Gunhead wrote:
I wasn't intentionally strawmaning there, sorry about that. I just wanted to know if lasgun with a rof of 480-720rpm or a very similar weapon could be considered the standard when it comes to lasgun performance.
The weapons he had access to had "Mars" or "rhyza" pattern stocks (wood or wire-stocks") so they may be variations on the standard M-G pattern. The Ghosts seem to use variants on the M-G pattern as well (and they can drain powerpacks fairly quickly, such as in First and Only.)
As if that doesn't complicate things, let's not forget that the Imperial Armour tend to go with single shot (or slower) (Elysian and Krieg guns), The 3rd edition rules indicate that they're semi-automatic as standard, while Wargear and the earlier edition "battle manual" (same data in both) indicate they fire "machien gun like hails" of ammo. Again, I question just how universal one can apply "standard" to the weapon, especialyl given the objections I have alreay raised about the Primer (cf autopistols.)
Different rof is easily explained by variations in design and yes I agree that lasguns vary in design. How much is the question. Most fluff support the notion that lasguns fire individual bolts and so rof plays a role when measuring how effective the weapon is yes?
Yes and no. There's nothign wrong with firing individual bolts when you're dealign with a variable-output weapon. Put wattage into play and "single shots" can become much more effective (high energy intput over short period of time leads to a more explosive effect.) Nevermind accuracy/aiming considerations.
Power output may also play a role with rate of fire - the barrel and other components of the gun will have finite energy handling capabilities over a given period of time (wattage again) Higher energy and/or higher power blasts may neccesitate fewer shots due to the strain put on the barrel (much like with hotshot packs, in fact.) in addition to the ammo consumption concerns. Lower power bursts may allow for more shots.
There's also the fact that the nature of a laser weapon make them extremely precise, which means that "spraying" with a las weapon won't work quite the same way as it does with a slugthrower, ,which again influences how ROF will work with the weapon. (Again, a sustained beam is best there.)
And since the IoM builds tanks AFVs and other military equipment according to STC designs it would make sense that lasguns are also churned out at astonishing rates at various locations.
Yes, and many of those "other things" tend to exhibit quite a degree of variation in the "standardized" designs - differences in armament, powerplant (nuclear, wood/plant, gasoline, etc.)
So how much varied lasgun performance is due to a same weapon doing different things and how much is due to completely different design?
STC designs are considered to somewhat inviolate. But the great need for infantry weapons could outweigh those concerns so we get a variety of different types of lasguns being made. Now STC machines are rare and I doubt those plants are the sole source of lasguns but new lasgun factories that are built, build the same or very similar lasgun as resources permit.
See, here I will go ahead and point out that many sources, the Uplifting Primer included, indicate lasguns are very VERY modular weapons and highly customizable. you can alter the stocks, the scopes, the barrels, and the powerpacks rather easily. A sniper weapon is largely differentiated by the type of powerpack, ,scope, and barrel it uses. Some lasguns use longer barrels, some use shorter. Some use different kinds of powerpacks. Some lasguns are short ranged but high powered (Balurian heavy infantry from
Grey Knights being a good example, and "hundreds" of Balurians fired "thousands" of shots a second from their las weapons in that novel.)
Lasguns, like most Imperial gear, are "standardized" insofar as the components they ar ebuilt from are concerned, but there is still plenty of room for customization and variation in them. Which is basically what we see in ANYTHING the Imperial Guard uses (Tanks, small arms, other gear, etc.)
So couldn't there be a "family" of lasguns that are almost identical as lasguns by very nature has to be a weapon that can be produced almost anywhere and the differences between weapons in that family would be small. By small I mean stuff like stocks, sights, built in accessories and rof.
3rd edition rules, page 61 wrote:
There are many different designs of lasgun and pistol, and most worlds produce their own versions, made of locally available materials, be it ceramite alloys, thermo-set plastics, or even wood fittings.
