With imperial guard heavy weapons teams is the imperial player aloud to slide wounds around to avoid removing the heavy weapons? I know with most things this isnt allowed but my opponet stated that an imperial weapons team is just a squad of six imperial guard with three special/heavy weapons and three lasguns and as for the rules in the BGB the defending player is allowed to choose which models in the squad he gets to take the wounds on.

Why wouldn't it be allowed?

The 6 man Heavy Weapons squad is made up of 3 teams of 2 models. To silence each weapon, you need to kill both crew for that weapon... but since they are all part of the same squad, the owning player is indeed allowed to take casualties in the unit from wherever he likes (following the usual casualty removal rules, of course).

So if the unit takes 3 casualties, it's perfectly legal to remove the 3 lasgun-toting models and keep firing with all 3 heavies.

yeah i suppose your right...it just doesnt seem right for a moment. why take a team if one man can operate the gun just fine on his own? you know? they should at least be immoble. lets face it a little guardsman cant lug around a big old lascannon on his own . thanks for clearing it up though

Hades wrote:why take a team if one man can operate the gun just fine on his own?

Because it makes them a little more durable. You have to kill two guys to silence the weapon instead of the usual one.

Hades wrote:lets face it a little guardsman cant lug around a big old lascannon on his own

That's why there's 2 in a team

Actually, rules-wise, a little Guardsman is more than capable of lugging around a big old Lascannon on his own.

That's why there is no reduction in efficiency when things get down to 1 man per gun.

But the stupid Administratum decreed that each Lascannon is a 2-man team.

So that is why there are 2 men per gun.

Actually a heavy weapons team is 2 lasgun toting guardsmen, 1 heavy weapon and a coupple of spare ammo packs.

Thus a unit of 3 teams that move may catually fire 6 lasgun shots.

The reason for the teams being teams of two is that while one guardsman is capable of lugging the weapon on his own the other one is carrying spare ammo.

Naturally for the purpouses of a game the weapon has enough ammo to last the whole battle but remember that an IG army does not neccesarilly go back to base and have a cup of coco and put up their feet between battles...

Actually there is only one guardsmen in the team that actually has a lasgun. And if you move a heavy weapon team, you can only fire one lasgun per team.
The other model carrying ammo is a spotter and loader, and the amount of ammo fired in a single engagment would completely dwarf the ammo on the models.

Bartholomew001 wrote:Actually there is only one guardsmen in the team that actually has a lasgun.

The Codex disagrees with you.


The Squad comes with lasguns. Each team is then equipped with a heavy weapon. No mention is made of this weapon replacing either of the model's lasguns.

insaniak wrote:

Bartholomew001 wrote:Actually there is only one guardsmen in the team that actually has a lasgun.

The Codex disagrees with you.


The Squad comes with lasguns. Each team is then equipped with a heavy weapon. No mention is made of this weapon replacing either of the model's lasguns.

But the UK WD (#306) FAQ agrees with him...........

Also interesting to note from that same FAQ, if a Vindicare or Mindwar targets the heavy weapon carrying guardsman, the other model will contimue to fire the heavy weapon.

I hate this argument. I used to have MAJOR problems with this in games. One person even told me that the bases could be insta killed. >( THere are NO teams in the heavy weapon squads. In the regular platoons there are "teams" in heavy weapon squads THERE ARE NO TEAMS. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOADER OR SPOTTER (Except for the last chancers the word loader is not even in the codex). For heavy weapon squads it says 6 guardsmen with 3 heavy wpns. It does not say anything about teams. You all are thinking about the infantry platoon squads where it says two guys make a team. A heavy weapon squad is not an infantry platoon so they are not teams. They are 6 guys with 3 heavy weapons and I would say 3 lasguns. It does not take 2 to move or fire otherwise it would say so; PPL who say that, are taking fluff and trying to call it rules. If IG is not stong enough for a single model to carry the HW then why can sisters do it when they are S3 as well? One answer I heard was that "thier power armor holds is up" LMAO

I addition, dont let people give you strife if you wanna mount your hvy wpn squads on small bases. The FAQ says "treat them as separate models" the larger base is included ONLY FOR EASE OF MOVEMENT.

smart_alex wrote: In the regular platoons there are "teams" in heavy weapon squads THERE ARE NO TEAMS.

I'm curious as to how you reach that conclusion.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOADER OR SPOTTER

That much at least is correct.

smart_alex wrote:I addition, dont let people give you strife if you wanna mount your hvy wpn squads on small bases. The FAQ says "treat them as separate models" the larger base is included ONLY FOR EASE OF MOVEMENT.

Can you provide a rule that states that models based together for convenience of movement may ignore the usual base size rules?

Here is a still of the FAQ


So in order to treat them as separate models you must count each as having a 1" base.


Also, have you read the codex recently. I will re read it again just to make double sure i dont put my foot in my mouth. I would now but its out in my trunk. I am almost sure that it mentions two making a team in the infantry platoon section. Where as in the wpn squads it says 6 guards men with 3 hvy wpns.

