Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know there are some other people that have discussed this before but I just like to make sure since the IG codex doesn't seem to address basing heavy wep teams at all. I have done missile launcher teams where I have seen models in the codex where they just use two infantry bases, however if I wanted to do something else like autocannons, would it be a stretch of the rules to do the same thing? I'm thinking of putting the AC on one bases and the infantry shooting on the other, this would make it like a ML teams but can this be done? I dont want to model it and then be told that it is against the rules or something.

The main rule book says to use the base that the models are supplied with...

Now having said that, I personally would have no problem and do just that with my own heavy weapon teams.

(Espically since IG heavy weapons are the only ones that come on that stupidly large and unwieldly base)

Heavy weapons teams should be on a single base, as they are one single model with a combined statline.

jp400 wrote:The main rule book says to use the base that the models are supplied with...

Now having said that, I personally would have no problem and do just that with my own heavy weapon teams.

(Espically since IG heavy weapons are the only ones that come on that stupidly large and unwieldly base)

This is one place where the rules clearly conflict...the original models came with separate bases but the rules present only a single characteristic which can only be represented by a single base. And of course all the examples in the codex (including the old regiments) now show heavy weapons teams on a single base.

Of course, RAW they don't tell you what size the heavy weapons team base is, so technically I guess you could try to pass off only a single model (the one with the heavy weapon) as 'the team'...but again that does go against every example given in the codex so I wouldn't be surprised to see opponents and/or tournament organizers refuse to play you/refuse to allow it respectively.


If I ever bust out my Valhallan IG again (which all still have their heavy weapons on the separate bases they came with) I would hope my opponents would be okay with playing via house rule:

I'll keep both the Heavy Weapon team models on the table within 2" of each other at all times (even if the team has suffered one wound...I'll still keep both models there and mark them with a 'wound' counter) and if *either* model is hit by a blast/template or engaged in close combat then the 'team' counts as being hit/engaged.

djdutton wrote:I know there are some other people that have discussed this before but I just like to make sure since the IG codex doesn't seem to address basing heavy wep teams at all. I have done missile launcher teams where I have seen models in the codex where they just use two infantry bases, however if I wanted to do something else like autocannons, would it be a stretch of the rules to do the same thing? I'm thinking of putting the AC on one bases and the infantry shooting on the other, this would make it like a ML teams but can this be done? I dont want to model it and then be told that it is against the rules or something.

They need to be on the base that they are supplied with which is a 60mm base for the team. (including missile launchers)

There are no examples of teams on separate bases in the current codex.

Having them on separate bases creates a huge advantage when being attacked by template or blast weapons.

If you really want to model them separate, I would carry the 60mm bases with you in case you have an opponent that objects. (which I suspect you will)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Heavy weapons teams should be on a single base, as they are one single model with a combined statline.

Tell you what, if you are willing to replace my 100+ weapon teams, I will gladly upgrade.

yakface wrote:
I'll keep both the Heavy Weapon team models on the table within 2" of each other at all times (even if the team has suffered one wound...I'll still keep both models there and mark them with a 'wound' counter) and if *either* model is hit by a blast/template or engaged in close combat then the 'team' counts as being hit/engaged.

This is pretty much how I currently play my guard. I count the guy sitting on the weapon as 1, and the loader as the other. I just keep the two models within 2''. However, I treat the 2nd man as nothing more then a wound counter. When the squad takes a wound (and somehow magically survives thanks to gw's nerf) I just remove the loader.

Been doing this all 5th so far and have YET to run across anyone (other then certain users on this forum) who have had a problem with doing this.

SIgh. The tired "pay for me to change" argument.

Technically you cannot field both models, as you are only allowed one model now. You are also gaining a huge advantage by having them on seperate 25mm bases. The 60mm bases help offset some of the huge advantages of cheap weapon teams.

jp400 wrote:

yakface wrote:
I'll keep both the Heavy Weapon team models on the table within 2" of each other at all times (even if the team has suffered one wound...I'll still keep both models there and mark them with a 'wound' counter) and if *either* model is hit by a blast/template or engaged in close combat then the 'team' counts as being hit/engaged.

This is pretty much how I currently play my guard. I count the guy sitting on the weapon as 1, and the loader as the other. I just keep the two models within 2''. However, I treat the 2nd man as nothing more then a wound counter. When the squad takes a wound (and somehow magically survives thanks to gw's nerf) I just remove the loader.

Been doing this all 5th so far and have YET to run across anyone (other then certain users on this forum) who have had a problem with doing this.

+1. The few times I actually use Heavy Weapons they are all the old metal Catachan versions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SIgh. The tired "pay for me to change" argument.

Technically you cannot field both models, as you are only allowed one model now. You are also gaining a huge advantage by having them on seperate 25mm bases. The 60mm bases help offset some of the huge advantages of cheap weapon teams.