Given that and what we actually see in the novels and fluff, I'd say thre's a limit on how "small" small is. Again, its a bloody modular weapo as it is (a side effect of its ease of repair) so its not all that damn difficult to modify. Changing rate of fire, as I explained, is simply a matter of dictating how much energy the weapon dischrages in a given period of time.
If you really want to get pednatic about that example, the mere fact that "different materials may be used" can have a dramatic impact on lasgun performance, since the thermal and mechanical properties of materials can vary, thus impacting the performance of lasguns. And I already explained how power and energy will influence rate of fire.
As for the autogun, well. If we take the high value and say it's 150rpm sustained.... well I'm just guesstimating here, this depends on the shooter. But let's say 5 round bursts 3seconds per burst = 18seconds say 5 to reload that's 23seconds + 18 + 5 + 18 = 90 rounds (aimed bursts) 64 seconds. Well if the given rof for the autogun isn't cyclic it's not that bad.
150 rpm cyclic would be horrible for an automatic weapon.
I see, so I point out that the stats are flawed and you start playing fast and loose with the definition of "rate of fire", despite what ew know from the lasgun entry? Despite the fact that the weapon is "single or automatic", but no burst fire (its still pathetic no matter how you twist the data)? Despite the fact that (as you seem to ignore) A Guardsman would fire faster on single than he would on automatic?
Funny enough. if you ignore the cyclic part about the ULP lasgun's rof and assume it's sustained, it's not that bad either.
But it comes down to the basic point that either way, the stats are fucked up somehow insofar as treating it as a "universal" standard goes.
Fair enough. Then the number of heavy weapons a squad can have would depend on the availability of said weapons. If the above is true then autocannons and hvy. stubbers should be the most common as organic heavy weapons a squad has.
... You're not listening. It depends on the fucking world raising the Regiment. They all have their own preferences as to weapons distributions. This is covered again in the Guard Codexes.
Mortars, lascannons and missile launchers
are a bit different ballgame. Now a squad has around 10 men. 1 mortar alone has a crew of three or something similar.Same for the missile launcher. Not sure about the lascannon, but the point I'm making is this. if the squad is 10 people your heavy weapon takes 30% of the squad to operate.
Try two. If the person is exceptionally strong like a ganger Heavy or the Tanith's Bragg (and it doesnt seem to be as unsuual as one might assume, I've run across this in several novels.) then a single person can heft it. And not all squads neccesarily will carry a heavy weapon. (you could have the command squad and another squad or two acting with heavy weapons, for example.)
And there still are the specialized heavy weapons platoons (which are composed of individual squads as well as a command squad.) which can also vary in number and organization depending on whose raising the regiment. There's also the issue of Chimeras (which can offer fire support in armoured fist squads) and Sentinels (which also can offer fire support.) So it's not just a matter of man-portable heavy weapons.
All the said weapons are best utilized out of enemy infantry's range. Mortars can be and should be deployed so far back that they're safe from direct fire. Same goes for missiles and to a lesser extent lascannons. Even if taking into account the possibility that said weapons are lighter than RL equivalents they'd still be heavy and bulky. Keeping up with the more lightly equipped infantry would be a challenge. This is considering just the weapon itself. Mortars and missile launchers also require ammo. I don't know about the ammo requirements of a lascannon.
Well gee, I'd have been too stupid to figure out that heavy weapons like mortars (indirect fire weapons) should be set up far back from the enemy! Where the fuck did you get the idea that because a squad can have its own heavy weapons crew the said heavy weapons crew MUST stick with the squad at all times? Are you going to tell me the snipers do as well?
Seriously, where the fuck do you keep pulling these assumptions from?
Even if the squad is big enough so the manpower drain is a non issue, the lighter infantry is still faster than the heavy weapons crew. If you're constantly forced to wait around for them to appear, what good are they.
Mortars and missile launchers to a lesser extent are reliant on radios ( or what ever passes for a radio in 40K).
