.

Armor and other support are attached temporarily at platoon size or less from other specialist companies where needed.

LuciusAR
14-06-2008, 09:57
Nah, I think most people have an idea that sending troops across open ground is stupid, due to the quite wide knowledge of WW1. Now, charges by heavy armour they might think would work.

Actually its my experience that most people are quite ignorant of WW1 and the way the war was conducted. Most seem to gained most of their knowledge of WW1 from the blackadder school of history, based of the old tired cliches of uncaring and incompetent officers throwing their men away in human waves against other trenches.

True attrition was a deciding factor, however has always been the case and wars are often won by grinding down until one side physically cannot carry on. However Britain historically had avoided the main theaters of most continental campaigns and so manged to avoid the grinding down of say Napoleon, which occurred in the east. Again in WW2 the western allies avoid the real wearing down of the German army with occurred on the plains of Russia, and by the time of D-Day the western allies faced a poorly organized hoch poch army with little fuel.

Ironically when broken down in terms of British deaths per division involved per day the Normandy campaign was actually bloodier than the Somme campaign, and Haig, unlike Monty, was facing the cream of the German army. Even Waterloo in terms of deaths per division comes very close to matching the casualty ratios of the first day on the Somme.

Admittedly the first day was a clusterf*ck, Im not excusing that, but there is little doubt that that huge numbers of lessons were learned and by the end of the War the British army was the only one on the western front (aside from the newly arrived US troops) who hadn't suffered at least one total collapse of morale and was still capable of offensive operations.

Sorry to take this of topic but this is one subject I feel strongly about...

bobbles
14-06-2008, 12:45
I take it dispite using a picture from black adder you did'nt get your history leason's from it



And as has been said before the imperial gaurd is from worlds numbering on or around the million mark, so any tactic you can think of, asides from the absolutly retarded, has been tried and retried.

borithan
14-06-2008, 14:23
Actually its my experience that most people are quite ignorant of WW1 and the way the war was conducted. Most seem to gained most of their knowledge of WW1 from the blackadder school of history, based of the old tired cliches of uncaring and incompetent officers throwing their men away in human waves against other trenches.
Yes, I imagine that is their image of WW1, but it will still tell them that sending infantry directly across open ground against a well defended position is not usually the best option, even if it based on a simplistic view of the war.



Ironically when broken down in terms of British deaths per division involved per day the Normandy campaign was actually bloodier than the Somme campaign,
I have heard that about American casualties in Normandy, but then it seems likely it would also apply for the Brits.



and Haig, unlike Monty, was facing the cream of the German army.
Erm... OK, yes, by 1944 the German Army was a weakened force, most units being understrength by a large margin, but as far as I know the British in Normandy faced several German Panzer divisions, which were still among the better units in the German army.

Gen.Steiner
22-06-2008, 00:52
Well, you coull actually read Tactica Imperialis published by our beloved Black Library, if you manage to aquire a copy from the secondary market...

Oh, I already have a copy - bought it when it came out. :) But it's only a tiny fragment of the whole 'real' thing.


To me it looks more like some 1920s/30s Russian tank that I saw once in a Spanish Civil War game I once played. Gen. Steiner might know what it was...

T-26. 45mm gun, one machine-gun in the bow (IIRC) or co-ax, three or four crew, good armour, good speed, hideously misused despite outmatching everything the Nationalists had tank-wise ... except captured T-26s! :D

Anyway - His Most Divine Majesty's Imperial Guard use every tactic and strategy necessary for successful completion of the campaign in question. That's what the background says. So there.

Ddraiglais
22-06-2008, 02:59
Let's see, there are millions of different IG regiments from a million different planets. I don't think you could sum up the Guard in a hundred page paper. Take any war from the first time a caveman hit another one with a club all the way up to (and past) modern warfare. If you want knights, field them. If you want drop infantry, do that. If you want mobile infantry fighting bugs, special forces behind enemy lines, WW I Germans, Viet Nam "Rambo" types, or whatever else; do it. There really isn't a "proper" Guard. Certain regiments might have a particular style though.


Certainly have a point here
Well... the French did have concentrated armour units... problem was they were in the wrong place, all rushing to Belgium.


The French did not concentrate their armor. They used armor in small units to support their infantry. The Germans used concentrated armor supported by fast moving infantry. It should be noted that the French had better armor than the Germans when the Germans invaded. The things that made the difference were German tactics and the radio, which made the blitzkrieg possible.

whitehat51
22-06-2008, 03:57
Yes, I imagine that is their image of WW1, but it will still tell them that sending infantry directly across open ground against a well defended position is not usually the best option, even if it based on a simplistic view of the war.


I have heard that about American casualties in Normandy, but then it seems likely it would also apply for the Brits.


Erm... OK, yes, by 1944 the German Army was a weakened force, most units being understrength by a large margin, but as far as I know the British in Normandy faced several German Panzer divisions, which were still among the better units in the German army.

American casualties in the entire war could not compare to those that the British took at the battle of the Somme. America took 362 thousand casualties in WWII, and the British lost 1 million people in the Somme.

Lord Cook
22-06-2008, 04:04
It should be noted that the French had better armor than the Germans when the Germans invaded. The things that made the difference were German tactics and the radio, which made the blitzkrieg possible.

That and the fact that the French repeated their all time favourite strategy of having a total collapse of morale, with mass scale surrenders on a scale not seen until the final collapse of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. And even then, the Germans did so under orders.

Gen.Steiner
22-06-2008, 04:11
That and the fact that the French repeated their all time favourite strategy of having a total collapse of morale, with mass scale surrenders on a scale not seen until the final collapse of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. And even then, the Germans did so under orders.

To be fair, when one of the largest and best-equipped armies in Western Europe gets cut to ribbons within weeks, and you're fighting the same country for the third time in living memory, during which your record is 1-1 and the previous victory cost you a couple of million dead...

...a collapse of morale is hardly surprising. Despite that, large parts of the French armed forces fought hard and well, giving the Germans a bloody nose on several occasions - the German casualty figure of 45,000 dead and 110,000 wounded testifies to that. Not to mention the fate of the Italian invasion force.

Condottiere
22-06-2008, 06:31
Not to mention the fate of the Italian invasion force.The Italians haven't been able to field a credible army in the last fifteen centuries.;)

Bunnahabhain
22-06-2008, 10:14
That and the fact that the French repeated their all time favourite strategy of having a total collapse of morale, with mass scale surrenders on a scale not seen until the final collapse of the German 6th army at Stalingrad. And even then, the Germans did so under orders.

At the risk of dragging this even further off top, I have the rare opportunity to correct Lord Cook.

Operation Barbarossa. Summer 1941 saw Russian forces surrendering on a huge scale, bigger than Stalingrad, or anything on the western front. Viaz'ma, Brinsk, Rostov, Kiev, Smolensk, L'vov....

The French surrenders were large, but there were simply so many more Russians to surrender in the first place.

Supremearchmarshal
22-06-2008, 11:17
All this talk of surrender reminded me of a quote about IG tactics from uncyclopedia:


Mass surrender. By surrendering in huge numbers the Imperial Guard can seriously hamper their opponents who will need to half their entire army to guard them.

Btw, today's the 67 anniversary of operation Barbarossa.