Because I'm waiting for paint to dry and have my IG codex on my desk:

Pg. 38, IG Codex: "Number/squad: Six Guardsmen forming three heavy weapon crews."

That's under each Support Squad(Fire Support, Anti-Tank, Mortar) type on pg. 38. Pg. 39, with the Special Weapons Support Squad, says: "Number/squad: Six Guardsmen."

Also, pg. 44, under Infantry Squads: "Options: Two Guardsmen may form a single heavy weapon crew."

Both form Heavy Weapon Crews.

But you could have 2 one man crews and 1 four man crew

smart_alex wrote:So in order to treat them as separate models you must count each as having a 1" base.

...

Sorry, you've lost me.

How does 'treat them as seperate models' equal 'treat them as seperate models on 1" bases'?


And once again, can you provide a rule that states that models based together for convenience of movement may ignore the usual base size rules?

Also, have you read the codex recently.

Yes. Unless it's something that I'm absolutely sure about, I generally make a point of checking the rule in question before contradicting someone.

What other size base would they have if they were separate models? It says they are based together for convenience of movement, meaning it still doesnt count as thier base. Becuase its used for conveniece of movement. Similar to the way the rule in the ork book adresses decorative models. THis is only for convenience.

smart_alex wrote:What other size base would they have if they were separate models?

The one they are provided with.

It says they are based together for convenience of movement,

Yes... not 'only convenience of movement'... which is what you appear to be reading it as saying.

meaning it still doesnt count as thier base.

Why not?

Becuase its used for conveniece of movement.

How does them giving a reason for having a particular base (which is not given as the only reason, just as a reason) over-ride the usual base size rules?

If GW had said that Dreadnoughts are based on a 60mm base just because they wouldn't fit on a smaller base, would that make it legal to base them on a smaller base if you model them with one leg up in the air?

Obviously not.

The reason for a model to have a particular base is completely irrelevant. The rules make no exception for models supplied with a particular base for any specific reason. If the model is supplied with a 60mm base then a 60mm base is, so far as the rules are concerned, the smallest base on which that model may be placed.

THis is only for convenience.

And again, the word 'only' does not appear in that FAQ answer.

... why do they put 2 guys behind the lascannon if just 1 can opperate it... I dont get it... I'll stick with ''Da Good old rulez ''

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote:So in order to treat them as separate models you must count each as having a 1" base.

...

Sorry, you've lost me.

How does 'treat them as seperate models' equal 'treat them as seperate models on 1" bases'?


And once again, can you provide a rule that states that models based together for convenience of movement may ignore the usual base size rules?
I LOST IT TOO!

Also, have you read the codex recently.

Yes. Unless it's something that I'm absolutely sure about, I generally make a point of checking the rule in question before contradicting someone.

well then what is your definition of treating them as separate models? Separate models have different bases do they or do they not? Does the FAQ say to treat them as separate models or not?

smart_alex wrote:well then what is your definition of treating them as separate models? Separate models have different bases do they or do they not? Does the FAQ say to treat them as separate models or not?

For myself, treating them as separate models means they are two independent entities with separate characteristics that are both mounted on the same base. This is in contrast to swarm bases which have multiple models on a single base but only a single set of characteristics.

That means stuff like: if the Heavy Weapon base is in base contact with the enemy than both models count as being in base contact. If the Heavy Weapon base is fully covered by a blast than both models count as being fully covered, if the base is only partially covered then both models count as being partially covered by the blast, etc.

smart_alex wrote:well then what is your definition of treating them as separate models?

It means that they are treated as seperate models. Yakface summed up what this means rules-wise.

Separate models have different bases do they or do they not?

There's no particular reason for them to have seperate bases, no. And actually putting them on seperate bases forces you to create house rules to govern how the team actually works... see the argument a little while back on Eldar Heavies and coherency for a look at the problems this sort of thing causes.

Basing them together gets around those problems nicely.

Well whatever. Having them on separate bases has solved more problems than it has caused. This way when I remove models people dont look as perplexed as to why I am killing the lasgunners. When I put them on the large bases like I used to people would look at me funny when I would put a wound marker on each base. Then the arguement would always ensue that I need to remove models, blah blah.

Ah, one of the great 40k debates. Bases. Especially amongst the IG models. GW has been pretty inconsistant with base sizes. They say "the base it comes with" but they have many different bases coming with the same basic model/option. For instance, the old Cadian missile launchers come with one long square base and one round base, then the Steel Legion missile launcher team comes with two round bases while the new Cadian and Catachan missile launchers come with the massive round base. Then the old heavy weapons (still available from GW, but the old style) such as mortars, heavy bolters, autocannons, and lasscannons do not come with a base at all!

Pretty much, at my local hobby shop, we say "what ever fits." You wouldn't try to put and Ogryn on a 25mm, but you can put them on the massive bases if you want. With other armies, such as Space Marine Terminators, they allow the little bases or the medium ones, most people opt for the little bases as they fit in boxes better and move on the board better. But, GW wants them on the medium bases.

