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.

This thread is an attempt to lay the whole ‘Large base vs Seperately based’ issue to rest.  Hopefully, the result of this thread will be a clear understanding of the way IG Heavy Weapon teams should be played or simply the conclusion that there really is no clear way to use them (discuss with opponents beforehand).

 

Here are the relevant items as I see them:

 

1. Two guardsmen form a heavy weapon team.  These two guardsmen are armed with a single heavy weapon.

 

Does this mean that both crewmen are required to operate the weapon?  I know I’ve read that somewhere they aren’t, but I’m afraid that was in an outdated book or something as I can’t seem to find it anywhere now.  If both are operating the weapon then do they both need range and LOS?  What happens when one of them is killed?

 

1. When drawing LOS to a target the firer must be able to trace a line from its eyes to the main body of the target.  -OR- If playing magic cylinder the base of the model is simply a cylinder up to the height of the model able to be fired at whether or not the actual firing models eyes can see the actual target models main body.

 

Does this mean that two models that are based together have two bodies?  Must both of the bodies be in LOS for a shot to be valid?  If only one body is in LOS can only one wound ever be scored on the base?

 

1. The plastic Cadian teams and the (new) Catachan teams are supplied with a large base.  The FAQ tells us that this base is to hold both crewman and that they should be treated as two separate models based together for convenience of movement.

 

What if I feel it is less convenient to move them together on the same base?  In the IG codex the only teams pictured on large bases are the new Cadians.  Are the (old) Catachan, Preatorian, Tallarn, etc to be left based separately?  Some teams even have an unbased model straddling a wheeled heavy weapon.  What are we to do with them?  If some IG are to be based together and some are not what are the rules differences (if any) for them?

 

Hopefully these questions can be answered with the combined knowledge on this forum.  I am having a heck of a time with this though.

 

For those who care why I want to do this:

 

This all came about when I recently had a heated debate with a player about how my understanding was that a heavy weapon could not be silenced with a single wound.  I base mine separately, so if the miniature actually modeled as using the weapon is sniped for whatever reason (range, LOS, ability) the weapon just moves to the other model or the “gunner” model is just placed where the “loader” model was.  I felt that this was a good trade off for being able to place my teams in tighter areas than if they were on the large base.  When the “gunner” is killed the team must waste a turn moving the “loader” back into position or simply accept the weapons new position even though it probably won’t have as effective of a field of fire.  I actually agreed that I would base my teams together but that by strict RAW the situation would be even worse for him.  If his firing model’s eyes can’t see the main body of both crewmen only one of them can take the hit(s) leaving one still alive to man the weapon.  The difference between this and the separate base method is that now I don’t have to move anything.  I can just mark the base with a wound and keep on firing.  He didn’t agree with this either.  The issue was dropped, but as I thought about it more I became annoyed that I should even have to base my teams together just to appease my opponent when there really is no clear direction on the matter.

IMO... (what a way to start a post)...

Modelling them on the same base is just as GW says, out of convenience. Modelling them separately is probably better off in the long run.

The fact that GW has "two members" creating a team is to remove both of them from the rest of the unit while assigning other special items. I.E. they don't want unscrupulous players giving a member of the lascannon team a plasmagun, vox, sniper rifle etc... but both members of said team are not needed to fire it. Needing both members is assumption and not supported by the rules. If one member of the team were to be killed then the rule should state what happens t the firing rate/weapon when that occurs. But the rules do NOT specify so you revert back to the fact that there is one more model left to fire the weapon.

I have always stayed away from this particular debate due to it's unusual ability to grow very heated very quickly. BUT your initial post was so well done that I feel I can post and not worry about getting too much into it.

But there is no rule stating that all weapon teams MUST be mounted on a single base, in fact the BBoR says the opposite about bases. You use the base the model(s) come with. If you use the older models you are not required to now put them on one base.

EDIT: Also one last thing, due to coherency restrictions, would you count the large base if you used one or the model itself? Remember the large base is used out of convenience only and not in regards to the rules. Per the Codex the models are still considered separate.... GW needs to rethink this when redoing the new Guard dex.