Condottiere
22-06-2008, 11:53
All this talk of surrender reminded me of a quote about IG tactics from uncyclopedia:I find that hard to believe that IG would surrender tamely. Did they shoot the Commissars first?

Gen.Steiner
22-06-2008, 12:05
I find that hard to believe that IG would surrender tamely. Did they shoot the Commissars first?

They're all suicide units. :evilgrin: A cunning plan, Warmaster!

Lord Cook
22-06-2008, 12:57
To be fair, when one of the largest and best-equipped armies in Western Europe gets cut to ribbons within weeks, and you're fighting the same country for the third time in living memory, during which your record is 1-1 and the previous victory cost you a couple of million dead...

...a collapse of morale is hardly surprising.

I see what you're saying, and fair enough. But with respect, when Berlin fell the Germans were fighting the entire combined might of the Allies and still the city fought to the death. The French government declared Paris an open city (anyone can take it) before the Germans even entered the outskirts.

During the retreat to Dunkirk, Belgian forces having been totally surrounded still fought to the last to give the Allies more time to evacuate. The Germans barely had to slow down capturing their country, but they still made Dunkirk possible.

And even after Poland had been totally occupied and ripped apart so that it no longer even existed, the Poles still had the third largest Allied army on the Western Front during Normandy and the Liberation, and the Poles still made up the largest foreign membership in RAF pilots. They never surrendered.

And what did Vichy France do? They helped the Nazis round up Jews in their tens of thousands.

Sorry, this should really be P&R.


Mass surrender. By surrendering in huge numbers the Imperial Guard can seriously hamper their opponents who will need to half their entire army to guard them.

That's making the rather large assumption that the enemy in question won't just kill them all on the spot...

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
22-06-2008, 13:17
To be fair, when one of the largest and best-equipped armies in Western Europe gets cut to ribbons within weeks, and you're fighting the same country for the third time in living memory, during which your record is 1-1 and the previous victory cost you a couple of million dead...

...a collapse of morale is hardly surprising. Despite that, large parts of the French armed forces fought hard and well, giving the Germans a bloody nose on several occasions - the German casualty figure of 45,000 dead and 110,000 wounded testifies to that. Not to mention the fate of the Italian invasion force.

Polish soldiers fought better than French pansies :>

Condottiere
22-06-2008, 13:21
I find that hard to believe that IG would surrender tamely. Did they shoot the Commissars first?


They're all suicide units. :evilgrin: A cunning plan, Warmaster!


That's making the rather large assumption that the enemy in question won't just kill them all on the spot...

That's what I thought, originally, but was reassured upon learning they were suicide units, so the end result could not have made much difference to them, anyway.;)

vladsimpaler
22-06-2008, 16:17
And what did Vichy France do? They helped the Nazis round up Jews in their tens of thousands.


Vichy France was a puppet gov't, of course they helped the Nazis.

And I'm still wondering why France is so reviled during WWII.

Poland was taken over within days, it took much, much longer for France to be taken over.

Supremearchmarshal
22-06-2008, 16:38
France was a major power in the world at that time, and had a much stronger military and industry than Poland.

French army: 2,862,000 soldiers
Polish Army: 950,000 soldiers
(and this doesn't take into account that France had far better equipment - some of it better than Germany's in fact)

The invasion of Poland lasted from 1 September – 6 October 1939
The invasion of France 10 May 1940 – 25 June 1940

The disparity is painfully obvious.

avatar of kaine
22-06-2008, 16:55
Well i would say the fluffy way to play IG imo is
A) make up your own company therefore you can make you own fluff
B) depends on which company you are intendng to do...
C) read gaunts gohsts novels and copy the way certain company's fight
Tanith, vitrans etc.

borithan
22-06-2008, 17:20
The French did not concentrate their armor. They used armor in small units to support their infantry. The Germans used concentrated armor supported by fast moving infantry.
Actually the French did. They had at least 4 armoured divisions of various types, supported by motorised infantry units... just they were either skiting off to Belgium at the time, or were in a bad position when the GErmans arrived, with several incidents of French gas guzzling tanks being caught while refuelling (or having been cut off from their fuel trucks by the GErman advance), throwing themselves into battle inadequately prepared (or preparing too much and finding the Germans had advanced so much that their original plans were uslesss). Yes, most French armour was split up in to small groups, but it was not all like thay (De Gaulle was the commander of one of the French armoured divisions).



It should be noted that the French had better armor than the Germans when the Germans invaded. The things that made the difference were German tactics and the radio, which made the blitzkrieg possible.
Well... better by what regard? The French had better armoured tanks, and the Sumoa (sp?) was probably one of the best overall tanks on the Western Front, but they also had left overs from ww1, their heavy tanks were damn slow, guzzling fuel at a rediculous rate, and most of their tanks had single man turrets, so the commander had to load the gun, aim and fire it, at the same time as commanding the rest of the crew. German ones were generally more balanced between speed, endurance, firepower and armour, though true, they did also have lots of things like the Panzer 2, which was just a stop gap.

That said, the first tank v tank battle on the Western Front (in Belgium) can be chalked up as a French victory, as the Germans lost more armour... unfornately, with what was going on down south the French were forced to abandon their position, leaving behind their damaged vehicles, while the Germans, with a better prepared repair system, were able to get many of their tanks going again.

There are several incidents where French units gave German units a bit of a tactical kicking. The problem was the breakthrough at Seden, and then the inability of the French High Command to respond to it (partly due to sending their mobile reserves on a jaunt to Belgium, when they should have held them in reserve). And frankly, the units that did break at Sedan were pish, and didn't break because they were French but because they were made up of second rate reservists, who had last had serious training about 10 years before, were sorely lacking in anti-tank and anti-aircraft equipment, and then were subjected to an 8 hour air attack, with no cover from the allied air forces (which, again, were in Belgium), and then hit by some of the best infantry units of the German army, hours (days even) before any attack across the river was expected. Other armies (the Red Army, US army) wer routed on their first contact with the Germans, but just had something to save them (The Soviets being a seemingly limitless supply of men and land, and the US army in rallying quickly, having some reserves to put into the battle, and the relatively inferior positions the Germans were in).

After the stablising of the Front (after we Brits had skeddadled and left the French pretty much on their own) they actually inflicted heavy casualties on the Germans... the problem was that by that point the French had been beaten. Their main ally was in no positiuon to help the, they lacked reserves, and their morale had been shot by the German drive to the Channel. Another German breakthrough was inevitable, and so what would you have done in their position, when it did come?

Sorry about spending so much time on that... did an essay on the topic last year, and the whole "French are cowards" thing narks me off. Actually generally true about any of the historical myths, my other pet hate being people claiming that Hitler was elected into power.

Back on topic... I do like that idea of overwhelming the enemy with prisoners, but as said, who are they going to surrender to? We have Chaos... ok, if they had corrupted a unit it could change sides, but otherwise surely any prisoners are going to die? Eldar... fairly sure they don't take human prisoners often. Tyranids... well they would just eat them. Necron... no. Orks... no. Tau... ok, yes I could easily see the Tau accepting prisoners. And maybe non-chaos imperial splinter groups as well... but most of the time don't see the point.