I'm growing fucking tired of your "pulled out of your ass" generlizations, here. Again, wher ethe fuck was this ever stated to be the case?
There should be, and I believe there is, weapons available similar to rpg-7 and lt. mortars. But when I say heavy weapons I mean stuff like the TOW-2, 120mm Mortars and such.
Gee, thanks for the clarification. We don't know what kind of mortars they use.
What version of wargear would that be? I have one right here but so far no mention / hint of las machineguns. I was just under the impression that stubbers and autocannons are not that common amongst squads because they rely on heavy ammunition. I really was / am perplexed why no one has bothered to make up a weapon that can in a pinch use lasgun powerpacks.
The 1993 edition, the one that wasn't a regurgitation of the stuff in the 4th edition rules where Imperial Guard weaponry was indicated to be.
Autocannons and stubbers have been dropped from teh rules for some time now, ,but they still appare frequently in the literature.
I think I covered this back there, but it seems that the main disagreement is what is or isn't a heavy weapon.
No, the disagreement is that you keep making fucking shit up about how the Guard and its equipment ARE, and you fail to back up any of said shit with anything slightly resembling a source or fact.
Ignore it all you want. At least the writers of the Taros campaign seem to agree with me. Action depicted shows platoons supported by their heavy weapons squads slugging it out with the Tau. With individual squads working in unison and In a specific instance a platoon is supported by two stormtrooper squads. This is what I mean when I say "smallest tactical unit". And before more of this squads can have their own heavy weapons prancing about. All ToEs in the Taros campaign place heavy weapons in heavy weapons platoons or singular heavy weapons squads. Mortars, Lascannons, Heavy bolters or autocannons are all in their own squads. Some of these squads are broken into individual fireteams. I'll write up some highlights when I have the chance.
Imperial Armour's stats are as debatable as the uplifting primer's at times. Imperial ARmour, for example, thinks Titan-killing weapons run off a fucking combustion engine. I won't even begin to address the numerical errors they've historically made. I think White Rabbit has even commented how the speed stats tend to contradcit previous material as well (ex: Tau Hammerhead tanks)
But to simplify matters, I'll just point out tthat you are extrapolating broad conclusions across the board from a SINGLE FUCKING SOURCE. (You know, like the ICS haters and their constant whining that canon doesn't support it.)
I took a look at the Taros campaign TOEs and they are very similar in appearance, and they're similar between jump infantry, armored and regular regiments . So similar in fact that it would be a miracle if they don't have the same point of origin. Hmm... maybe it's not so much about the organization as it what the troops need come equipped with. For example a regiment needs to have x amount of armored vehicles to qualify as an armored regiment. Well maybe it's not a concrete thing, but I'd find it odd if given chance the "non standard" regiments aren't molded into the form the emperor has decreed.
Armoured regiments can be comprised solely of vehicles (IE like the Narmenian armoured) They might be "armoured fist" (IE APC driven) like the steel legions. Some are "combined arms" like the Jouran Dragoons (they had infantry, armour and artillery complements.) from Storm of Iron.
Did I mention that all of those also tend to vary greatly in number (a few thousand troops, upwarsds of tens of thousands, depending on regiment and source.) Doesn't sound all that bloody consistent to me.
But then again, it wouldn't be the first time IA screwed some detail up. They have the Guard using computerized sentinel robots for perimeter defense and use handheld auspex and targeters, yet the Guard can't install computer gear in their tanks for some bizarre reason.
I do believe that all of the above Cadians, Elysians, Tallarn, Armageddon, Tanith and Mordians all have their own doctrines which they adhere to.
Doctrine is what defines an army. It tells us what it can do. As such it's not a terribly flexible thing. Ok, maybe I was painting with a too big of a brush back there when talking about the guard, so I'll use a smaller one. Taking the Taros example again. They advance over the desert with scouts in front infantry following with tank support and artillery at the back. Classic mass tactics. When trouble is encountered the order to do something about it comes from the army HQ. Order is relayed down the chain and changes are made. But the iniative doesn't come from the regimental HQs or brigade HQs. I think I can dig up more later.