"Remember the large base is used out of convenience only and not in regards to the rules."

That would have to be the most frequently misquoted FAQ in GW history.

They have never said that the large base is for convenience 'only'... merely that they are based that way 'for convenience'

What's the difference? Well, adding the 'only' on there suggests that convenience is the 'only' reason for it. Which we simply don't know to be the case.

But the reason for the basing is irrelevant anyway. Nowhere in the rules does it suggest that models based a particular way 'for convenience' are treated any differently to any other model. So the rules on base sizes and measurement apply to them just the same as any other model.

Thanks for responding guys! I was afraid my starting post was too long winded for anyone to care to read it!

I agree that assuming they are based together only for convenience is an assumption. However, it's the only reason they give us so what are we to make of it? The fact that they use teams that aren't based together in their codex examples seems to illustrate that it isn't considered standard for the IG.

I also agree that measurements can be easily translated to a single base containing multiple models. What can't be translated well is LOS to and from models that share a base. Even if we can resolve that issue it doesn't get us any closer to figuring out how the crewmen function with their single heavy weapon pertaining to these issues. If based together we measure from the single base. If based seperately we measure from either base? If not based we measure from the nearest crewman that is based? As I said earlier, without GW actually coming out and telling us how two crewmen operate a single heavy weapon we are left in a strange place.

Maybe I'm trying to bite off to big a chunk at one time. Maybe we should just start by attacking a single topic, then move on to the next. How about arguing that even though the team consists of two crewmen, only one is necessary to operate the weapon. Does anyone have any evidence that this is the case? This might be a good place to start because if it turnsout that both crewman are needed to operate the weapon most of the other points become moo (like a cow's opinion).

Ok, then which base should the HW teams then be on? The one big one or the two small ones?

So because "only" is not there that automatically means that the statement changes all together. IMO, the statement "Out of convenience" should have no bearing on the rules, but then again this wasn't well thought out. So what is the requirement here? No bases, big bases, small bases, flying stands? It seems to me that GW tried to make "do whatever you want" into a rule.... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you model something out of convenience then that would be different than modelling it out of requirements, "only" would then not even be needed.

Take what I am saying with a grain of salt, I am thinking way outside the box on this one. Normally you and I definitely agree Insaniak so don't think I am arguing a solid point. Just trying to debate the entire prospect? meh, I don't even know. Why do we play this game again?

 

EDIT: This quote right here is what I am trying to break down into my "what the hell was GW thinking" errata...  What can't be translated well is LOS to and from models that share a base.

That right there is what kills me about it. So we use the base for everything but then again it has two separate models on it. What is to stop me from placing two more models on the area of the large base that the two gunners are not on? The base is modelling that way for convenience and the models already on it are considered separate so why can't I just keep stacking other models on it "out of convenience".

For that matter what is to stop me from making movement trays for entire units using the exact coherency measurement of 2", out of convenience AND THEN why couldn't I start measuring from the movement tray like you would for a Heavy Weapons Team placed on a large base "Out of convenience"?

Glaive Company CO
"I agree that assuming they are based together only for convenience is an assumption. However, it's the only reason they give us so what are we to make of it?"

Why make anything of it? Again, the reasons for a model being on a particular base have no bearing on the rules. It was simply a throw-away comment, as a part of the explanation that they are seperate models.

Rules-wise, all that matters is that they are seperate models.


"What can't be translated well is LOS to and from models that share a base."

Sure it can. It works exactly the same way it works for any other model. LOS is drawn from the model's eye, and to the model's body.



"If based together we measure from the single base. If based seperately we measure from either base? "

And therein lies the actual problem.

I believe (and yes, it's only my opinion) that the current codex was written with the single, large base in mind. They didn't add rules for individually-based teams, because they didn't consider them within the context of the new codex... we're all supposed to be using the new Cadians and Catachans, so all our teams are on large bases.

If you take that assumption, then the codex contains pretty much all the rules it needs. It could be clearer on some things, but there is no need for rules covering which model has the weapon, how close the two team-members need to be to each other, what happens if one dies, etc.