WOuld like to see someone try and game it though.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
22-06-2008, 17:53
France was a major power in the world at that time, and had a much stronger military and industry than Poland.

French army: 2,862,000 soldiers
Polish Army: 950,000 soldiers
(and this doesn't take into account that France had far better equipment - some of it better than Germany's in fact)

The invasion of Poland lasted from 1 September – 6 October 1939
The invasion of France 10 May 1940 – 25 June 1940

The disparity is painfully obvious.

also keep in mind that Poland was invaded by Soviet Russia also - not only German Nazis.

Supremearchmarshal
22-06-2008, 23:15
also keep in mind that Poland was invaded by Soviet Russia also - not only German Nazis.

That too. And the French had the Belgians and the BEF to help them out. Ouch.


Back on topic... I do like that idea of overwhelming the enemy with prisoners, but as said, who are they going to surrender to? We have Chaos... ok, if they had corrupted a unit it could change sides, but otherwise surely any prisoners are going to die? Eldar... fairly sure they don't take human prisoners often. Tyranids... well they would just eat them. Necron... no. Orks... no. Tau... ok, yes I could easily see the Tau accepting prisoners. And maybe non-chaos imperial splinter groups as well... but most of the time don't see the point.

Well at least they'd distract them for a while - and the Tyranids would be so bloated they wouldn't be up for much of a fight. ;)
Orks would take prisoners, btw. They make extensive use of slave labour.

Ddraiglais
23-06-2008, 01:45
Actually the French did. They had at least 4 armoured divisions of various types, supported by motorised infantry units... just they were either skiting off to Belgium at the time, or were in a bad position when the GErmans arrived, with several incidents of French gas guzzling tanks being caught while refuelling (or having been cut off from their fuel trucks by the GErman advance), throwing themselves into battle inadequately prepared (or preparing too much and finding the Germans had advanced so much that their original plans were uslesss). Yes, most French armour was split up in to small groups, but it was not all like thay (De Gaulle was the commander of one of the French armoured divisions).

O.K. they had some concentrated armor. However, my point is that they were mostly backward thinking in regards to armor. Most of their armor was used to back up their infantry.


Well... better by what regard? The French had better armoured tanks, and the Sumoa (sp?) was probably one of the best overall tanks on the Western Front, but they also had left overs from ww1, their heavy tanks were damn slow, guzzling fuel at a rediculous rate, and most of their tanks had single man turrets, so the commander had to load the gun, aim and fire it, at the same time as commanding the rest of the crew. German ones were generally more balanced between speed, endurance, firepower and armour, though true, they did also have lots of things like the Panzer 2, which was just a stop gap.

Most of their tanks had better armor. I believe they had bigger guns as well. The Germans probably had the advantage in speed though.


Sorry about spending so much time on that... did an essay on the topic last year, and the whole "French are cowards" thing narks me off. Actually generally true about any of the historical myths, my other pet hate being people claiming that Hitler was elected into power.

I never suggest that the French were cowards. I'm pretty much arguing that they were backwards in their thinking. Most of their high command expected to fight WW I all over. A lot of the German high command was similar in their backward thinking. There was a lot of resistance to Guderian and his group that advocated combined arms/blitzkrieg tactics. During the invasion of France Guderian was the one that led the breakthrough at Sedan. He was ordered to halt later on in his drive, but he managed to disobey orders so he could continue his drive (he did a "reconnaissance in force"). What I'm getting at here is even the German high command was reluctant to the idea of mobile warfare. They were just a bit less reluctant than the French.

As far as Hitler being elected, that's iffy. It is true that he was never elected. Hitler was appointed to Chacellor by the President (Hindenburg). However, the people are not entirely free of blame. They did elect the DNVP and the NSDAP to be the largest parties Reichstag. That did give Hitler the support he needed for the gleichschaltung.


Back on topic... I do like that idea of overwhelming the enemy with prisoners, but as said, who are they going to surrender to? We have Chaos... ok, if they had corrupted a unit it could change sides, but otherwise surely any prisoners are going to die? Eldar... fairly sure they don't take human prisoners often. Tyranids... well they would just eat them. Necron... no. Orks... no. Tau... ok, yes I could easily see the Tau accepting prisoners. And maybe non-chaos imperial splinter groups as well... but most of the time don't see the point.

WOuld like to see someone try and game it though.

I'm with you on this. Most factions don't take prisoners in 40K. Chaos does take slaves. The IW used IG prisoners as cannon foder to range the IG guns in Storm of Iron. The Imperium might take prisoners to extract info, but I doubt they would take large numbers of prisoners. The Eldar might try to get an officer, but again wouldn't take large numbers of prisoners. The Orks and DE might take slaves, but they would probably try to get civilians.

I don't know how you would work prisoners in 40K. Maybe a surrender rule where the prisoners would count for double the kill points (useful information), but the side taking the prisoners would have to get them to their deployment zone? The other side might be able to liberate their comrades.

Lord Cook
23-06-2008, 02:01
The other side might be able to liberate their comrades.

Presumably the Imperial Guard would have a special rule that allows you to 'liberate' them by blowing them up with artillery.

Bloodknight
23-06-2008, 02:15
[I know that this is P&R, sorry - mods, feel free to delete this]


However, the people are not entirely free of blame. They did elect the DNVP and the NSDAP to be the largest parties Reichstag. That did give Hitler the support he needed for the gleichschaltung.

I must say I cannot blame the people. Hindenburg tried to blackmail the Reichstag by dissolving it if they did not do what he wanted, they did not comply, he dissolved them. Over and over again. At some time, people just got tired of being called to the vote, I guess, and the more radical people still went to the urn after the rest just stayed at home, annoyed. I don't have the numbers at hand, atm, but the Reichstag was stupidly fractured and the Weimar Republic had something like 14 administrations during the few years it existed, the longest being in power less than 2 years.
I guess the Nazis got their about 30% that way (and I would have to look up the voter turnout - I guess it was not very high).

It is pretty similar to the way the communists in the USSR got stuff through in the early times: their speakers held speeches which were so long that palamentarians of the other parties fell asleep or went home, and then they proposed something and voted...pretty much an extreme form of filibustering.

Pax_Veritas
23-06-2008, 09:25
well, see my sig for details of my play style I play a pure fluff IG as many commisars and troops as possible the basic squads dont have heavy weapons all they do is move forward, die, move forward, die, repeat until game end or defeat. A lot of fun to play, just for the look on an opponents face when they see the number of models (136) and demand to see army list to ensure you are only using 1500pts. Although i do Have tanks i only use them for serious, tourney or apoc.

Supremearchmarshal
23-06-2008, 12:32
The Orks and DE might take slaves, but they would probably try to get civilians.

Well the DE do take warriors since they need them for their gladiatorial pits.


I don't know how you would work prisoners in 40K. Maybe a surrender rule where the prisoners would count for double the kill points (useful information), but the side taking the prisoners would have to get them to their deployment zone? The other side might be able to liberate their comrades.

Well there were two ways to capture prisoners AFAIK - the one in the DE codex and the 3rd edition Crossfire rule mentioning that troops retreating into an enemy unit are captured or killed. IMO allowing you to capture a unit which retreats into one of your own (non-vehicle) units would be a nice way to reward the players for outmaneuvering their opponent.

