Imperial Guard Sentinels and General

>>54286002

Heavy Flamers on individual Scout sentinels.
Moderate threat to infantry, distract AT weapons from your more valuable vehicles and brings you a step closer to fielding a brigade.

>>54286002

I've never gotten sentinels in the setting..

They are expensive to build, have a crap firing arc, are completely exposed.

I would kind of get it for other armies, even marines. But with guard , who are expendable as hell, why not use personnel to scout instead of these expensive fragile things

thats my thoughts but its either that rough riders or hellhounds to make a brigade and they're all expensive options when there's better bang for your buck

File: jeep.jpg (78KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x282px

>>54286253
Makes as much sense as Jeeps in WW2, except you only need 1 man to operate it. You're also forgetting that the thing has a torso twist and the entire unit can turn as well, so it has as shitty of a firing art as a dude with his rifle shouldered.

As a combat platform it's still better armoured than a HW team and can move with that big gun without a problem to positions, with more haste than the HW team. Armoured ones are even better protected. Scout ones also have the benefit of mobility to flank the enemy, bringing heavy weapons fire to enemy flanks. For recon, that squad isn't going to walk any faster or more than any other squad, while a sentinel can move as long as it has fuel.

Looking at maybe running an armoured detachment focused around a troop of Leman Russ tanks.

Would this be somewhat viable and what would you recommend in support?

>>54286253
They're mostly light recon for armored formations or mobile fire support for infantry combat patrols, they're not front line units

>>54286002
Bring back lifter sentinels for regiments with a combat engineering bent - not because they were good (though the servo-arm was a bit amusing as a paper-mache dreadnought), but because they were rad as fuck

>>54287900
Speaking of that, what would be a way to get combat engineers on tt? Just give everyone who can demo charges/melta bombs? In some old codex veterans also had mines to defend their position, is that still the case? Still playing 5th ed so I'm out of the loop.

>>54286253
>They are expensive to build

Where did this meme pop up from?

>>54288135
I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that a walker is more complex than a tank, likely referring to the salamander.

>>54288154
by engineering logic yeah, by 40k either you have STC or you don't

>>54287994
Lots of fortifications, emplaced weapons, dozer blades on chimeras, hellhounds, Atlases, etc. Maybe make some chimeras with bridges and digging equipment on them. Google some engineering vehicle stuff for ideas. Maybe make Kangaroo style transports out of Russes (remove turret and put a hatch on there, mount turret and hull HBs on the sponsons, maybe a pintle gun on the hull mount).

>>54288154
Big tank means more fuel to move it and takes up more space in transport, is not as agile and requires a crew of several people (3-4) vs. 1 for the sentinel.

>>54288249
I've always wanted to figure out how to run kangaroo russes. Namely because o have 3 unused hulls with no turrets.

>>54286002
I just read yesterday that they are great but hard on the wallet.
So what fucking is it, /tg/?

>>54288304
I never said I agreed with him. If anything, if the tau went full gundam with their stuff, I'd like for the IG to go more battletech. But it's more of a threadhead faction I guess.

>>54286510

But that's only effective against Orks, any other race would just snipe the controller from a distance

If the actually had armored glass, ok, but even with the extra armor option the operator is easily snipeable

>>54288135

I meant more expensive to maintain, build etc vs a squad of guardsmen with a heavy bolster, who btw can take actual cover vs standing 3 meter tall with open topped sniper heaven

>>54288927
Ork snipers are a real and very dangerous threat, I'll have you know!
For real, tho, I miss looting weapons

>>54286002
I like the aesthetic and bought 2 and made them the heavy armor variant.

File: extra-armour-sentinel.jpg (128KB, 954x1218px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 954x1218px

>>54288927
>any other race would just snipe the controller from a distance

Protip: Sniper can also kill your heavy weapons teams, commanders, infantry, etc. So those are utterly useless as well.

>even with the extra armor option the operator is easily snipeable

Maybe if you get directly above it.

