I got a slightly different problem. Sometimes I plot a course as sergeant doing very logical things (to me at least) like "we have people available so multiple persons see if they can find out what that weird thing over there is" or "don't flip levers, push buttons or mash on computer keyboards if you don't know what they do" and have the squad object. Not to mention trying to hear if something is moving inside an unknown room before barging in was described as "overly cautious". The room was located in Ork infested territory.

Does not wanting the squad to randomly barge in on large groups of things that can kill us make me a bad sergeant?

Sometimes I think they are running on video game logic. If there is a button, push it. If there is a lever, flip it. If there is a barrel, see if it contains a Vorpal Sword +4.

How does one deal with this?

That's one for your GM mainly. Ultimately arguing with the squad consensus is gonna cause trouble for you.

That's one for your GM mainly. Ultimately arguing with the squad consensus is gonna cause trouble for you.

True, I'm just annoyed that sergeants can't even seem to get basic orders followed without full consensus.

Report their disobedience to your CO and see what is suggested?

How does one deal with this?

My sergeant was quite clear in that regard. His job was to keep his men a functional and efficient fighting force but also look after them. In order to look after them they had not to do stupid things. So that was forbidden by order. If someone did a stupid thing he would be punished. A slap on the back of his head might do well - sending him as scout the next time for he "volunteered" does also work with somewhat professional soldiers.

In the end the job of a sergeant is to make the rules clear. After that he has to enforce them.

The rule is: They are guardsmen. What is a button? A button is a machine. Who does look after machines? Right, a Tech-Priest. Is a guardsmen also a Tech-Priest? No, he is not. So what does a Guardsman do with a button? Nothing, until ordered otherwise.

The same goes with the "overly cautious" thing. This is war and people die - yes. But you have to make them die in a somewhat useful way - dying because of idiocy and ignoring their basic training is not useful to anyone. So what do we do? We stick with basic training and we do scout. Why do we do that? Because our sorry ass does not belong to us anymore, it is the property of the Emperor and we do treat the property of the emperor with respect and do not waste it - also we do keep it clean.

If they still do not behave well after you introduced them to your own rules you are always free to utilize disciplinary force. In the field that is up to you, in camp you have to file a official complain - but word it carefully or your leadership talents might get questioned.

The job of a sarge is to lead men and to be the official representative of common sense - not to be the friend of your subordinates. If there is another decent man in your squad, make him your corporal and enforcer if needed.

Depends on if your DM will back you having someone executed or not. TBH, if your players can't even play the role of "following an order", I'd advise a different game than a military one.

I got a slightly different problem. Sometimes I plot a course as sergeant doing very logical things (to me at least) like "we have people available so multiple persons see if they can find out what that weird thing over there is" or "don't flip levers, push buttons or mash on computer keyboards if you don't know what they do" and have the squad object. Not to mention trying to hear if something is moving inside an unknown room before barging in was described as "overly cautious". The room was located in Ork infested territory.

Does not wanting the squad to randomly barge in on large groups of things that can kill us make me a bad sergeant?

Sometimes I think they are running on video game logic. If there is a button, push it. If there is a lever, flip it. If there is a barrel, see if it contains a Vorpal Sword +4.

How does one deal with this?

I'm Curious RAW: Are you the aforementioned Sergeant from the Op's post? If so, it speaks well of you that you are on this Forum seeking advice! If not it still does but I respect people who are willing to face criticism. (Includeing mine!)

Basically, I agree with FieserMoep. (Sorry if I butchered spelling that.) A Sergeant is not the Squad's friend! He is there to keep his men pointed in the right direction and hopefully keep the body count as relatively low as possible. Historically, Sergeants would use various means of "motivation" from suggestion right up to and including whipping the tar out of a particularly recalcitrant trooper! (Part of why the stereotypical Sergeant is thought of as a melee character.) Players also need to understand that the nature of being in a Military squad is not a consensus! A wise leader will listen to the opinions of his subordinates to a point but once he gives an order that's it! Full stop! You do as you're told! In 40k, Disobeying a direct order is an executable offence! If there is a Commissar in the unit then they would be obligated to execute the insubordinate soldier on the spot! Especially if it happened on the battlefield.

As others have mentioned before: It is up to the Gm to explain and enforce this. Sort of the opposite of what I advised the OP; If the players insist on playing "troublemakers" than treat them as such. Ultimately though, If the other players do not have the maturity to accept the nature of life in the military, maybe a different game is in order.

I'm Curious RAW: Are you the aforementioned Sergeant from the Op's post? If so, it speaks well of you that you are on this Forum seeking advice! If not it still does but I respect people who are willing to face criticism. (Includeing mine!)

Basically, I agree with FieserMoep. (Sorry if I butchered spelling that.) A Sergeant is not the Squad's friend! He is there to keep his men pointed in the right direction and hopefully keep the body count as relatively low as possible. Historically, Sergeants would use various means of "motivation" from suggestion right up to and including whipping the tar out of a particularly recalcitrant trooper! (Part of why the stereotypical Sergeant is thought of as a melee character.) Players also need to understand that the nature of being in a Military squad is not a consensus! A wise leader will listen to the opinions of his subordinates to a point but once he gives an order that's it! Full stop! You do as you're told! In 40k, Disobeying a direct order is an executable offence! If there is a Commissar in the unit then they would be obligated to execute the insubordinate soldier on the spot! Especially if it happened on the battlefield.