Taros deals with the Tallarn and Elysians, the former which are highly skilled light infantry (desert versions of the Tanith basically) and the Elysiasn are on par with Storm trooper regiments. Neither is harldy what I'd call "standard" doctrine, if such a thing can be applied to the Guard given the aforementioned statements about differences in worlds, languages, customs, etc.
Given what W_R said, ,as I noted before, if there is anything close to a "standard" regiment then it is probably the Cadians, but even there I doubt that they're all very identical.
Oh, where did I mention that individual fighters win battles?? That's right I didn't. I merely pointed out that mass tactics do not place great importance on individual skill.
That's me expressing contempt over the latest batch of complete conjecture on your part based on analysis of a single source. If you're actually serious about analyzing the Guard, then I suggest you do more than read a single fucking book. People who make sweeping generlizations from limited infromation tend not to be well-regarded on this board, in case you've fucking forgotten.
Whoa there nelly!! I've never said 40K tactics suck. It's just the opposite. My whole point was they don't piss about with individual squads. When a jobs need doing they have the fucking sense to commit enough so it gets done. They train their men enough so they can fill their role and leave special shit to special people. When squads are committed as a platoon
they're supported by each other and whatever the platoon can muster in addition. That's mass tactics. But it's sensible mass tactics. Because after that it's the company and so on.
.... seriously. Are you reading anything what anyone says? They DO use individual squads when the situation warrants it. Just like they use whole platoons, companies, regiments, or multiple regiments when the situations call for it. Novels like 'Death World", the Last Chancers novels, the Ghosts and Cain novels, the Armageddon novels all feature the use of individual squads as well as larger formations in combat.
Do I really need to bloody point ou tthe fact (as well) that Chimeras operate on squads and not platoons where transport is concerned?
I agree. This is what separates the good commanders from the bad.
Of course the brass fighting over the next promotion and backroom politics
can cause major headaches. This was implied in Imp armor III
Yeah, big shock there. It's not as if its somehow absent in real life militaries, even in the modern da
Fair enough. Dying for nothing is always a bad idea and maybe the "no surrender" cliche has been touted around too much without substance behind it.
Welcome to the world of Imperial Propoganda. Where a single space marine can kill millions of enemy or alien soldiers with his flatulence alone.
Some zealous regiments (like the Krieg) may opt this way in some situations, but its hardly a "general rule", even among the zealots. And depending on the circumstances it's acutally an advantage (you know they won't run, so they can do a good job of drawing the enemy's attention and pinning them so you can hit them from the flanks or rear.)
First comes to mind is the imperial retreat from Taros where equipment is valued over men. Although this is not wholly out of line with the mass use of material and men.
Depends on the commander as well as the kind of equipment. In "Warriors of Ultramar" a regimentla commander sacrificed his Leviathan/Capitol Imperialis vehicle in order to save the lives of his men and other troops from the Tyranids. Storm of Iron featured several titan princeps who self destructed their vehicles in order to save the lives of infantrymen from Chaos troops. During the Third Armaggedon war, troops from the Jopall Indentured Squadrons sacrificed 3 basilisks to destrroy one-sixth of Ork artillery.
The general refusal to negotiate or with opponents you cannot negotiate with to withdraw.
As if the Tau can be bloody trusted. They constantly seek to manipulate the Imperium to their own benefit (like they did in the novel "Kill Team", only they got their asses handed to them by the Guard and Ordo Xenos.). The Tau only negotiate on their terms, ever.
And in anyn case, this again depends on the commander(S) - both on the Guard side and the Tau. There are assholes on both sides of the camp in that case.
Again, the Taros campaign highlights this. The empire had it's butt kicked. After the battle was already decided they still sent a last ditch force to assasinate the opposing leader.