>>54289296
> T H I N D A P A I N T S

File: BTR 80.jpg (78KB, 800x507px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x507px

>>54288927
>exposed heads!
>what if there were a sniper?

Don't get me wrong, I can cite at least one German tank ace who was killed by a bullet to the head while in a Hetzer during the Bulge, but it's something of a questionable concern, because armor does mean heavy weapons are in play, and fire superiority should reduce the amount of incoming if not eliminate it.

I believe that sentinel operators getting sniped is something that has occurred in BL novels when fighting heretics, the examples I am thinking of were not battlefield conditions. Rather, they were asymmetrical warfare, with snipers and machine gun teams in ambush positions, hitting unaware and unprepared guardsmen.
It's a bit like hajjis shooting at the turret gunners on a Humvee. You can track the turret upgrades as time went on, from being unprotected, to having a gun shield, to having full 360 degree coverage and finally to having a roof and being a full turret.

I do also want to point out that we're talking about a plastic model. Glass is difficult, and reserved for expensive miniatures like Valkyries. I want to believe that is the reason for Sentinels not having any glass. I also want to point out that, as lore indicates, there are so many different patterns and planetary variations, that the GW models are "most common design" at best.
I can cite Peter Fehervari's Fire Caste as an example of a sentinel detachment that did feature armored glass, despite being only the lightly armored Scout Sentinels.

And then, you know, Sentinels are fast. If moving, it should be nearly impossible to hit the driver with conventional ballistic rounds, and next to impossible even with a speed of light weapon like a lasgun, simply because you actually need to point it at the target. User error will be the failure here, instead of the cartridge.

>Tau
Their standard rifles can penetrate Scout Sentinel armor, no? The pilot being shot is of minimal concern at that point.

I used to use them in low points games, because a squadron of them cutting into the enemy flank usually caused enough chaos and focus firing that I could reliably pop enemy armor with melta and demo vets.

>>54286002
I used them a couple of times and they were a mild distraction that did very little. They are basically the less durable and less firepower version of normal Leman Russes.

Unlike Russes though, Sentinels don't have a Commander version to even out their shit BS on the move. Autocannons, Missile Launchers and Heavy Flamers seem like good choices. They just aren't worth the points most of the time to me.

As for other things. I've gotten fun and good results from Straken and Nork in a Chimera with a Command squad and other things like a Priest or Psyker. Bullgryn are always great. I've been having great use from Pask in a LRBT with Las and Plasma Sponsons running with a Tank Commander with the same loadout.

>>54287810
>>54286510
Don't forget they can also stand up and crouch. The thing is essentially a movable heavy weapons turret with variable heigh

>>54286002
Put it in cover with the scout move , then it can just sit there and fire

>>54294246
Why use the Scout version then? It would just be a 3+ save. You could get an armored one and put it in cover for a 2+.

>>54294132
>shit BS on the move
Unless you mean hull mounts and sponsons, the Russ main gun doesn't suffer the -1 to hit when moving.

>>54294433
I did mean the sponsons and hull. I should have specified. Still, BS4+ on the Leman turrets is still weak.

File: 1487041771085.jpg (96KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x768px

In low point games they're indispensable, when I first got into 40k this was my best unit and it is reliable if you have the troops to divert attention from it

>>54294458
That's true, but that's the IG statline for you.

>>54294563
I guess when I'm dropping nearly 200 points on a model I want something more reliable. Thankfully, there is Pask and Tank Commanders, so it's not really a big deal. BS4+ is okay when what is shooting is cheap, which is nice for infantry squads and conscripts.

>>54286002
I've been using the Armored variant with a Lascannon to....okay results. It just turns it into a much beefier (and more expensive) HWT with the added benefit of not just disappearing when the enemy takes notice of them as opposed to their fleshy counterpart.

>>54288398

>, I'd like for the IG to go more battletech

That sounds god awful

>>54294640

Go play Tau then

>>54294629
I might consider that by using Harker nearby.