You simply have two models on a base, who can each use the heavy weapon that is assigned to the team. (I say assigned to the 'team' because that is what the codex does. There is no 'loader' and 'gunner'... just two guys and a gun)


"How about arguing that even though the team consists of two crewmen, only one is necessary to operate the weapon."

I would say that is the case simply becuase that's how it normally works, and there are no rules to the contrary in the guard codex. A model can fire his weapon in the shooting phase... so either of the models can fire the heavy weapon, since they both have it.

Actually, technically speaking there, they BOTH should be able to fire the heavy weapon each shooting phase, since they both have it... but that's getting a little silly for my liking.

If one of them dies, the other can still fire his heavy weapon, because it belongs to them both.



DaIronGob
"What is to stop me from placing two more models on the area of the large base that the two gunners are not on?"

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this. A more important question would be what difference do you think it would have on gameplay?


"For that matter what is to stop me from making movement trays for entire units using the exact coherency measurement of 2", out of convenience AND THEN why couldn't I start measuring from the movement tray like you would for a Heavy Weapons Team placed on a large base "Out of convenience"?"

Again, there is nothing stopping you from doing this. Just bear in mind that it works both ways. You get one measurement, but so does your opponent... His flamers suddenly start hitting your entire squad at once, and blasts likewise gain a partial against the entire unit.


The fact that you CAN do something doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

Oddly enough, I find modelling two people on a single base far more inconvenient. I've modelled all my plastic HW (other than Missile Launchers), on large bases, but the 2nd crewman is always on a separate base. That's far more convenient for deployment and casualty removal than two men stuck on a single base.

BYE

Ever wonder why you would actually NEED to have a giant light manned by two people? I mean, it isn't like a lascannon is going to have any kick.

Depends on how it actually works. Some of the laser rifle/cannon prototypes floating around actually have considerable recoil, due to the movement of gasses within the weapon.

You don't man a weapon with two people because of recoil. You have two people to speed up reload time and help lug the big sumbich and its ammo around (and in the case of modern machinguns, to help change barrels).

Anyways, this issue has never been clear to me (as I don't own the IG codex) and this thread hasn't really helped. Do you treat a heavy weapon team as two models, even though they share a base? Do you treat them as a two wound model? What about torrent of fire or range/LOS sniping? I apologize if this is clearly explained in the IG codex.

in game play terms, two seperate models with one on the HW, as the used to be, is much easier to use. They fit into terrain easier, there is less fighting about LOS, and the models are easier to trasport, and as HBMC mentioned, are easier to handle when pulling casualites.

I would be willing to bet, however, that the minds at GW decided to go with the large base because it is more pleaseing asthetically. It offers the oppertunity for neat conversions and little mini dioramas. It does make for weird rules situations, but I have always played it as two seperate models that happen to share a base, where only one man is neccisary to operate the weapon. the first casuality that the base suffers is always the loader and his death does not affect the weapons functionality in any way (baring a possible morale test). templates will always affect both troopers, and LOS is drawn from the weapon, as i play it, just to make it easy. I put a wound counte on the model to show that the loader is dead. I find that this works well and as long as you arent playing an arse, it stifles any arguments. Just make sure to point that out BEFORE you start playing.

"Anyways, this issue has never been clear to me (as I don't own the IG codex) and this thread hasn't really helped. Do you treat a heavy weapon team as two models, even though they share a base? Do you treat them as a two wound model? What about torrent of fire or range/LOS sniping? I apologize if this is clearly explained in the IG codex."

It's not explained in the codex, but WAS explained in the FAQ. They're two seperate models that share a base. So they're wounded seperately.

Torrent of Fire can remove one of them, but you'll still have to kill the other as well to stop the weapon from firing.

Posted By insaniak on 09/06/2006 3:55 PM
DaIronGob
"What is to stop me from placing two more models on the area of the large base that the two gunners are not on?"

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this. A more important question would be what difference do you think it would have on gameplay?


"For that matter what is to stop me from making movement trays for entire units using the exact coherency measurement of 2", out of convenience AND THEN why couldn't I start measuring from the movement tray like you would for a Heavy Weapons Team placed on a large base "Out of convenience"?"