Okay, so gist of the rule: IG Heavy Weapons Squads must be on one 60mm base?

There is no actual standing to make you go out an buy big bases for your models, there is also no standing to stop you from putting them on seperate smaller bases. The large bases are an option for you to use for ease of movement.

exactly, I even said that at an RTT once when a table haunter showed up and said it was illegal what I was doing. Then I said what if they were steel legieon. Why do thier ML have the small bases? He said that those were illegal now. WTF?! I really believe that the only reason that the HW are on large bases is because some designer thought it would look cool. No other reason. Then now after the fact they have realized the problems it was caused due to the whole "bases supplied must be used" thing.

Since GW supplies a multitude of bases for the same units, the option is open to you. Using the large bases is allowed, using the small bases is allowed, and using the long rectangle bases are also allowed. That is, if you follow the rule book.

No, a multitude of bases is not allowed. The only base that allowed is the one the model was supplied with or larger. What some other model comes with, even if it is meant to represent the exact same unit is of no consequence.

So basically, if I want to, I could arm up my army with Steel Legion, but use the old Cadians for my heavy weapons. Then, over time, convert just the weapons to those used by the Steel Legion, then, later, convert the mounts, then later still, the models themselves. Or I could just say that's what I did. GW allows any conversions as long as they utilize their models and their supplies (they actually allow a certain ratio of other models or original modeling and supplies). In the end I would end up with Steel Legion weapons on old Cadian bases, and I might choose to put the models without bases on them on a base.

So you want to lie to your opponents and claim that you coverted them from one model when it has absolutely no pieces of the original model on the finished product. Seems to me that you need to learn a thing or two about sportsmanship.

Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.

It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

Scottywan82 wrote:Okay, so gist of the rule: IG Heavy Weapons Squads must be on one 60mm base?

No. They must be on whichever base they are supplied with.


Very, very few players will be concerned with what size base you use, though. So long as you discuss the house rules you are using for the team before the game begins.

Are you saying that I am lying? I do happen to own all the old Cadian and Steel Legion heavy weapons teams. Since the Steel Legion boys do not have an autocannon I can base them off the old Cadian models.

Secondly, sportsmanship has little to do with what your models look like, as long as they are properly represented on the table (i.e.: your heavy bolters meet the GW supplied model specs.). Violating sportsmanship would be like poking your Brightlance platform around a corner while the crew and all of the squad stand behind a building. I don't know if the new Eldar codex allows that, but the old one did not but every Eldar opponent I ran into said it could, though it wasn't in the rules. Doing that even if the rules did not disallow it would also be unsportsmanlike (not giving your opponent a fair chance to defend themselves).

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.

It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

No he's not. He's out-and-out lying to his opponent to gain an illegal advantage and that's it. That's why he says "... Or I could just say that's what I did..." because he has no plans whatsoever to actually try and convert the models. All it is is a sorry excuse to make up a reason that the rules should say something other than what they actually do.

Let's hear it for Ghaz, master of the hostile reading. Where others see a reductio ad absurdum argument, he sees an earnest claim. Perhaps if the OP had said "Well then, I'll just deploy nothing and tell my opponent I've converted all my minis and bases from entirely transparent material," you'd think the poster was really planning to do that, too? Naive beyond words or cynical beyond belief? Thanks to my new friend the Ignore Button, I need never find out.

Ghaz wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.
It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

No he's not. He's out-and-out lying to his opponent to gain an illegal advantage and that's it. That's why he says "... Or I could just say that's what I did..." because he has no plans whatsoever to actually try and convert the models. All it is is a sorry excuse to make up a reason that the rules should say something other than what they actually do.

Actually I never said that's what I would do, if you read what I wrote as what I wrote it. But assumptions are good too, if you want to get what you want out of something, rather then what was intended.

Another option is to just convert the bases from the old Cadians (which are completely available from GW without the models) onto other units. As long as your missile launchers are using the same bases as old Cadian or even the Steel Legion missile launcher teams would use. The only thing you can not do is use bases smaller then what GW supplies for their models. Just because GW is inconsistant with their base sizes, does not mean there is an "illegal advantage" to using one model in place of another, as long as they have the same weapons as eachother. Or I could just miss-match my armies. It wouldn't be as pretty, but it would satisfy a more stringant interpretation (which has no basis in the rules I mind you).

Let's keep it civil, folks.

If someone's even going to 'hypothetically' considering lying and cheating, then he's very likely to consider doing so in real life and is condoning it as a valid option. If it's not something that you would do, then you don't put it forward as a 'hypothetical' situation.

Ghaz wrote:If someone's even going to 'hypothetically' considering lying and cheating, then he's very likely to consider doing so in real life and is condoning it as a valid option. If it's not something that you would do, then you don't put it forward as a 'hypothetical' situation.