Chaplain Dionitas
23-06-2008, 14:22
What does this have to do with IG fluff?

borithan
29-06-2008, 22:57
O.K. they had some concentrated armor. However, my point is that they were mostly backward thinking in regards to armor. Most of their armor was used to back up their infantry.
Yes, most of it was... like with the British. And yes, it was a behind the times.

Interestingly, the Germans didn't think the idea of mainly infantry support tanks was a bad idea. The StuG was designed to fulfill the same role as the British infantry tanks, and the role French armour often took, just the Germans saw the main priority as building up the Panzerwaffe, so this particular arm didn't get developed as quickly.




Most of their tanks had better armor.
Hmm... Their heavy tanks certainly, yes. German medium tanks were armoured to the about the same standard as British cruiser tanks (ie not very thick), and so medium tanks were also more heavily armoured, but they also had some really shoddy light tanks on the Allied side (WW1 FT-17s, British Mk 1(?) light tanks etc).



I believe they had bigger guns as well.
Gun wise they were fairly similar, though the French probably had a greater number with the more powerful weapons.



The Germans probably had the advantage in speed though.
Hmm... I think it is more that they balanced their tanks better. The French and British had some very fast tanks, just they were very lightly armoured and armed. They had some very slow ones that were very well armoured (and occasionally armed). But the Germans designed more balanced designs, which were better armoured than the Allied lights, well armed enough they could take on most of their opposition, and yet had the speed and endurance to make and sustain a rapid advance. As I said, they did have many outdated designs as well (everyone was short of proper modern tanks in 1940), but they would be operating alongside units that could provide the firepower support they needed.



I never suggest that the French were cowards.
OK. Not quite sure I was reacting to your comment in particular though... there have been people calling the French pansies and similar, and then there is the recent history generally (cheese eating surrender monkeys etc).



I'm pretty much arguing that they were backwards in their thinking. Most of their high command expected to fight WW I all over.
Yes, I could agree there. Not as backwards as many people think (They had created the armoured units, including supporting mobile infantry), and intended to create more), but yes, overall. I think they expected to fight a war more like the latter stages of WW1, which were more mobile than people's perceptions of that war, but were very deliberate and more sustained gradual advance, rather than the dash and elan of the cavalry charge.



As far as Hitler being elected, that's iffy. It is true that he was never elected. Hitler was appointed to Chacellor by the President (Hindenburg).
Yes, due to the back room conniving of particular conservative types who felt they could control Hitler and who had given up on democracy (well, never really thought much of it anyway). However, I have heard people say "Well, Hitler was elected, Wasn't he?" thinking it proves something, when it it 1) doesn't prove anything and 2) is just not true.



However, the people are not entirely free of blame. They did elect the DNVP and the NSDAP to be the largest parties Reichstag.
Yes. However, it was a proportional representation system (the case of Hitler shows both its weakness and strength at the same time. A small party like the NSDAP would almost certainly never broken into a FPTP system, but after they did they could never get enough support to get a majority, though part of the problem was no one could get a majority). The most he ever got in a free election was 1/3 of the vote... and the last free election before elevation to Chancellor had seen the NSDAP's support fall. Given another 5 years, with the worst of the Depression over, and their falling support, they probably would have lost that spot and become a rather vocal, but ignorable, fringe party.



I don't know how you would work prisoners in 40K. Maybe a surrender rule where the prisoners would count for double the kill points (useful information), but the side taking the prisoners would have to get them to their deployment zone? The other side might be able to liberate their comrades.
Even among well behaved armies of law abiding states wouldn't tend to take many prisoners in the situation 40k represents. You are playing close, hard, company level fighting, were most people kill or are killed before anyone has the opportunity to surrender, and people are quite likely to shoot surrendering people either in the heat of the moment, or because they cannot risk taking them (you have to guard prisoners, and if you have just taken 50% casualties taking a position, and are expecting an imminent counterattack, you can't spare those men or risk the prisoners taking advantage of the fight to re-arm themselves and turn on you. This is based on something a British army officer (or was it Non-Com?) told a friend of mine when he was taking part in training).

Still would be an amusing addition though...

And just been reading an account of the 51st Highland Division's actions during the Second World War... and I think they sound very like what many guard units would fight. Large preliminary bombardment, then a steady but determined infantry advance against the enemy, calling artillery down when possible, and the occasional close range scrap where it is the actions of individual officers, NCOs and soldiers that turn the tide.

RexTalon
29-06-2008, 23:09
*sigh*

The point of this thread was to ask the fluffy way to play guard based upon the fluff, background, and novels of the 40k universe.

List of what the thread is NOT about
-guard armies
-how you play
-you army
-themed armies
-guard/modern/40k tatics

Thanks for the contribution anyways though, most of them totally missed the mark but interesting nonetheless...

Do you remember that scene from Starship Troopers where there were so many dead bugs piled against the wall that the next ones up just walked up the ramp of dead bodies and attacked the people on top?

That's how fluff should fluff should come off in an IG army. There should be thousands of troops clamoring toward the goal, because even though they are about to die, it's for the Emperor's glory. The ones who don't fully believe in the glory of the Emperor, do it because they can't stand the sandpaper toilet tissue and canned mystery meat another moment longer.

EDIT: Oh, and the previous posters were WAAAAY off subject.

Col. Tartleton
30-06-2008, 00:01
The Imperial Guard are the Persians in 300. Obscene numbers funneled into a tiny crack in the line against a much better opponent. We begin with the infantry advance en masse/ suicide charge. It serves two purposes. It tests the enemies strength and shows them that our men are fearless. Then after several waves we attempt an heavy armored assault (the elephants and rhino) then when all else fails we deep strike airborne behind them (the secret pass) and in their disarray we blast them to hell with concentrated artillery and las gun fire(making the sky black with arrows.)

Yes. I did just attempt to use an intelligent analogy to three hundred other than saying: "this is madness... THIS IS SPARTA"

Kalec
30-06-2008, 03:34
As far as GW is concerned, the fluffy way to play the Guard is to lose. And then lose again. The details are not important, as every regiment is so unique that none of them lose quite the same way or for quite the same reason. Popular methods include incompetent officers, poor strategic positioning, and inferior mobility. Many lose because they charge fortified positions with nothing but basic troopers, yes, but such a boring method is not worth mentioning.

After all, that is what happens in the fluff, except sometimes when fighting traitor guard, where the Guard win after doing several of the above.

CHOOBER SNIPES
30-06-2008, 04:42
Off Topic: I spoke with a german tank gunner from WWII a little while back, and he said that during the war, because of the less advanced targeting potential of the guns, one of the reasons the german armor did so well was that they could outmatch the enemy tanks by moving fast enough to avoid many of the shots, even from heavier guns. in this way, the balanced german tanks could take out heavier french tanks, and were powerful enough to outmatch fast allied tanks that were lighter. Kinda reminds me of eldar falcons/fire prisms killing leman russes lol :D

On topic:
IN MY OPINION, guard can be played any way you want if you make your own company, as to me the men youll command will be the ones who have survived and adapted best to what they are fighting. then they train their new recruits to fight that way. for example, a force that fights tau often would not use massed ranks; tau guns would slaughter them in close order, so they learn to fight in more mobile less concentrated ways, so they will do better against the enemy. just my 2 yen

vladsimpaler
30-06-2008, 04:54
As far as GW is concerned, the fluffy way to play the Guard is to lose.