Again, there is nothing stopping you from doing this. Just bear in mind that it works both ways. You get one measurement, but so does your opponent... His flamers suddenly start hitting your entire squad at once, and blasts likewise gain a partial against the entire unit.

I knew we were saying the same thing.... how in the heck could I have missed it? *falls over* I tell you what, I am tired.

 

'k, this is just the way I've been playing it personally:

I just magnet both HW crewmen to the large base with the heavy weapon on it. If I take one casualty to the base, then I remove the guy who isn't squatting down firing the gun. I treat them as an Eldar squad heavy weapon team - two equivalent crewmen each of whom can operate the gun on their own. They're just modeled as gunner and crewman for looks.

I measure LOS to/from either model. If only one of the two models can be seen, only one wound can be scored on the base. Ranges are measured to/from the large base, as is coherency and engagement in assault.

A blast partial on the base is a partial on each crewmen (roll two dice). A flamer template that touches the large base gets both guys. A blast/large blast marker must cover the entire large base in order to get 2 certain hits - otherwise it's two partials.


BTW, the reason I magnet the 'gunner' down as well as the 'loader' is so that I can get more use out of a HW box - I can glue down 4 weapons (LC/AC/HB/Mrtr), each to its own large base, and then just place the crewmen on which ever one I want to use for that game. The MLs I model on standing Cadians.

I think we can all accept insaniak's argument for only needing one crewman to operate the weapon. That makes sense to me. By accepting that we can also accept that the team can still fire after losing a wound/crewman (in other words it takes two wounds to silenc an IG heavy weapon). So, let's move on to the more foggy issues. Ugh!

Glaive: "What can't be translated well is LOS to and from models that share a base."

Insaniak: "Sure it can. It works exactly the same way it works for any other model. LOS is drawn from the model's eye, and to the model's body."

(in the spirit of the theoretical 'movement tray' method) Yes, but which one? If a vindicare snipes a guardsman based normally holding a plasma gun the squad is going to lose a plasma gun. If a vindicare snipes a guardsman holding a plasma gun that shares a base with a guardsman picking his nose the nosepicker is getting it. The problem everyone has (myself included) is that there is actually a firing model and a loader/spotter model. The situation would actually be easier to deal with if the base juat used two "Cadian at ease" poses glued to it without a heavy weapon anywhere around. That way no one would ever know which crewman was firing the weapon and which one was just there for wounds. Remember, this only matters because we are assuming that even though both crewmen are armed with the weapon only one may use it per turn. So we have to decide which one is actually the "firer" at that time and base our LOS accordingly.

I also can't agree with the theory that GW intended on everyone using the big base from now on. I mean, why use examples of heavy weapon teams pictured on seperate bases in the codex? I guess we've seen wierder things from them, but that just seems over the top. This is one of those things that we won't know for sure unless they tell us though.

Strangelooper: "I measure LOS to/from either model. If only one of the two models can be seen, only one wound can be scored on the base. Ranges are measured to/from the large base, as is coherency and engagement in assault."

That's the way I actually assumed the two crewmen on one base to work, but my opponent seemed so mad about it that I had to question it. Only the guy modeled as the "gunner" is visible so the team takes a wound. The base is marked and the team keeps on firing without losing LOS or having to change position itself. Or is that a cheat by trying to exploit a vague rule? Since the FAQ tells us to treat the team as two seperate models and only models in LOS and range can be casualties maybe the remaining team member doe have to move forward on the base to retain his own LOS.

Everything else you say in your post is what I assumed as well. I was even going to use magnets on my crewmen too, but there is another strange occurence there. If the team has no LOS unless one of the magnetized crewmen is re-positioned is that accepteable? Certainly there is no rule preventing a model from moving within the confines of it's own base, or spinning the base. After trying to wrap my brain around this it seems that the best way to play is to assume that the whole base is just a big 2 wound blob. Of course, the FAQ fixes that by telling us that they are seperate models. Aaargh!

How about this: How do the rest of you guys that use teams based seperately play? I've described how I do it. I want to know how you guys deal with sniping of your "gunners" since that seems to be the major hangup with the issue.