I would agree if this was lying and/or cheating. But it is neither.

Just to clarify. Ghaz claims that there is a significant advantage to smaller or seperate bases, so therefor, if they are used, then the player is cheating. So if I were to use my old Cadian army, then I would be able to use the smaller bases. Therefor, I am cheating! Since as far as the rules and gameplay, and everything that matters mechanics wise are the same, except that the heavy weapons are on seperate and/or smaller bases I am gaining an advantage I shouldn't be getting just because I am using the older models! But if I were to decide I wanted a Steel Legion army as well, I should have to take the hit (thus losing some sort of advantage that has not yet been clarified) and plop my lascannons and crews onto large bases as they are supplied. But someone who is converting their models to something not Steel Legion or new Cadians or new Catachans, they would be able to use the older bases for their heavy weapons, as they are not using the strictly supplied model line that GW has prepared in neat little boxes or blister packs.

So say I am a new IG gamer, and I want to do Steel Legion, but I find the large bases obtuse and difficult to handle (not everyone shares the same opinion of what is easy to handle) wither because the large bases do not fit in my army carrying case or I don't like how they tend to flop around when I'm handling them. So instead I go out and buy a pack of bases and a bunch of Steel Legion heavy weapons teams blisters. I use the same bases that an old Cadian model would use (and was still supplied until GW decided to temporarily suspend their online bitz catalog) or hey, the Tallarn, Valhallan, or Mordian lines as well, leaving only the Steel Legion, new Cadian and Catachan, and the brand spanking new Vostroyan lines using large bases, so about half the IG armies still use the smaller and seperate bases (if you still count the ever popular old Cadian models and are not counting all the old, but now "retro" armies, which would push the ratio well into the smaller bases category), but use the Steel Legion models instead. This is legally a conversion, as I am using legit older (in age, not relevancy) army bases and newer (but still admittedly old) heavy weapon models. Not only are the smaller bases more effiecient to use, but tend to look more distinctive as well (the bigger bases need to be "busied up" or you have a lot of open and ugly ground). There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs. If you want to fop down a new Cadian lascannon in place of the Steel Legion one, that's fine. So why can you not fop down Steel Legion troopers and weapons in place of old Cadians? If you can point out an advantage to using smaller bases that is both legitimate and significant, then go right ahead.

I hate modelling two models on one base. All my HW teams have the gun on the 60mil base (assuming they even have a base - I have more old metal Guard than new plastic), and then the loader (or other crewguy if you want to be pedantic) on a regular base.

It's actually more convenient than mounting them on the same base.

BYE

Skinnattittar wrote:There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs.

Indeed. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules that say you can use conversions at all.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs.

Indeed. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules that say you can use conversions at all.

There are also no rules saying you can use modify units to use special weapons, so everyone can say goodbye to their special weapons since you have to typically hack off their main weapons to use them. Except for the IG, who's special weapons come complete with arms and such.

Which models need to have their weapon 'hacked off' in order to give them a special weapon?

Oh wait, Marine bolters aren't attached to their hands anymore... sorry, you're right.

It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models, but it also doesn't specify you have to use them as supplied, just that they have to fall with in their supplied limits (what they have is what they got idea).

Skinnattittar wrote:It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models,

Which means that technically, they're not allowed.

The fact that the rulebook doesn't specifically disallow something doesn't make it legal.



And no, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't allow an opponent to use converted models... I'd be the last person to complain on those grounds.

But claiming that you can get around the rules by the use of creative conversion doesn't actually work unless you can provide a rule that allows the conversion in the first place.

woot

I dunno, I run my guys with Close Order Drill so I have two 25mm-based crewmen and an unbased heavy weapon (like with the old metals) to maintain gunline integrity. The gun is placed between the firer (the guy modeled to be pulling a firing cord) and the loader (the guy modeled to be holding extra ammo) or in front of the firer. As long as I'm not cheesing by firing around corners or something I can't imagine anyone having a problem with something like that. And someone who would pull a rules lawyer complaint out on that probably isn't the sort of person I'd want to play against anyways.

I suppose that's a bit of a tautology but I play for fun, I don't do tourneys and I have a problem with seeing this matter as LOL SERIOUS BUSINESS LOL.

It's a matter of preference, just like you choosing to play someone is. If it bothers you that much, don't play against him.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models,

Which means that technically, they're not allowed.
The fact that the rulebook doesn't specifically disallow something doesn't make it legal.
And no, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't allow an opponent to use converted models... I'd be the last person to complain on those grounds.
But claiming that you can get around the rules by the use of creative conversion doesn't actually work unless you can provide a rule that allows the conversion in the first place.

Ah, nevermind, here we are. In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army. So yes, converted models ARE allowed, in fact, they are encouraged. So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section. And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take (as they must be represented on the models). Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k, therefore, modelling rules there apply to the rest of the rulebook.

so then what happens if you bit order a weapons sprue and there is no base? Since it it supplied with no base then you dont even need one heh heh.