Hmmm...I may not be playing my Guard right.

I should probably go pick up some Priests and Sanctioned Psykers.

Auzu
30-06-2008, 06:00
Please stay on topic or this thread will be locked.

Thank you.

azimaith
30-06-2008, 06:24
How weird, I just started writing a short story on guard recently, put up a little section of it in Stories and Art.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150414

Anyhow, as for how guards fight, I think thats going to vary greatly on what they fight. The guard are good fighting force, you just are putting them up against things so far out of their league(as normal humans) its hard to not make it seem like they all just die easily.

Its important to realize most of the imperium is protected by the guard and PDF's, thus they certainly can't be as bad as people make them out to be.

I'm not a big fan of abnettes writing, he takes the technological state of 40k out and has guardsmen turning into super heros and fills his stories with generic bad assery which I frankly find somewhat trite.

Guard would really fight somewhere in between a modern force and napoleonic force. They're stogy in some respects, but they certainly aren't going to march rank by rank into heavy machine gun fire.

AllisterCaine
30-06-2008, 06:48
How weird, I just started writing a short story on guard recently, put up a little section of it in Stories and Art.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150414

Anyhow, as for how guards fight, I think thats going to vary greatly on what they fight. The guard are good fighting force, you just are putting them up against things so far out of their league(as normal humans) its hard to not make it seem like they all just die easily.

Its important to realize most of the imperium is protected by the guard and PDF's, thus they certainly can't be as bad as people make them out to be.

I'm not a big fan of abnettes writing, he takes the technological state of 40k out and has guardsmen turning into super heros and fills his stories with generic bad assery which I frankly find somewhat trite.

Guard would really fight somewhere in between a modern force and napoleonic force. They're stogy in some respects, but they certainly aren't going to march rank by rank into heavy machine gun fire.

I agree almost completely. In Abnett's defense though, he does write novels, and novels need extraordinary heroes. Just like how a certain commissar
fought off a greater daemon of Slannesh.

I think this is were the rule of cool conflicts with common sense and sensibility. Imagine the guardsmen marching onwards despite all odds and casualties, carrying the banner of the Imperium and their regiment and bringing the fight to the enemies of the Emperor. Or WWII Soviet style with massive infantry assaults. Im aware that this wasnt as common as the movies make it out to be, but I think that seeing 20,000 troops charging simultaneously at the blow of the whistle was pretty cool.

I think the idea came from the 2nd edition box set cover for the guard, could be the 3rd, Im not sure.

Pyriel
30-06-2008, 06:55
IG can never use proper fluffy tactics.
in the fluff, a guardman hit by a lasgun will die/get injured/be out of the fight immediately.
in the game, a guardsman WITHOUT EVEN THE FLAK will only be taken out with a 4+.

lasguns should kill t3 enemies they hit.
bolters(mini-missiles) should kill t5 enemies they hit.
in the fluff, much like in RL, firepower is DESTRUCTIVE.in the game, it isn't.
if 10 lasgun shots SUCCESSFULLY HIT 10 guardsmen, 5-7 of the guardsmen would live(zomg!)10 hits-5 wounds-1/2 successful saves.in the fluff, of these 10 guardsmen, if one lived would be a miracle.

even bolter mini-missiles that HIT guardsmen will only kill them at 3+(wtf?)
this is to make assault armies viable.

how can you use normal/fluffy tactics when so many variables change?

Unamed Consript
30-06-2008, 07:36
when you talk about napoleani gunlines you MUST keep in mind that back then they wore little to no armour and they faught other hunams, which one of the lead bullets used then would kill a man easily, compared to the ginormous space marines who eat brick and **** nails who treat a lasgun hit as a misquito bite. back then, when lined up in a long line of men firing their weapons at each other and taking large amounts of casualties. When the guard do it their bullets bounce off their enemies armour and kill nothing (usually) effectivly making a guard gunline useless....

Ghilleman
30-06-2008, 07:52
Well, with the Guard being so diverse, I imagine the fluffy way to fight with them is whatever regiment you're using. Whether its your own, or one of the pre-mades. DKoK would be Gunline, Skull Takers would charge headlong at their foes.

alphastealer
30-06-2008, 08:59
To me the fluffy way to play guard is with a decent command platoon and 2-3 special/heavy weapon teams.

A squad of sentinels.

2-3 big troop platoons with a few special weapons.

snipers, hardened veterans used sparingly.

1 of each tank (leman russ, vindicator, baselisk)

Nothing less than 60-70 models on the table.

Unamed Consript
01-07-2008, 04:10
guard cant take vindicators.....

borithan
01-07-2008, 12:13
in the fluff, a guardman hit by a lasgun will die/get injured/be out of the fight immediately.
in the game, a guardsman WITHOUT EVEN THE FLAK will only be taken out with a 4+.

lasguns should kill t3 enemies they hit.
bolters(mini-missiles) should kill t5 enemies they hit.
Well, this all depends on what the dice rolls represent, and what being "killed" represents. A lasgun is roughly equal in killing power as a modern assualt rifle. If not hit in vital organs people can survive those, and in fact, I think the normal ratio of deaths to injuries throughout modern history tends to be 1 death for every 2 wounded. However, if a "kill" represents someone just being made ineffective for combat (which is what I understand it to be, as otherwise the death rates are just stupid, regardless of the fact that combat units tend to take far higher casualties than the overall casualty rate of an army might suggest. It was certainly explicitly stated as such in rogue trader) then maybe you have a point.

However, you are presuming a "hit" stands for an actual bodily hit on the target. What if all it represents is whether the fire has any effect on the target? Then it is quite possible that people are not always being physically hit. It includes glancing blows, near misses that might stun/injure the target with subsidiary effects (shrapnel, blast etc), or shots that unnerve soldiers and reduce their effectiveness. The "wounding" roll represents the chance that 1) it is a bodily hit, which with most weapons, most of the time, will put them out of action (whether dead or injured doesn't matter for the game. Truthfully if deaths and injuries don't matter there is likely to be little difference in game effect of direct hits. Yes, a bolter may blow the target apart, killing them, but a lasgun blast, against a human at least, while not killing them is still likely to make them ineffective, and so in direct hits there is likely to be little difference in game results) 2) glancing blows, which from more powerful weapons are more likely to do serious damage. A glancing blow from a lasgun is likely to be painful, but maybe not serious enough to take someone out of the fight, while a glancing blow from a bolter is more likely to result in death or incapacitating injury, so gets more of a chance of affecting the target, 3) secondary effects, where again the bolter, being a micro missile is likely to produce greater damage, which is represented by their higher strength and 4) psychological effects. There is a lack of a suppression or similar system in 40k (besides from very particular weapons), which makes little sense to my mind, so part of a way to rationalise it is to think that some of the shooting "kills" include those that crack under fire, or pinned and for some reason that means they will have little effect on the rest of the battle. And here again, the loud, destructive effects of the bolter are likely to have more of an effect than a lasgun (especially if you see a mate hit by it) so it deserves a higher strength again.



in the fluff, much like in RL, firepower is DESTRUCTIVE.in the game, it isn't.
if 10 lasgun shots SUCCESSFULLY HIT 10 guardsmen, 5-7 of the guardsmen would live(zomg!)10 hits-5 wounds-1/2 successful saves.in the fluff, of these 10 guardsmen, if one lived would be a miracle.
In real life a lot of ammunition is usually expended to cause a single casualty. Most shots fired in real life (and presumably in the game) will miss the target. True, this is partially taken into account by the fact that weapons have a small number of shots compared to what they would actually be firing, but it is further represented by the whole system of "hitting" and "wounding".