Which only increased losses when the Tau came for revenge.
The Imperium don't consider the tau a major threat, which is the main bloody reason they ever get away with any of this shit. They've never mounted a proper assault on them, since in that area of space they are primarily busy with a Tyranid invasion - the Tau are always a bloody sideshow. In most cases you have forces that are either outnumbered and outgunned (Vostroyans vs Tau as mentioned in "Cities of Death") or comprised of whatever assets of whatever quality are at hand (Damocles Gulf.)
The Tau have gotten their asses kicked by the Guard (Kill Team), and even have gotten their asses kicked by underfunded Rogue Traders (Rogue TRader/Star of Damocles.)
Gunhead wrote:
No. I did not. An example would Principe Hekate who almost got handed the death sentence for acting against orders. Even after he did save a depot, including a titan, from destruction. Did he break the rules? Yes he did. Did it work? Yes it did. So punishing him is quite justified. But I don't think Titan pilots grow on trees. Hell, I know Titans don't grow on trees.
All that's said and done the commander of the base even says that he'd rather see the depot destroyed that see imperial creed broken.
So I'm all following orders, but If this is taken as an example I'd say it's pretty bleak. He was saved only by the fact that he had already "bonded with the titan" and killing him would be in effect killing the titan.
Uh, ,yeah. The Ttian legions are under the Admech. While they ally with the Guard and fight along slide them, they are not under Guard jurisidction anymore than the Space Marines are, which is a bloody red herring. Given the techno-fetishism of the AdMech, its probably nto bloody surprising that that might happen. (Then again, it didnt happen in "Storm of Iron".)
See above.
Refuted above. At best you presented a red herring, since we're talking Guard, not Admech.
I mentioned the taros campaign and I'll make a separate post for quotes.
Which I have already addressed in myriad ways. Try again. Maybe yhou should try something other than the Taros campaign.
So commissars are there to spread love and joy to their underlings?
I think any sane person would be a bit worried if there are people about who can shoot you for a perceived slight.
Now I really don't think five people could considered an all encompassing representation.
Yeah, just like Commisar Yarrick - oh wait...
Commissars, ,despite how you try to paint them, do not rely solely on fear to motivate troops. Their ultimate responsibility is the morale and well being of the troops. They do this by inspiration or fear, depending on the situation. Even the bloody uplifting primer notes this. The "fear" in case you didn't notice, is generally a last resort.
They are not "Nice" in any sense (Ciaphas Cain being rather exceptional in this regard) but they're hardly all bloodthirsty psychopaths either (again Gaunt and Yarrick being some of the most effective examples of "inspirational" Commissars.)
Since I'm not relying on the primer a whole lot I think above is previously covered.
Gee, finding out you rely wholly on one book alone rather than wholly on another is hardly an improvement.
Well I'm sorry about what I said back there. My intention was not to rip at
anyone's hobby. I blame alcohol and sleep deprivation. Much of the info was taken from the Imperial Armor III. As I said before I'll make a separate post for quotes when I get the chance.
And fuck GW for having such a fucking ambiguous canon policy.
-Gunhead
What is fucking pissing me off here is that I am damned tired of people drawing vast conclusions on the basis of scanty data when we KNOW there is far more such out there. I am tired of people who think that "knowing one source" is good enough to allo wthem to debate with people who evidently know the source material better (and I'm not talking about me - there are other people on this forum who know the 40K source material better than I do as of yet.) I am tired of people thinking that all it takes is one source or one example to refute everything else and igoring the larger picture (something that rabid trekkies do in the ICS bashing frequently.)
I spend a fair bit of my free time doing this shit, and I don't take it kindly when someone decides that they don't have to be bothered to do anything but minimal research into the topic in order to draw conclusions. Do you really need it pointed out to you that "singular source analysis" is a piss-poor way of doing it? Again, have you forgotten which forum this is?
. Wasn't it the Chapter Approved article on a Kroot army or something that mentioned this?