Actually, that's completely wrong. bitz are bitz, not full units, that is pretty much explicit and obvious. You should know that, it's pretty much the biggest "dur" you can get. If you order a special weapons sprue you are ordering PART of a weapon, you need to complete it to meet the specs of a pre existing unit, you can't just make it up. That example is just jibing for an arguement, it doesn't even have a base in a realistic scenario, essentially, it's just entirely wrong.

Now units that are represented in rule books but not by the GW line are complicated, this is something I was just thinking about. I don't think there is anything anymore like that, I know that the IG had a couple tanks GW stopped making/supplying, but there were pre-existing examples to go off of, and you could still bitz order them.

Skinnattittar wrote:In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army.

Yes... for specific situations.

They show conversions to use as Sentries, for Kill Teams, and for Campaign Battle Homours. All specific rules situations.

So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section.

Yep. So long as you're playing Kill Team, that is.

And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take

Got a specific reference? Because I can't see any such statement in my codex.

(as they must be represented on the models).

Not seeing this rule in there either.

The closest it gets is in the Armoury, where it mentions that all weapons and wargear must be modeled. Doesn't say that you can convert your own instead of using the Citadel model for it, and doesn't mention special equipment.

Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k,

It's listed in its own section, with its own specific rules. Those rules no more apply to any other game of 40K than the rules of one Standard scenario apply to any other scenario. It's an alternate way to play, not a set of extra rules for standard games.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army.

Yes... for specific situations.
They show conversions to use as Sentries, for Kill Teams, and for Campaign Battle Homours. All specific rules situations.

So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section.

Yep. So long as you're playing Kill Team, that is.

And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take

Got a specific reference? Because I can't see any such statement in my codex.

(as they must be represented on the models).

Not seeing this rule in there either.
The closest it gets is in the Armoury, where it mentions that all weapons and wargear must be modeled. Doesn't say that you can convert your own instead of using the Citadel model for it, and doesn't mention special equipment.

Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k,

It's listed in its own section, with its own specific rules. Those rules no more apply to any other game of 40K than the rules of one Standard scenario apply to any other scenario. It's an alternate way to play, not a set of extra rules for standard games.

To quote you on most all of your assumption above; "Where does it say that?" As for the special equipment, you're right! Therefore, I can simply take my army to any competition all geared up with Cameoline and Carapace armor and just use the basic Catachan models! So that means that I don't have to use Citadel models in general, as that's not in there either which then also means that I can make whatever I want to represent whatever I want... intriguing... your literal view of the rule book has allowed me to circumvent having to ever buy any GW models. Oh, wait, GW repetedly reminds their customers that they have to use their models within a ratio of conversion (I think the numer is 75% their stuff or something).

I think what our friend Insaniak is trying to do here is cause trouble for the arguement. No, there are plenty of examples used by GW in most all of their rule books that show conversions being used in play, and they make NO reference to it being a special situation. Since they actually do state that conversions are able to be used, and are encouraged for variety and "fun" of the game, it is hardly a leap of any sort of faith to the conclusion that conversions are allowed. Since GW induces conversions and does not exclude them from others, the RAW is they are allowed. Unless you can point to a rule that conversions that realistically represent the models being played are not allowed with the exclusion of GW stated situations.

Skinnattittar wrote:To quote you on most all of your assumption above; "Where does it say that?"

All through the Kill Team section, where it refers to it as a way of playing small scale games, and introduces Kill Team specific rules.

Therefore, I can simply take my army to any competition all geared up with Cameoline and Carapace armor and just use the basic Catachan models!

You could indeed. Unless, of course, the competition in question has its own WYSIWYG rules, as is often the case.

So that means that I don't have to use Citadel models in general, as that's not in there either

Page 6, first sentence.

I think what our friend Insaniak is trying to do here is cause trouble for the arguement.

No, what Insaniak is trying to do is point out that there is no rules basis for using a conversion to circumvent a rule that you don't like.

No, there are plenty of examples used by GW in most all of their rule books that show conversions being used in play, and they make NO reference to it being a special situation.

So?

Since they actually do state that conversions are able to be used,

And once again: Where?

the RAW is they are allowed.

It's only RAW if it's actually written.

Being an accepted convention does not make it RAW.



But this went silly quite a long time ago. The simple fact is that while the RAW says that models must be based on bases at least as large as those they are supplied with, you can base your Imperial Guard heavies however you want and the vast majority of players won't care.

But if coming up with convoluted schemes to ciircumvent rules that practically nobody actually cares about is what floats your boat, then don't let me stop you...

Page 6, first sentence, or even that paragraph does not state you have to use Citadelt miniatures, just that the miniatures that are being used in the rules that follow are simply referred to as "models." It does not say that is what a player has to use. Though I suppose this can be up to multiple interprestations. Though it does not say you have to, therefore, it does not say you can not use other models.