Sigh.... the tired (and old) flamebait argument.
Don't you ever get tired of going out of your way to pick fights with others on the forum here?


Technically I can. I can read the brb just fine, and it says that I must field my models with the bases provided. I am doing just that. As for "Cheap" weapons, you are conveniently forgetting that they are mounted on a Bs3 T3 5+ model. Oh god sooooooooooooo scary.

Except the heavy weapons team is ONE MODEL. Not two. So field just the heavy bolter, not the loader.

You started with a bait argument of "pay for me to change". Dont you get tired of doing that?

Yes they are cheap - 3 autocannons with handy TL from the 50 point command squad is very cheap. Who cares that they are on T3 models? They are, 90% of the time in cover (so a 4+ save) and cost damn near nothing. Oh, and theyre scoring, so can happily sit on objectives all game. They are undercosted - not severely so - but part of their counter balance is that they are on BIIIIIG bases, making it harder to place them where you want and easier to hit with blasts.

Looks like one model to me, and others on here agree. It is not my/our fault that you can't wrap your head around this concept.

jp400 wrote:Tell you what, if you are willing to replace my 100+ weapon teams, I will gladly upgrade.

Why would you need to replace them? Cut a 60mm circle of card, sit them on it and 'voila', problem solved.

Scott-S6 wrote:

jp400 wrote:Tell you what, if you are willing to replace my 100+ weapon teams, I will gladly upgrade.

Why would you need to replace them? Cut a 60mm circle of card, sit them on it and 'voila', problem solved.

(Was trying to prove a point that not everyone is made of money. Nos has used the argument in the past that people should not use the older models and only use the most up to date ones. I actually carry a single base with me which I use when placing units/seeing if the enemy is in charge range ect)

Actually I *havent* made that argument. Please find quotes from somewhere to back that assertion up.

I just want people to correctly represent them as one model.

BTW your picture shows 2 models, as there are two bases. Try to wrap your head around that concept.

There is absolutely no reason you two need to snipe at each other about this. Make your points without the insults (implied or otherwise) and be done with it.

Modquisition on. Disagreements can be made but keep them polite and relevant to the actual point, and not other posters.

JP400; 2 bits.

1) Rules wise the team is 1 model, nos is 100% correct.

2) Also Rules wise; you have older models that have 2-25mm bases. You should be happy about this. You say you have 100+ HWTs? Good, you now have 100+ extra basic guardsmen.Having never gotten into guard myself until the new HWT models came out, I had originally based all my HWT members separately to begin with(I found the idea of dealing with 2 models on 1 base stupid and too much of a pain) one on the giant base with the gun, and one on a 25mm base. now that the 5th edition codex came out and the "team" became 1 model I had a bunch of extra basic guardsmen(and since HWS are less effective than large blobs, you can see where i went with this).


In short: Enjoy your extra guardsmen and use the bases your models came with. the rules are all very clear and work to your(and mine) financial advantage.


oh, yeah. OP: the "in short" applies to you as well Large base for the gun and gunner, free model you need to get a base for(bags of bases are cheap and every one should get at least one for a myriad of projects anyways)

Hah! Ninja'd by Yakface.

Honestly, I just use blue tack to stick the Launcher/Cannon model and another random guardsman onto the 60mm base. I can swap out the weapons whenever I want, and the 2nd guardsman gets removed as a wound counter.

Old heavy weapon IG teams and old terminators always cause problems. if you're using the current cadian and catachan plastics, 60mm is the only legal choice you have as the rules clearly state that you use the bases provided. if you've got the older metal teams, they came with varied bases from 25mm to cavalry bases (for missle launchers) to no base at all for the weapon carriages (including some that were mounted by a gunner) so the answer is a bit more complex. the easiest way is to simply keep them in base contact with the other team member (2" is a bit too dissimilar to a 60mm base IMO). this method is free and intuitive and is an easy wound counter since you just remove the gunner for the first wound. this isn't perfect though since two smaller bases don't have the exact footprint as a 60mm one. the next option is to keep your bases and just place a 60mm under the ones you're currently using. this is a relatively low effort but costly "conversion" and gives your opponent the same footprint for the team; the only downside is that it does look a bit ugly (see my pic below). ideally, the best (and most expensive) way to deal with the problem is to completely rebase all the teams to the 60mm bases that concur with the current plastics. my IG teams are the plastic variety but were bought back in 3rd edition where you could mount them in varied ways so i used smaller bases simply to carry them easily in my carrying case. with the new codex, 60mm is the way to go and *technically* the way i should have them mounted since i have the current plastics. until i could go about changing them, i used the base to base method and then the extra 60mm base underneath when i got the chance to acquire and paint up the extra bases.

