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 alot of different opinions when it comes to basing
IG heavy weapons. i've decided to use the 60mm base (provided),
with the "loader" magnetized for easy casuality removal. (pic # 1)

what if i used the weapon of choice on the base, but had 2 "loader"
type guardsmen on the base instead of a dedicated "firer" and
"loader"? (pic # 2)
would that look too cheesie? it would provide more flexability if i needed
to add a line squad or needed an autocannon(or whatever) in a pinch.

thoughts?

I like it. I have always magnetized my loaders on 1" washers so that each model has an actual area of their (25mm)base, but I can still have a cool little mini-diorama on the 60mm base.

I like this idea and have been tempted to change all my heavy weapons teams to at least the spotter being magnetized. Having both of them separate gives you some flexibility, but if this is to just change between heavy bolters and autocannons why not just magnetize where the tripod and weapons meet?

"but if this is to just change between heavy bolters and autocannons why not just magnetize where the tripod and weapons meet?"

i actually have enough tri/bipods to complete what i want to do. i was just looking for a qiuck way to get some more HW out quickly. plus i can use up extra HW left from the box set without having to get all of the kneeling legs.

Interesting. There have been arguments about this in this forum. The entry says that they have lasguns. Also that the 6 guardsmen are armed with 3 HWPNS. It does not say anywhere that they lose thier original weapons. So perhaps they could have 6 lasguns on top of 3 heavy weapons. Also, the word loader makes me cringe. That word or concept only appears in the last chancers entry. In today's day and age there are still people trying to tell me they can instakill the team. It just happened in Vegas. ARGH!

"There have been arguments about this in this forum."

no arguement or rules question here. i'm just asking if the idea of making
heavy weapons as they appear in pic 2 would be acceptable to most people.

One solution is to cut a hole for aj infantry base on the 60mm base. Then place a backing to the 60mm base and a sleeve for the hole. You can then mount a normally based loader on a 600mm base with no pinning magnets or anything else.

HoweverI prefer to use a 40mm base for the gunner and seperate loader base. I had to remodel the tripods to fit, but that was all.

I used a solution that gave me a nice looking base into the bargain.




The GS mud forms a rim so the loader stays in place. Unless you invert the thing, of course.

i'm loving the replies and feedback.
the main question is would it really matter to
anyone if the bases had 2 loaders on it? i've
already got the magnets to use on the bases.

thanks again for the input.

I wouldn't be happy with the pic 2 option. Pic 1 would be fine as the loader can fire his lasgun whilst the heavy weapon trooper fires the heavy bolter. It is possible , if you want to , for both of the men to fire their lasguns and not to use the HB , ( say if the unit had moved ) then pic 2 would be fine. When making my bases I used one trooper knelt down and one standing . This gave me spare knelt down men to use on the spare heavy weapons on the sprue , 2 heavy weapons for the price of one. And boy do the IG need all the firepower they can find. Can't wait for the new codex.