As for a "rule that I don't like," I have never stated that this is my purpose or my feeling, since it is neither a rule made by GW nor does it apply to my situation. So far I have used all of my standard issue bases. The RAW part does not limit a player's choice in models, and although GW does not explicitely state conversions are legal, their sheer volume of examples and encouragement to personalise a player's army so heavily infers over repetition that basic deduction concludes their intention. Essentially, they allow conversions, until they state they do not and that was not their intention. But now we are arguing RAW.

Sillyness, agreed. Once people start whipping out law level tactics and interpretations the spirit of Warhammer 40,000 is crushed. It is a game, and only a game.

Skinnattittar wrote:Page 6, first sentence, or even that paragraph does not state you have to use Citadelt miniatures, just that the miniatures that are being used in the rules that follow are simply referred to as "models."

Right. It defines the term 'model' as being applied to the Citadel miniatures used in the game.

So, sure, use other miniatures. But they won't be considered 'models' by the rules... which is going to make using them a tad difficult

and although GW does not explicitely state conversions are legal, their sheer volume of examples and encouragement to personalise a player's army so heavily infers over repetition that basic deduction concludes their intention.

Surely you've been here long enough now to understand the general reception that 'intention' gets around here as a rules argument...

Once people start whipping out law level tactics and interpretations the spirit of Warhammer 40,000 is crushed.

You mean tactics like using conversions to circumvent the rules?

Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

Now I'm just playing devils advocate for that one, and I feel that is what Insaniak has been doing as well.

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

"The Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000 are simply referred to as models in the rules that follow."

That's not referring to the models in the book. It's referring to the miniatures used to play the game.

You're right, it doesn't state that those are the only things considered 'models'...

Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?

Clearly not.

The rules don't tell us that anything else is considered a model. Therefore, nothing else is considered a model. The term 'model' is applied solely to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000'

insaniak wrote:
Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?

Complete rot. 40k is closer to 1:53 and the Emperor wouldn't look too kindly on the recruiting of slaneshi daemons to the ranks of the most holy Adeptus Astares.

You heretics make me sick.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

"The Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000 are simply referred to as models in the rules that follow."
That's not referring to the models in the book. It's referring to the miniatures used to play the game.
You're right, it doesn't state that those are the only things considered 'models'...
Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?
Clearly not.
The rules don't tell us that anything else is considered a model. Therefore, nothing else is considered a model. The term 'model' is applied solely to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000'

As I said, it depends on interprettation of the sentence. I see that sentence as specifying that the miniatures pictured in the rule book being used as examples will be reffered to as "models." If they wanted it to say that their miniatures will be the only miniatures used, then they would have stated it more specifically. Besides, it only says their miniatures, not their miniatures as provided or as intended. It doesn't say they can not be converted. It actually allows quite a liberal interpretation.

Skinnattittar wrote: I see that sentence as specifying that the miniatures pictured in the rule book being used as examples will be reffered to as "models."

Sure.

And I see it as meaning that the only model that you can use in Warhammer 40000 is the old Snotling model popping the bird.

Of course, that 'interpretation' isn't backed up by what's actually written there either... but why let that stop a good bit of rules lawyering?

If they wanted it to say that their miniatures will be the only miniatures used, then they would have stated it more specifically.

They would?

Remember, these are the people who forgot to mention what to do when a squad has mixed Leadership, and accidentally left the Access and Fire Points Appendix out...

It doesn't say they can not be converted.

There are a googleplex of things that the rulebook doesn't say you can't do.

Once again, that doesn't make them things that the rules allow.

Actually, my interpretation is pretty plain and simple without any stretching of anything. The sentence in question is pretty broad and not specific at al, just that the miniatures have to be the ones supplied by Citadel Miniatures for Warhammer 40,000. It doesn't say anything close to how they are prepared, used, or anything. You can assume this means they intend you to interpret this as saying "as pictured on the box/blister/codex" whatever, but you are just being foolish. Even a law professional would tell you that they are making no inferences to how you prepare the models for play with that sentence.

But if we were to use your interpretation, we would have to just place a pile of sprues and bare metal figures on the table, since that is all the Citadel Miniatures supplies.

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually, my interpretation is pretty plain and simple without any stretching of anything.

Really? So where do you get the part about it refering to the miniatures pictured in the rulebook from?

But if we were to use your interpretation, we would have to just place a pile of sprues and bare metal figures on the table, since that is all the Citadel Miniatures supplies.

If that makes you feel better.

This is probably a good time to remind you that this ridiculous RAW road down which we have trodden so far is not the way that I would suggest playing the game. It is simply the result of you trying to insert a loophole to get around a rule that nobody particularly bothers enforcing in the first place...

This stupid and really pointless argument is precisely why Games Workshop feels it needs to simplify and "dumb down" the rules.If people can argue for so long about what base size you are allowed to use,what hope is there of getting an in depth,detailed rule set?

it was a joke.