As others have mentioned before: It is up to the Gm to explain and enforce this. Sort of the opposite of what I advised the OP; If the play ers insist on playing "troublemakers" than treat them as such. Ultimately though, If the other players do not have the maturity to accept the nature of life in the military, maybe a different game is in order.

Nope, not the same sergeant. Just leadership problems in the opposite direction.

I do listen to the input of the squad but maybe I allowed too much leeway in the early game (first time RP'er), giving them the idea that when I tell them to do something those are just suggestions. Maybe putting a few players on latrine digging/maintenance duty after the next infraction, thus restricting their option to get **** done for themselves (see what I did there?), will get their attention.

*Text*

The job of a sarge is to lead men and to be the official representative of common sense - not to be the friend of your subordinates. If there is another decent man in your squad, make him your corporal and enforcer if needed.

Good suggestions. I'll put variations on them to good use.

I had similar problem with sarge. Among other things he liked to come up with the most strange plans one could imagine.

Once the squad was trapped in a building that had its entrance hall occupied by three enemy ogryns. There were 3 elevators leading down there. There was also a balcony over the hall. Sarge decided that they will go down on the elevators roofs and wait till ogryns come inside those elevators. Ogryns. Decide. That they enter a small room. That moves.

Of course that couldnt be the case even with regular combatants, because they could see floor counters and expected the attack. Thats what traps were all about, right?

The day was saved by a psyker who slided down the rope from the upper floor window and attacked ogryns from the rear and soldier who was pouring down hell from the balcony, refusing to obey to their sarge.

And then they were shot for disobedience.

Any updates on this, OP?

Have you been able to bring it up to him? How did he handle it?

And then they were shot for disobedience.

Nah. The guy moved abroad, so his character was also moved to other duties in regimental office. He always claimed that attacking the ogryns from behind was his idea.

Any updates on this, OP?

Have you been able to bring it up to him? How did he handle it?

I tried to talk to him, I showed him the options what can we do with this. He didn't even reply to me about this but he talked with other players and he blamed me ofc. Funny thing that he stated he haven't got enough time to think about tactic and i was rushing him. Well i thought that 2 hours of real time was enough but looks like not. He missed the last session also. Can't say i was sad since everything went smooth, no deads, no critical injuries, lots of good rp and lastly good tactical thiniking from medic and operator. I will update on this, next week if he show up.

How did the rest of the group respond to him complaining about you?
Is this only your perception or theirs also?

Him ignoring you is rather bad, though, and something that I as GM would respond to by escalating: Either you have a conversation about this or he goes. You can only do that though if you've got the group on your side...

You rushed him to make a call? Sometimes I bring a situation up to my players and demand them to act ASAP.

The difficulty of making a tactical/strategical decision is time and Intel.

But from his reaction something different is also wrong in your group.

Rushed him? He really wouldn't like my game. Players who dither indecisively during combat will notice me looking at my watch. If they don't come up with something quickly, they've frozen in combat and forfeit their action that round! It hasn't happened often, but when it did it got the point across! A combat round is 5-6 seconds long! you don't have much time for deep thought in that situation.

Obviously, planning outside of combat is another story. but still; You rushed him? DIVA!!! I think I can safely say, your group is probably better off without this one!

Agreed. If you actually presented him with options, alternatives and made an effort and that's his response, the boot should only improve your game.

Well the group is split about him. One player thinks like me that he can't lead since he can't make decision, precise orders etc. Other player thinks that there was no good tactical solution at least he didnt see it but still sergant can't make decision and he agree that he can't lead.

The issue, at this point, isn't the situation IG, it's that you made an effort and he's apparently being a prat about it.

Well the group is split about him. One player thinks like me that he can't lead since he can't make decision, precise orders etc. Other player thinks that there was no good tactical solution at least he didnt see it but still sergant can't make decision and he agree that he can't lead.

Ordering the unit to take cover is a decision! Using your abilities to improve the capabilities of the squad is also valid! Not being the next strategic version of Sun tzu is forgivable. Freezing up in combat is not! Blaming everyone else, (Including you.) is a clear indication of an absence of leadership capability. If the player can't play a leader type he has no business playing the squad leader. Seems pretty common sense to me! Whining incessantly and them skipping the game like a petulent child would to me at least, be an indicator that you need to demand better or remove him!

I am a bit puzzled why the players haven't solved the problem themselves by becoming a 'commander' and thereby outranking the Sergeant. Don't make the mistake of allowing the current Sergeant to go Commander himself.....(I did....)

Commander isn't actually a rank thing. It just represents a guy with natural leadership capabilities.

Ultimately though its still a matter for either the GM or the players to "arrange an accident".

Commander isn't actually a rank thing. It just represents a guy with natural leadership capabilities.

Ultimately though its still a matter for either the GM or the players to "arrange an accident".

Actually it is! The Commander represents an Officer where the Sergeant represents an NCO of some lvl. An officer, even the most junior (A Second lieutenant in the US Army) will ALWAYS outrank even the most senior NCO! Of course said Junior officer would be extremely foolish to ignore the advice of a proven NCO!

Pairing junior Officers with senior NCO's is actually the way that most young officers gain valuable field experience without getting themselves or their men killed inmost modern armies.

And based on nomenclature I would agree with you, but it actually states in the book that the Commander class doesn't necessarily make you an actual commander. It's just the name of the class.

Aren't Commisars suposed to be political officers OUTSIDE of the chain of command?