And thanks again everyone for helping me out with this. I'm trying to keep this from becoming a rant, but it's slowly driving me mad!

I like HBMC's idea of putting the HW and the gunner model on the large base, while keeping the second crewman/loader on a separate base. It would make sense though if when the HW gunner is sniped, that you remove the loader instead, rather than move the HW to the position of the loader (it is assumed that the loader moves over to the unmanned gun and continues firing.

On that note, I have a question about the second crewman/loader. Is he a dedicated ammo carrier, or is he simply a guardsman with a lasgun that also lugs around an ammo case? In other words, a HW team of 3 Heavy Bolters gets its 9 HB shots, but does it also have 3 lasguns provided by the loaders/spotters? The thought just jumped into my mind after looking at the Elysian Drop Troops. Their Sniper Teams have spotters, and in real life there is usually a spotter for a sniper unit that has a basic weapon for unexpected encounters with unanticipated targets.

Not that three lasguns are gonna kill anything, but I just wanted to clarify.

CK

Well it depends on how you look at it.

The heavy weapon team consists of two men armed with a single weapon. So, if one is killed by torrent of fire, the weapon remains as two men are armed with the same weapon. The reverse of that comes when you want to fire the loader's lasgun. If it's one HW with two men using it, and you can kill one but the weapon stays, wouldn't you then require both men not to move or shoot in order to fire the HW, even though its one gun.

I mean, if someone wanted to fire their extra Lasgun, I wouldn't stop them, but technically I think that both men will be required to fire the single HW, as that is the weapon they have.

Then again, the rules don't say anything about this either way, but that's GW for you. They just write the rules, expect people to remember 2nd Ed, and run with it. Thank Christ they fired Pete Haines before he could get his mitts on any other lists...

BYE

"If a vindicare snipes a guardsman based normally holding a plasma gun the squad is going to lose a plasma gun. If a vindicare snipes a guardsman holding a plasma gun that shares a base with a guardsman picking his nose the nosepicker is getting it."

Nope. In both cases, the Vindicare can choose which model to kill. The fact they share a base makes no difference to the Vindicare's abilty to choose a target, since choosing a target has nothing to do with a model's base.

What makes the Heavy Weapons Team different is that removing one of the two models makes no difference to the weapon. The other can still fire it, so it makes no difference which is removed. That's nothing to do with them being on the same base... it's simply to do with them both having the weapon.

Having them on the same base does nothing more than eliminate confusion over which model is firing the gun... It simply doesn't matter. You just mark the base with a wound, and keep on firing, regardless of which model is dead.



"Remember, this only matters because we are assuming that even though both crewmen are armed with the weapon only one may use it per turn. So we have to decide which one is actually the "firer" at that time and base our LOS accordingly."

But it doesn't matter which of them is firing on a particular turn. Treat them like Eldar Heavy Platforms, where the weapon itself is in fact nothing more than a marker that says 'Hey, this squad has a heavy weapon'

The actual position of the weapon is irrelevant. It can be in the hands of one of the two models. They can both be sharing it. It can be sitting up a tree on the other side of the base. Nothing in the rules says that a model has to be physically holding a weapon in order to fire it... they just have to be equipped with the weapon by the rules. Which in the case of the Guard Team, is the case... both models are equipped with the weapon, so either may fire it, regardless of which model is physically holding it.


That's another reason for the combined base. Seperately based teams, at either end of a unit, lead to all sorts of nastiness without house rules covering which of them can fire the weapon.




"I also can't agree with the theory that GW intended on everyone using the big base from now on. I mean, why use examples of heavy weapon teams pictured on seperate bases in the codex?"

For the same reason they frequently include pictures of illegal armies in the codexes and rulebooks... they use whatever they have on hand that will look good in a picture, regardless of how it fits the rules.



"Since the FAQ tells us to treat the team as two seperate models and only models in LOS and range can be casualties maybe the remaining team member doe have to move forward on the base to retain his own LOS."