What I am defending is that the rulebook does not deny players the option of modifying WH40k miniatures, and that this allows players to use what base sizes they please, as long as they remain within the parameters that they are supplied (i.e.: if Heavy Bolter A uses 25mm bases standard, then Heavy Bolter B can as well, as long as Heavy Bolter B is used exactly the same in play as Heavy Bolter A). The opposition is enforcing that the rulebook states that you HAVE to use ONLY the miniatures AS they are supplied and "intended" by Citadel Miniatures (is Forge World carried by Citadel? If not, then those models and parts would be out as well).

Skinnattittar wrote:What I am defending is that the rulebook does not deny players the option of modifying WH40k miniatures,

And what you're ignoring is that it doesn't actually allow it, either.

Which makes it a dodgy place to start an argument.

Particularly an argument that's going to be completely uneccessary against the vast majority of opponents. Start in with some long-winded explanation about how your illegally based models are actually legal because of some obscure loophole that sounds like it's made up out of whole cloth, when all you actually needed to do was say 'Yep, they're based seperately because I prefer it that way... but I play them like this...(insert house rule adding rules governing how the team operates)' and all you're going to accomplish is to convince your opponent that you're a rules lawyer who needs to be watched closely in case you decide to trot out any more 'interpretations' like that in the middle of the game.

.

Yes, Hades, you can take three wounds and still have three heavy weapons that can fire. And concerning the bases, the big base is for convenience of movement according to the FAQ, so that you don't have to move two models, but have instead the option of moving just one. If you use the big base you should indicate where the two small bases would be for the two guardsmen for the purpose of being in range and plate coverage. If you don't, then you have to create house rules for how to manage them. Whatever says otherwise is not in the BGB, Imperial Guard Codex, or the FAQ, which is all that matters for RAW. For friendly gaming just be consistent and have fun*.

*Rule number 1 for gaming

Angst wrote:If you use the big base you should indicate where the two small bases would be for the two guardsmen for the purpose of being in range and plate coverage.

Not necessary at all.

The rules tell you how to measure range, and how to determine hits from templates and blasts.

Models sharing a base have no effect on how those rules work. Range is still measured in exactly the same way as for models 1 to a base, and blasts and template hits are likewise worked out exactly as normal.

The IG large double model bases do seem to be a wierd one in 40k, I don't think there are any other models that allow two indipendent models to share a base. So there are going to be some odd claims, such as instant death.

What sort of odd claims?

And why would Instant Death be a problem?

Hey, new here so don't bite my head off.

I was curious what people thought about this based on the differing opinions here.

Some say that there are three men with one heavy weapon each and three others that, while part of the crews, are essentially superflous for anything other than casualties.

Does this mean that a character like a Vindicare assassin could pick off the guardsmen with the heavy weapon leaving behind a regular guardsmen with a huge base?

Ventus wrote:Does this mean that a character like a Vindicare assassin could pick off the guardsmen with the heavy weapon leaving behind a regular guardsmen with a huge base?

If there were 3 'gunners' and 3 'loaders' then yes, the Vindicare would be able to pick one off.

That's not the way the teams work, though. The Heavy weapon is given to both models, not just one of them. Either of them can therefore fire it (It's generally assumed that they can't both fire it at the same time... this is a hole that they plugged with the Eldar weapon teams, but haven't fixed for Guard yet)... so the Assassin would have to kill both of them to silence the weapon.

But he could still kill off a whole team if there were three Heavy weapon bases left and one had a wound, right?

Also, could he kill of a whole team if he used his special round that deals two wounds?

Ventus wrote:But he could still kill off a whole team if there were three Heavy weapon bases left and one had a wound, right?

The base doesn't have a wound. They're two seperate models. Marking one with a wound means that one model is dead, not that the 'base' has a wound.

So yes, if the Assassin targets the model from the team that has already lost one member, there is only one to kill... so killing him kills the weapon.

Also, could he kill of a whole team if he used his special round that deals two wounds?

No. The team is comprised of two seperate models. The Turbo-Penetrator round inflicts two wounds on a single model.

insaniak wrote:What sort of odd claims?

And why would Instant Death be a problem?

That since it is one base, that means only one wound may be delivered to the models (a blast template weapon would only inflict one wound). Some have asked if they count as two wounds instead of two models. Things like that. I have had some people insist that the large base means it is two models acting as one in all senses, or that they count as one model so wounds can not be "handed around" to other models (if the HB team takes one wound, all subsequent wounds must first be applied to the HB team to remove it as soon as possible). Instant Death for people who think that the one based model means it is a two wound unit.

All of which are sorted by the FAQ pointing out that they are two seperate models.

Indeed, the team is in fact two separate models. This is why they are not classified as a multiple wound model and as such are not subject to the casualty removal rules for multi wound model units. It is unfortunate that the teams are based how they are as it contradicts and brings up constant rules issues.

However, guard players simply have to accept that the base counts as two models, so a template giving a partial on the base will actually be two partials. This is both hurtful (for the reason I just mentioned) and helpful, because it is incredibly difficult to cover two full teams with an ordinance template and utterly impossible to do with a blast. With the teams it's either all or nothing. If your play guard and dislike this, I'd recommend basing your heavy weapons separately like they used to be.