The real problem is that there is no explicit ground or, maybe more importantly for this question, time scale. There is no way to fully judge what a turn of shooting represents. If a turn represents a few seconds then I think the system is not too bad (not the best, but not too bad) as very few people are likely to be made ineffective in a particular segment of a few seconds. However, if it represented say 20 minutes in a turn (which I don't think it does, from the general scale of the system) then it doesn't do very well, as it is likely that a particular firefight will be over in that time, with one side or another coming out the clear "victor" and probably several casualties on each side, and so a more "deadly" system would be required.

Maybe vaguely back on the proper topic: I think one problem with the way the guard are represented in the system is that they are encouraged to sit still. There are no weapons which are vaguely like a LMG/SAW, most of the support weapons being ones that cannot be moved and fired (actually I generally have a problem with not move and fire weapons in anything outside special role units. Don't like them in Space Marine Tactical Squads either). Then there is the massive advantage that assault armies get the earlier they get into a fight, and the generally uselessness of the guard compared to most assault armies. This means that they are encouraged (No, they don't have to, and I am sure that those who do better do not, but the way the system works it does encourage it) to sit still, firing as long as possible until the enemy hits. This means that, regardless of what people think is the fluffy way to play guard, they do get an image of being a static gunline army (that, and the artwork in many of the books with huge lines of soldiers). Now, if that is the way that the creators actually imagined the guard, then I guess that is fine (for representing the army on the table, rather than being terribly interesting to play), and that is the fluffy way to play the guard, but if they imagined that there were more mobile armies, they didn't do a very good job of encouraging it.

Lord Cook
01-07-2008, 13:37
Given that a las burst will cauterize any wound on impact, deaths from wounds are likely to be lower because you are highly unlikely to actually bleed. However on the flip side, any near miss is still going to burn you as it passes, incapacitating soldiers temporarily.

Spartacus the bemused
01-07-2008, 14:45
IG can never use proper fluffy tactics.
in the fluff, a guardman hit by a lasgun will die/get injured/be out of the fight immediately.

Not really - as Lord Cook rightly says, there will be little to no bleeding from a las-wound, and because no foreign body is being introduced to the body, no chance of septacaemia or arteries, organs or bodily systems being hit or damaged by kinetic force - so in terms of a fluff, if a las-bolt doesn't hit an immediately incapacitating area, such as the face or head, stomach etc, then it would not greatly wound the target.



lasguns should kill t3 enemies they hit.
bolters(mini-missiles) should kill t5 enemies they hit.

That would make for a rather boring game. "My ten Guardsmen fire at your ten Guardsmen. They are therefore all dead." (Exagerration obviously, but you can get my point)



how can you use normal/fluffy tactics when so many variables change?
If there were no variables, then what would be the point of the game?

You could be hit by a lucky shot and killed immediately, or hit many times and survive without major wounds (a Stuka gunner was hit by eight machine bullets, and the only long-term injuries were losing half a finger and, eventually, the sight in one eye.

That's the whole point of using dice. In fluff terms, a Guardsmen could be nicked by the shrapnel of an exploding bolter round, and thus easily survive (represented by the SM player hitting with his BS roll, but failing the to-wound roll). Likewise, a Terminator could be hit by a lasgun bolt in the eye-piece and killed (represented by rolling a 1 for armour save).

I think I can see what you mean - a Guardsman should not be able to survive being hit by a bolter round in terms of fluff - but the game has to be a viable tabletop battle, and Movie Marines *spit* aside, the game cannot reflect the fluff that has built up around it.

Lt.Bradford
01-07-2008, 15:00
Given that a las burst will cauterize any wound on impact, deaths from wounds are likely to be lower because you are highly unlikely to actually bleed. However on the flip side, any near miss is still going to burn you as it passes, incapacitating soldiers temporarily.

True, but also remember the cases in the severeal novels where Las round burn organs and flesh together.

legio mortis
01-07-2008, 16:51
Given that a las burst will cauterize any wound on impact, deaths from wounds are likely to be lower because you are highly unlikely to actually bleed. However on the flip side, any near miss is still going to burn you as it passes, incapacitating soldiers temporarily.
Not completely true. Lasbolts are noted to have explosive qualities, and we have many different sources where people bleed from wounds caused by lasguns.

Killgore
01-07-2008, 17:33
Not completely true. Lasbolts are noted to have explosive qualities, and we have many different sources where people bleed from wounds caused by lasguns.

you people arnt thinking outside the box

there are probaly many types of las bolt, different crystals used/ construction, and lets not forget the different power settings... many variables as to how you can snuff it from getting hit by a las bolt ;)

so who cares if you dont end up with massive holes in your body if you get hit by a lasbolt... your insides would be fryed... which seems pretty fatal to me

Unamed Consript
01-07-2008, 21:08
Have you ever read any novels that pit humans vs guard? When the guard use their lasguns, when they score hits, the book describes in graphic detail what happens to them. On numerous acounts, the target is litterally ripped apart by the las round. For example, one man had his jaw riped off while another got hit in the shoulder and his arm was torn away completely. Or when a guy got hit in the forhead and lost a large portion of his head.

Do you get the picture or shall i continue?

Spartacus the bemused
01-07-2008, 22:21
Have you ever read any novels that pit humans vs guard? When the guard use their lasguns, when they score hits, the book describes in graphic detail what happens to them. On numerous acounts, the target is litterally ripped apart by the las round. For example, one man had his jaw riped off while another got hit in the shoulder and his arm was torn away completely. Or when a guy got hit in the forhead and lost a large portion of his head.

Do you get the picture or shall i continue?

Would that be in the Abnett 'SUPER GUARD!' Novels? I personally would have thought that the only advantage a lasgun has over an autogun (in terms of fluff) is that the lasgun bolt would travel in a dead straight line like a laser beam (more or less - and depending upon the condition of the lasgun), thus increasing accuracy, over a slug from an autogun, which would be subject to gravity and kinetics.

But a metal slug hitting you would cause bleeding, trauma - pretty much all the injuries we associate with modern day gunshot wounds.

Supremearchmarshal
01-07-2008, 22:48
In the Abnett novels I've read Lasguns don't cause bleeding. However, I have read somewhere that a Lasgun hit to flesh is much more damaging than a smilar hit from a conventional bullet.

As for the Laser beam going in a straight line - yes, but it would disperse as the distance gets greater, making the shot weaker as it gets concentrated on a larger area. In particular it would have trouble with penetrating cover (which it does in the fluff) and when firing through a cloud of smoke or similar.