If only one of the models is in LOS, then that model would have to be the one to die. But the other model doesn't have to move anywhere... He already has the heavy weapon, so far as the rules are concerned, so you just draw LOS from that model from now on, rather than choosing either of them.


"Certainly there is no rule preventing a model from moving within the confines of it's own base, "

There is no rule allowing it, either. Which is the more important point, within the confines of a set of game rules. Without a rule allowing you to alter a model during the game, you can not do so.

insaniak: "The actual position of the weapon is irrelevant. It can be in the hands of one of the two models. They can both be sharing it. It can be sitting up a tree on the other side of the base. Nothing in the rules says that a model has to be physically holding a weapon in order to fire it... they just have to be equipped with the weapon by the rules. Which in the case of the Guard Team, is the case... both models are equipped with the weapon, so either may fire it, regardless of which model is physically holding it.


That's another reason for the combined base. Seperately based teams, at either end of a unit, lead to all sorts of nastiness without house rules covering which of them can fire the weapon."

I don't know which way you're going here. If both models are sharing the weapon and that is our RAW interpretation then no house rule is ever necessary to determine who is firing the weapon. In fact, we don't even have to model a weapon at all since it seems to be just a marker anyways. We can just have two guys in the squad who are our crewmen and decide wich one is going to be used for LOS and Range when they fire just like we do if they were modelled on the same base. I'm probably misunderstanding you but that seems to be what you're saying.

"If only one of the models is in LOS, then that model would have to be the one to die. But the other model doesn't have to move anywhere... He already has the heavy weapon, so far as the rules are concerned, so you just draw LOS from that model from now on, rather than choosing either of them. "

So, we don't mark the base with a wound? We have to keep track of which model on the base is the dead one and which isn't? Again, I may be misunderstnding you so please correct me if I'm wrong.

""Certainly there is no rule preventing a model from moving within the confines of it's own base, "

There is no rule allowing it, either. Which is the more important point, within the confines of a set of game rules. Without a rule allowing you to alter a model during the game, you can not do so."

That makes sense. I suppose the magnet bases are a bad idea then.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to reach a solid conclusion here.

"I don't know which way you're going here. If both models are sharing the weapon and that is our RAW interpretation then no house rule is ever necessary to determine who is firing the weapon."

The point is that the rules (or lack thereof) assume (in my opinion) that the models are sharing a base. In that situation, it doesn't matter who has the weapon, as they are never more than about an inch apart.

If you have the models based seperately, a HW Team in a regular guard squad can be split up with a model at each end of the unit, allowing a much greater field of LOS. It doesn't seem likely that this is what was intended... they're not going to be chucking the weapon from one end of the unit to the other depending on who wants to fire it.

So RAW, having the models at either end of the unit and firing the weapon from either is allowed... but I personally don't think it's the way to play it. So when playing with teams seperately based, I'd want a house rule saying that they have to stay within 2" of each other.


Again, that's based on my opinion that the rules are intended to work for teams on a single base, rather than sperately based.



"So, we don't mark the base with a wound? We have to keep track of which model on the base is the dead one and which isn't? "

It depends on how the wound is inflicted. In the normal course of things, it really makes no more difference which trooper you remoe than it does which lasgunner you remove from the rest of the unit.

It's only when the attack singles out a particular model that you would need to mark which individual member of the team dies. But that only affects LOS... the other model can still fire the weaspon, regardless of where he is on the base.



"That makes sense. I suppose the magnet bases are a bad idea then."

No, the magnet bases are a good idea, since they're the easiest way of keeping track of wounds. When the team takes a wound, you just pull one of the models off. If they're both magnetised, as suggested earlier, than either can be removed, as appropriate to the situation.

So it sounds like whether we base the teams seperately or not the most consistent way to play it is that the weapon actually changes hands between the crewmen. This is actually a misnomer because both crewman are using the weapon at all times anyways, but it will seem that way because only one of them is actually modelled as firing it.

I've actually alway had sort of a self imposed 2" crew coherency rule for my teams so I think that's about as good as it gets.