OK, this is getting a bit silly in my opinion, and while being silly I think there are still good arguments. So, from what I've come across and from what's written here's my answer -

the whle convert steel into cadian argument - while some may see this as cheating, I would say yes, go for it. Why? There's nothing (that I know of) in the IG codex saying that the whole army has to be from one founding. Indeed, as far as i am aware this 'themed' steel legion etc, came about with the release of steel legion 'rules' in WD and the plastic squad sets, making it easier and cheaper to theme an army around e.g. catachan. However, models could still be mixed. I used to play a catachan army, but used mordians for officers, command platoons etc and they blended in well. Why not do this for heavy weapon squads with the different 'costume' representing Health and Safety wear against the weapon - e.g. steel legion long coats being slight more heat resitant to protect the users from touching the hot weapon. No effect on the games, it would be assumed 'hot' weapons - flamers etc, are far hotter on the recieving end than the firing end, so the 'protective' clothing won't actually count as armour. There, you go, you don't have to use the big bases, you can use whatever as long as you don't mind different cloths in the army. On the other hand, convert the buggers! My admechs are half long coats and half cadian - which base could I use? Considering the combination now means that the models is technically supplied with boths choices I can use whatever i feel like.


If your not happy with that lets try the 'use with whats supplied'

cadians (don't quote me) are supplied with the large and small bases, if they don't come with the smal bases then maybe this is a GW mistake. But anyway - the large base is supplied for convience of movement, it doesn't say the models have to be attached to this base, just that they should be mounted on this base. The set comes with obvious modelling bits, sandbags etc that coincidently make a nice shapped 'pocket' for a normal base to fit in. When i make mine i will be mounting my CADIAN models on the small round bases, and then putting them on the large base for ease of movement. They are two seperate models (3 if you count thw eapon on the large bases as a diorama) and will be affected indiviaully rather than by the large base. Since rules affect models, NOT weapons, the model for the weapon is technically irrelevant, same as the sand backs are irrelevant, the only thing that matters are the guardsmen, who are treated as separate models, are modelled as separate models and for those really picky players are still mounted on the large base they are suppllied with.... You could actually do this with any founding - mordian, stel legion etc. In fact I know many people who do exactly the same thing in WFB with empire cannon crews! They don't argue about this sort of thing. They are seperate models on one base. And if someone does start moaning about 'blasts etc affect the large base 'cus thats what they iz mounteded on' then who cares - the chance of getting 1 partial from the large base being covered (50/50 chance with two dice) would usually give the same result as treating them as separte models and taking the one hit.

to sum up my opinion - use whatever base you want, whether you mount the squad on two small bases or one large base. if your going to a tournament and expect this problem could arise make a larger base to put underthem, or simple put a 'plain base' under them. end of the day the chance of them getting killed in omst circumstances is the same and the few exeptions are so rare they are realistically unlikly to affect the outcome of the game.

I have a question about IG Heavy Weapons Teams:

If I have a Heavy Weapon Team inside a Chimera, can the Heavy Weapon fire out of the Chimera using its Fire Point, or not?

Why wouldn't it be able to do so?

The Chimera entry (Page 45) mentions that "...one model may fire a weapon from the top hatch..."

I wasn't sure if this prohibited a Heavy Weapons Team from firing out of the Chimera's Fire Point, or not, because the Team is comprised of two models.

The team is comprised of two models... but only one of them fires the weapon each turn.

yes a team is two in the regular platoon squads but that does not mean it takes two to fire. I does not say that ANYWHERE. The 2nd guy could be there to smell the other one's farts as far as anyone else is concered. So yes. Why else would the rules say that they MAY FIRE A HEAVY WEAPON if the vehicle did not move.

If a girl (SoB) can carry a lascannon, then why can't one IG just carry the sinking thing.
Come on they PULL the lascannon around! LAZY IG!

The first Guardsmen fires his heavy weapon and the other one can fire his lasgun. SIMPLE!

Also the heavy weapon cannot be fired from the hatch of the chimera, only the six lasguns that are presented on the chimera may be fired. I found that out from GW staff. LOL

Um, a girl (SoB) can't carry a Lascannon. Sisters only have HB, HF, and MM as their heavy weapons.

Also, your GW staff are 'tards who need to RTFM. The IG Codex specifially states that a Guardsman may fire his weapon from the roof hatch on a Chimera. If that Guardsman is armed with a Heavy weapon, then he may fire it.

Individual SoBs can lug around heavy weapons because power armour aids in load-bearing etc. Plus, they're depicted as being much more hardcore than IG, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were marginally stronger even without.

Fair enough.

Should think of something else to say, but can't.

To contradict myself a couple of weeks back, i have seen on forgeworld models that it looks like it takes two people to fire a mortar, weird since it is one of the smallest weapons.