The correct way, per the current codex stats and model, is a single model on a 60mm.

If you don't want to cut off your old bases, mounting them on top of a 60mm works fine.

If cost is an issue, cutting a 60mm circle out of cardboard and putting your old guys on top of it also functions fine for game purposes.

As already stated, cept for a select few on dakka dakka, I have never EVER run into this problem in real life.

I still stand by the fact that people are making mountains out of mole hills.

Good day.

jp400 wrote:Technically I can. I can read the brb just fine, and it says that I must field my models with the bases provided. I am doing just that.

The difference to most other situations is that the rules for HWTs have changed significantly along with the different base. Where in general it makes no huge difference to the game if you're using an older model on a 25mm base that has been updated with something else, Guard teams went from being two separate models to being one model. So the correct approach rules-wise would be to re-base your teams to fit the new rules.

Yes, that may seem 'unfair'... but no more so than it was for all of the marine players who had to replace arms on their entire armies when it no longer became legal to field a whole bunch of previously available weapons. Or had to replace their Razorback turrets when the las/plas disappeared. It's just one of the side-effects of an evolving ruleset... sometimes you're going to have to alter your models if you want them to continue to fit the rules.


Having said that, if you and the people you play with are fine with just creating a house rule so that re-basing them is not necessary, that's also perfectly acceptable.

jp400 wrote:As already stated, cept for a select few on dakka dakka, I have never EVER run into this problem in real life.

I still stand by the fact that people are making mountains out of mole hills.

Good day.

Part of the point of YMDC is to talk about issues which we wouldn't want to waste valuable play time on when we're actually at the table. Especially when playing someone who's not a close friend, there can also be a social pressure not to want to be "that guy" and object to something unless it's really a serious problem. I'd rather avoid putting my opponent in the position of being unhappy with my basing, but too polite to bring it up. See my comments in the round vs. square thread about my daemons.

The Cadian heavy weapon teams have come with the single base for a number of years now, but the new IG codex was the first time they actually changed the rules to make it a single model in game terms. So while the question has been popping up for as long as the Cadians have been around, it's only since the newest codex came out that the issue became a little more significant in terms of play.

Mannahnin wrote:The Cadian heavy weapon teams have come with the single base for a number of years now, but the new IG codex was the first time they actually changed the rules to make it a single model in game terms. So while the question has been popping up for as long as the Cadians have been around, it's only since the newest codex came out that the issue became a little more significant in terms of play.

Although the last codex also raised issue with separately-based models, by not having rules governing how the team functioned if separately based. Endless arguments there regarding just where your individual team members were allowed to be that I for one don't miss

yakface wrote:
Of course, RAW they don't tell you what size the heavy weapons team base is, so technically I guess you could try to pass off only a single model (the one with the heavy weapon) as 'the team'...but again that does go against every example given in the codex so I wouldn't be surprised to see opponents and/or tournament organizers refuse to play you/refuse to allow it respectively.

Nope, I've never had a problem with it using my old RT-era IG Heavy Weapon "gunner" as the single 2-wound model.

why does this come up every three days? can no one search on this forum anymore? or under stand that basing is pretty easy, the included bases are for the minis in the pack? maybe even using the codexes as a reference tool might work as well?

don_mondo wrote:

yakface wrote:

jp400 wrote:
Of course, RAW they don't tell you what size the heavy weapons team base is, so technically I guess you could try to pass off only a single model (the one with the heavy weapon) as 'the team'...but again that does go against every example given in the codex so I wouldn't be surprised to see opponents and/or tournament organizers refuse to play you/refuse to allow it respectively.

Nope, I've never had a problem with it using my old RT-era IG Heavy Weapon "gunner" as the single 2-wound model.

LoL, Wut?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:why does this come up every three days? can no one search on this forum anymore?

It comes up because people aren't sure about it. And the Search function is, unfortunately, still a little buggy.

or under stand that basing is pretty easy, the included bases are for the minis in the pack? maybe even using the codexes as a reference tool might work as well?

The issue comes up because people still have the older teams that came on separate bases. As has already been explained.

jp400 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

yakface wrote:
Of course, RAW they don't tell you what size the heavy weapons team base is, so technically I guess you could try to pass off only a single model (the one with the heavy weapon) as 'the team'...but again that does go against every example given in the codex so I wouldn't be surprised to see opponents and/or tournament organizers refuse to play you/refuse to allow it respectively.

Nope, I've never had a problem with it using my old RT-era IG Heavy Weapon "gunner" as the single 2-wound model.

LoL, Wut?

I use a single HW model (the old shoulder mounted heavy weapons) on a regular infantry sized base as the 2-wound heavy weapon 'team'. It's mounted on the base it came with.