IMO the Lasgun's main advantage is its reliability, a large ammo capacity and that it is very easy to recharge. However, it could well be that an Autogun is superior to a Lasgun of equivalent quality - and indeed it is noted that many veteran units prefer Autoguns.

Unamed Consript
01-07-2008, 22:50
Give me an example of a guard book that doesnt have lasguns like that

Jos
01-07-2008, 23:08
One word; Lose!

AllisterCaine
01-07-2008, 23:21
Most modern infantry rifles are meant to wound you. The reason behind this was that one wound effectively takes 3 people out of combat. The injured himself, and 2 others which will need to tend to him or take him out of combat. A lasgun shot is hardly meant to wound someone. It may cauterise the wound sometimes, but the exit wound will probably be the size of a fist on an unarmored human. I wound imagine the lasgun to have an explosive effect as described in some of the books.

In comparison with 40k and modern weapons (I know its kind of pointless), guard flak armor can protect the wearer from a 50. cal round (most vehicle mounted stubbers are 50. cals, I know the term stubber means it varies). No modern armor can do that. Now if that gun is Ap6, and the lasgun is just Ap-, one step behind, imagine its penetrating power in todays term.

Besides, the lasgun has like what? 100 shots per magazine? That almost means that every lasgun is like the SAW. Now imagine 10 SAWs firing at the same target. Even suppressing fire will likely wipe out the target.

And unless someone here is a laser scientist or something, I dont think anyone of us can seriously comment on the effects of a high powered, military grade laser.

Unamed Consript
01-07-2008, 23:51
well it depends on what power you set the laser pack to. the higher the setting, the lesss shots you will get off. Granted at a higher strength.

Spartacus the bemused
02-07-2008, 00:26
Most modern infantry rifles are meant to wound you. The reason behind this was that one wound effectively takes 3 people out of combat. The injured himself, and 2 others which will need to tend to him or take him out of combat. A lasgun shot is hardly meant to wound someone. It may cauterise the wound sometimes, but the exit wound will probably be the size of a fist on an unarmored human. I wound imagine the lasgun to have an explosive effect as described in some of the books.

I'm pretty sure military assault rifles and such are designed to kill rather than wound. Granted, it doesn't always work out that way (The M60 has such a high muzzle velocity that many NVA and VC were hit by several rounds without much ill effect, because the bullets passed straight through the body without hitting anything immediately vital, and the speed was such that little energy was transferred as trauma, and it took a while for such wounds to cause death by bleeding out, so the Vietnamese soldier could continue fighting and firing).

Would a lasgun shot actually have any penetrative power? It is completely energy in the form of heat and light. Energy can be transferred into mass, but it takes a LOT of energy to create a small amout of mass. Little mass = little momentum, and thus little penetrative power. I know we're talking about a sci-fi, fictional weapon here, but it would still have to follow basic ballistics laws.

I was basically trying to say that unless the lasgun hits you in an vital area - face, head in general; gut, lungs, and heart area of the chest; spine etc. then it would not do as much damage as a solid slug. It would do horrific damage - basically evaporating the water from the cells and tissue surrounding the impact, causing severe burns - but not lethal damage. A slug that hits an extremity can still cause death by septacaemia; both from the bullet itself, foreign objects that enter the cavity, and broken bones; and obviously bleeding to death. A las-bolt cannot cut an artery. A las-bolt cannot break a bone. A las-bolt would, however, cause intense pain if it is not fully ablated or deflected by armour, because it could in theory cause burns right down to, and including, the bone, I suppose.

Nasty.



Besides, the lasgun has like what? 100 shots per magazine? That almost means that every lasgun is like the SAW. Now imagine 10 SAWs firing at the same target. Even suppressing fire will likely wipe out the target.

Er... suppressing fire doesn't 'wipe out the target', it suppresses it. But I do see your point.

For a matter of interest, how many shots does a lasgun powerpack hold? I always thought it was 40 'regular' shots, or perhaps 10-20 'hotshots', i.e. charged up shots.

EDIT: Then I wonder where I got 40 and 10 from? Meh, probably from some old, or even fan; fluff.

Bloodknight
02-07-2008, 00:29
According to Dark Heresy, a standard pack for a lasgun holds 60 shots. Hotshot packs are single shot unless you've got a backpack.

Lord Cook
02-07-2008, 01:11
If the energy from a lasbolt is enough to vaporize the water content in your cells, and your body is 70% water, surely it wouldn't so much make you explode as simply immolate? Obviously only around the target area, but you don't need penetrative power when your artery just vaporized.

CHOOBER SNIPES
02-07-2008, 01:41
IMO it seems to me that the lasgun would cause more damage to the place it hits than a solid slug gun of the same strength. However, i believe armor would stop a lasbolt much more effectively, as said before. Also, i think one of the major reasons shooting is toned down in the game is because it is turn based. It would not be at all realistic or fair to assume that forces would take turns shooting volleys at each other, when everyone has fully automatic weapons. So the amount of damage done by shooting has to be lowered in the game to allow for both squads to shoot. For example, it would not be right to assume 10 men would just be mowed down without firing a shot (not assuming ambush etc, but in a firefight)

AllisterCaine
02-07-2008, 05:10
I know for sure that the NATO 5.56mm rounds (M16 rounds) are meant to wound or traumatize you. They will, obviously, still kill you should it hit anywhere near a vital area. The idea didnt really work though, as most of the enemies NATO fought usually didnt care about their wounded.

High speed solid slugs are devastating on an unarmored human because it will literally suck out your organs and carry it out the other end, or in the least turn your insides into a bloody mess. Lasers work differently, but look at this way. What hurts more- having your insides turned into a gory soup or be flash fried by a high powered laser?

Unamed Consript
02-07-2008, 05:45
What hurts more- having your insides turned into a gory soup or be flash fried by a high powered laser?



Uhhhhhhh...thats a tough one. What does hurt more?

legio mortis
02-07-2008, 06:01
However, i believe armor would stop a lasbolt much more effectively, as said before.
Except that in many sources it doesn't. In the 2nd edition IG codex and Necromunda, the Lasgun has a -1 save modifier whilst the Autogun doesn't have any modifier.

Pyriel
02-07-2008, 06:34
are we serioisly (wtf) discussing the possibility o playing a game fluffily?fluff=near-realism(as books are slightly more close to realism than tabletop games).and near-realism means:
a)if you get shot and get hit, bye-bye combat(i repeat, not necessarily dead)
b)if you get out of cover, you get hit(bye-bye combat) as weapons have range of miles(so takes LOOONG hours of enemy shooting to reach cc)
c)if you are outnumbered and outgunned, 95% you lose(always exceptions, but mainly lucky ones, not skill-based, unless we talking fighting untrained troops)

and in general:science/better tech weaponry wins all.firepower rules.mobility rules.morale rules because armies usually lose due to morale, not casualties.
heroics of any type suck, as even if you a superhero,the rest of the losing army will sill flee=army defeat.

do you really want to play a game where no heroic character/elite unit can ever have a non-leadership effect(i.e. can never actually fight effectively cause he get shot to ribbons when trying to charge)?a game where ICs and elite choices can only offer strategical/sneaky tricks and no actual fighting ability?