The only real issue is the sniping attacks and that's what brought this whole issue about anyways. I still don't think I'll be basing my guys together unless GW actually tells me to. Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll be on vacation for a while so I won't be getting online frequently. Unless anyone else has any issue with this I think we can call this one as good as it gets. Wihout clear direction from GW we won't know for anything for sure, but I would say that these things we know.

1. Even though both crewmen are armed with the weapon it only takes one to fire it.
2. Either crewman can be used as the firer for LOS and range purposes.
3. The weapon will only be unuseable if BOTH crewmen are killed.

Thread necromancy! (it wasnt very hard since it wasnt very old)

The new FAQ fixes the LOS issue since its from the barrel of the gun. Also, who has started playing this way?

Not true, that ruling only deals with Vehicals without WS.

Agreed, the new ruling is only for vehicles.

Since my last post in this thread I am further solidified in my stance of not mounting the teams together. If GW wants consistency they need to start with their own books, and work from there. If there is no consistency from GW I will certainly not be browbeaten by an opponent into doing something I don't want to. That being said, I am certainly open to comprimise. If an opponent is really bent out of shape about it I would agree to something like the 2" coherency for teammembers or something. That usually happens anyways. I also specifically mark my teammembers too, so that there is no confusion over what 2 members of the squad make up the heavy weapon team, or even what two members of a heavy weapon squad make up each individual team.

I was confused over this issue when recently assembling my own Guard heavy weapon teams, and decided to base the spotter separately, yet place the based model on the HW team base during game play to demonstrate the heavy weapon team, but allow easy representation of casualties for the model/s.

I have a question though; can the loader/spotter in the heavy weapon team fire his Lasgun in the shooting phase, or is it assumed he needs to help fire the heavy weapon?

I dont have the IG codex in front of me but there is one case where you can and another where you cannont. I believe in the heavy weapons squad you can. But if you put them in a regular IG squad you cannot. If you look at the heavy weapons squads in the codex, it says lasguns under weapons. Whereas in the squads it says that two guardsmen make up a crew. So i would say no in the regular squads and yes in the hvy wpn squads. Although all these other players that make fun of IG lasguns all the time usually throw a hissy fit when you try to fire the lasguns in the heavy weapon squads.

As a side not I would recomend taking the guy off the large base, that way he is a smaller target for purposes of dealing with partials and the like. I mount them on separate bases and put the gun on a cav base. So kind of like eldar.

Ouch not this one again.
It doesn't state that the heavy weapon replaces thier weapons, it merely states that two models make up the crew and the Infantry squads armament states "lasgun". So both models have a lasgun and they both are considered 'crew' for the heavy weapon. Since a model can only fire one weapon per turn one of the crew can choose to fire the heavy instead of his lasgun but the other model would only be able to fire the lasgun.

One model fires the heavy the other fires his lasgun.

I had a look at the IG FAQ from 2008, (Before 5th Ed and new LOS rules?) and it makes it very clear. I would have copied and pasted it but the PDF is locked so I paraphrase:
Heavy weapon teams share a large base for convenience, in game terms treat them as 2 models on individual 25mm round bases. If the "loader" is killed use a marker. If the "gunner" is killed he is replaced by the loader- assume the loader is killed instead.
Only the gunner is required to fire the heavy weapon. the loader is allowed to fire another weapon, usually a lasgun.
Personally, my biggest problem with the 2 models on one large base is yoy cant get them into buildings as easily, particularly not a cities of death balcony (my face place for a good view and a cover save!).
I looked up this topic because I have just waded through aboout 50 pages of discussion on the new IG codex and am none the wiser about how I should model my new HW teams I have ordered. (none the wiser about plasma guns or grenade launchers either but lets not go there...)
Does the new codex clarify this? Guess I have only a few more days to wait. One thing is for sure, I will make up 3 Autocannon teams and keep the gun just on the tripod and the team on 25mm bases unless it says I can't.

BACK! BACK FOUL BEAST! BACK TO THE PITS FROM WHENCE YOU CAME FOUL NECROMANCER!!!!!!!!!

OMG THREAD NECROMANCY!!!!. This thread is 2 and a half years old. BTW, there is no 2 model teams anymore, just a 2 wound model.