Unamed Consript
02-07-2008, 07:09
do you really want to play a game where no heroic character/elite unit can ever have a non-leadership effect(i.e. can never actually fight effectively cause he get shot to ribbons when trying to charge)?a game where ICs and elite choices can only offer strategical/sneaky tricks and no actual fighting ability?


No.....:cries:

borithan
02-07-2008, 10:04
Most modern infantry rifles are meant to wound you. The reason behind this was that one wound effectively takes 3 people out of combat. The injured himself, and 2 others which will need to tend to him or take him out of combat.
As someone said on another thread, this is not really true. Most modern weapons are designed to punch through body armour, which tends to require small, high velocity rounds, which tend to actually limit the damage to the individual target if they unarmoured (the bullets often just go straight through... if it hits something serious certainly going to mess you up, but if it doesn't, and the target is high on some sort of drug, or just plain fanaticism, often doesn't put them down straight away. A problem faced by American soldiers in places such as Somalia). It's not that they are not designed to kill, just that because they are designed to do a particular task they are not so good at another. And there was one story I came across from Vietnam where a guy shot someone with a M-16, not hitting him somewhere serious, but in the 10 seconds or so it took to reach him he had died of shock. You can't really create a bullet that is not designed to kill.



A lasgun shot is hardly meant to wound someone. It may cauterise the wound sometimes, but the exit wound will probably be the size of a fist on an unarmored human.
9mm bullets have the same sort of effect... not really a statement of anything particularly powerful about the lasgun.



In comparison with 40k and modern weapons (I know its kind of pointless), guard flak armor can protect the wearer from a 50. cal round (most vehicle mounted stubbers are 50. cals, I know the term stubber means it varies).
Where do you get this from? The heavy stubbers just look like .50 cals, as far as I know it is not confirmed anywhere that they actually perform like one. And until the most recent version of the game I am sure that flak never gave any protection against heavy stubbers.



No modern armor can do that. Now if that gun is Ap6, and the lasgun is just Ap-, one step behind, imagine its penetrating power in todays term.
It is about equivalent to a modern assault rifle. It has always been pretty much identical to the autogun (so much so that that they have now just amalgamated the two weapons into the same stats), and the autogun has been explicitly stated to be roughly equivalent to a modern assault rifle, except for initially being caseless (though they seem to have dropped that now and replaced it with a gun with a pathetic ammunition capacity... 12 rounds I believe one of the rulebooks suggests is the norm).



Besides, the lasgun has like what? 100 shots per magazine? That almost means that every lasgun is like the SAW. Now imagine 10 SAWs firing at the same target. Even suppressing fire will likely wipe out the target.
The Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer says that fully automatic is 220 rpm. Which is pathetic for a fully automatic weapon (most automatic weapons being a minimum of 500rpm, most being 600+). It could fire for a very long time, sure, but it would not have the same effect as 10 SAWs.

On the point of lasguns being better at penetrating than autoguns (checked up in Necromunda, and its true... didn't remember that. Don't have 2nd edition) in Rogue trader the autogun was the better weapon. Not by much, but better. It had the same save modifier (aside from basic hand to hand weapons and bows everything had at least a -1 save modifier. And the bows, if properly equipped, could get one. Oh, forgot needle weapons which had a +1 save modifier), same strength, but had one of the longest ranges for a standard weapon (32" rather than the normal 24"). One of the pictures from one of the compendiums shows 3 Space Marines hiding behind a wall, two with boltguns, and then the third with an autogun, which might make sense in that case, forgoing the boltgun's higher strength for a more accurate weapon to function as a sort of section marksman.

Realistically, lasers shouldn't really have much penetrative power. They could, depending on how powerful they are, do a lot of damage, but the way they work means that they wouldn't punch through armour. They could probably wear it away (possibly quite quickly with sufficiently advanced tech) "burning" through it, but it isn't actually going to go straight through it (another set of sci-fi rules I have emphasise the accuracy of lasers over everything else. They actually have amongst the lowest punch, but they are really easy to hit with, and so are favoured by snipers, where the lack of punch matters little, as they will aim for exposed parts. Though this a a rule set trying to give a vaguely "hard" sci-fi combat, and not as far in the future as 40k).

Remoah
02-07-2008, 10:29
Depends who you play, if you're going for Harakoni Warhawks, Eleysians, Terrax or Inquisitorial then you're for more of the abbnett guard, the whole US Rangers-esque battle tactics where its all offensives, counter-attacks and flanking manouvres.

If you play Cadians, DKOK, Praetorians, Tallarn (to an extent) or Penal Legion then you're up for "Alright boys, trench is here, enemy is there. Start shooting and don't move anywhere but forwards!"

Then you have Armoured Company and yeah... totally diffrent thing

~~~~~

I've always imagined a Lasgun as being in the same design field as an M1 Garand or M-14 rifle. They are designed to hit a target at pretty much any practical range (600m max) but still retain stopping power at that range. They can penetrate most practical armour (that of heretics and orks, which generally comprise 50% of the imperial enemies) and provide (generally) sufficient stopping power to deal with most enemies with 3 well placed shots... less if they're human.
When it comes to other enemies like Chaos Marines and 'uge orks... well the guard kinda loose. But then again you'll be hard pressed to find a weapon short of a boltgun that will RELIABLY take down the enemy.

As for Autoguns, i'd say it depends... some planets would equip thier men with M-14 Esque rifles, whilst others would probably go for an AK-47 type weapon. Whilst some elites would possibly have M-4 type weapons, it'd all depend.

Spartacus the bemused
02-07-2008, 10:46
Depends who you play, if you're going for Harakoni Warhawks, Eleysians, Terrax or Inquisitorial then you're for more of the abbnett guard, the whole US Rangers-esque battle tactics where its all offensives, counter-attacks and flanking manouvres.

Or, of course, the actual Abnett Guard - Gaunt's Ghosts.

Condottiere
02-07-2008, 12:29
As someone said on another thread, this is not really true. Most modern weapons are designed to punch through body armour, which tends to require small, high velocity rounds, which tend to actually limit the damage to the individual target if they unarmoured (the bullets often just go straight through... if it hits something serious certainly going to mess you up, but if it doesn't, and the target is high on some sort of drug, or just plain fanaticism, often doesn't put them down straight away. A problem faced by American soldiers in places such as Somalia). It's not that they are not designed to kill, just that because they are designed to do a particular task they are not so good at another. I can't speak for all nations' design philosophies, but some purposefully design their assault rifle/bullet systems to seriously wound, not kill the enemy, especially at mid-range fire exchanges. This is not only to tie up manpower, but seriously demoralize the other side. Actual close combat is meant to be lethal, since there is no leeway for mistakes.

Lord Cook
02-07-2008, 17:38
They can penetrate most practical armour (that of heretics and orks, which generally comprise 50% of the imperial enemies)

Realistically I think you can increase that number to 90%. I would say the Tyranids are responsible for most of the remaining 10%. Minor (size not fame) races like Eldar, Tau and Traitor Marines are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and it would be incredibly rare for the Guard to fight them. Random Guard Regiment xyz is probably going to be fighting Orks or heretics, as you said.

Chem-Dog
02-07-2008, 17:48
fluff=near-realism.....

Fluff = Near to background material's portrayal of how things work, irrespective of a particular item's effects having any basis in reality.