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.

A couple of months ago when I had made up my mind to get on the band wagon and paint up an IG army, I created a thread on this site about the desirability or otherwise of rebasing individually based heavy weapon models. It got quite a few replies and spawned quite a spirited debate. This post is a follow up to that thread. It has two seperate parts with seperate topics, but they are close enough that I will include them both in the same post. The first is my thinking in regards to the new multi-wound single model weapon teams and the second is my solution to the problem of rebasing my specific models.

Let me say it up front. I don't like the new multi-wound, single heavy weapon team models that are featured in the new IG codex. I didn't like the idea of them when I first encountered them in the various rumors threads and the leaked pre-release copies of the book that were posted around the 'net. Moreover, after seven or eight games using the new list (which for the most part I do actually like) and observing many others my feelings on the matter have been confirmed and I strongly feel that this change was a mistake. It's not a game breaker, but an annoyance that does harm the effectiveness of the list to some degree. Aside from the greater difficulty in actually physically placing the teams on the table, their new found vunerability to instant death and bigger foot print does make them less effective...especially in dedicated heavy weapon units. As I like to say, the Good Idea Fairy really bit someone on the a-- on this one!

But the rules are the rules...

When I first started painting up my IG army I had decided that I would not alter the basing of the heavy weapons in my own army. All my models sport the old traditional shoulder fired guns and would look odd on a larger base. I felt that it would be possible to simply place two models (the heavy weapon and another trooper model) base to base and simply use them as a form of "counts as". But in practice this did prove to be unwieldy and at times confusing to both my opponent and myself. After all by it's very nature an IG force is going to have alot of figures on the table and it's far to easy to loose track of what is what. Thus I came to the reluctant realization that I would have to rebase my heavy weapon models. I also came to the conclusion that rebasing these models would not really hamper my using them in RT and 2nd edition (which I still also play from time to time) to any real extent.

But the problem was how to acomplish this with a minimum amount of work and money spent.

Which brings me to my second point...
Clearly using the official GW large round bases was out of the question. With the absurd profit based decision to combine the bases into mixed bags, you now only got two of the proper bases at a go. True enough you could direct order the large bases, but at the price they were asking for these, this was simply not an option. However I looked around the 'net and found that Litko Areosystems made 60mm round laser cut bases in a variety of materials that would work. http://www.litkoaero.com/
I've used Litko bases extensively in the past for my real wargame miniatures and have been pleased with their pricing and quality. The ones I chose to order were the 3mm thick wooden bases. At 25 bases for 5.49$US, these are a real bargain and one bag would supply enough bases for pretty much any normal IG army.
My solution was to simply glue the existing single figures to the larger base and flock it. I acomplished this today for about 20 heavy weapons teams in a little more than an hour. (see attached photo of one of my lascannon units for the end result) I don't think it looks all that bad, although I still do feel that the shoulder fired weapons look a little out of place based like that. Granted the Litko bases are about 2-3 millimeters smaller in diameter when compared to the GW bases. But they are not small enough to have any effect upon game play and I honestly doubt most people would even notice the difference.

So what is your thought on the new weapon teams and their game mechanics? Good thing or stupid move on GW part? Have you rebased your old models? Did you change your mind as I did?

TR

I thought you said "freebasing" .....never mind

It's really stupid, IMO. If the weapon (and guy shooting it) is destroyed, the other guy should be able to take some potshots. As it is, now any ordnance or special weapons hit takes out two guardsmen. I try to mitigate this by having the second guy killed as soon as possible.

Combined with the fact that now you can't give the Sarge a lasgun (he's literally the slow in the back who brought a sword to a gun fight... I try to kill him off ASAP too), a squad now only has 6 lasguns.

terminus wrote:It's really stupid, IMO. If the weapon (and guy shooting it) is destroyed, the other guy should be able to take some potshots. As it is, now any ordnance or special weapons hit takes out two guardsmen. I try to mitigate this by having the second guy killed as soon as possible.

Combined with the fact that now you can't give the Sarge a lasgun (he's literally the slow in the back who brought a sword to a gun fight... I try to kill him off ASAP too), a squad now only has 6 lasguns.

Yeah, because it was so not stupid that when the LOADER died the guardsman with the Heavy Weapon suddenly weant rambo and was able to both fire and load at once. Why bother having a loader if he was able to do it himself?

As for killing your sergeant off early, I assume you enjoy not having Ld8 Guard then?

Um, that's the case currently, so yes.. it's all stupid. You can put a wound on the team (i.e. one guard dead, technically), and the remaining guy can still fire.

The solution that would make the most sense would be Warmachine-like, in that the loaders/spotters/assistants/whatever give some kind of bonus to the heavy weapon (accuracy, rate of fire, or movement buff), that goes away when they die. But this is 40K, so a sensible solution is completely out of the question.

As for Ld, Commissars. 'Nuff said.

terminus wrote:Um, that's the case currently, so yes.. it's all stupid. You can put a wound on the team (i.e. one guard dead, technically), and the remaining guy can still fire.

Well, yes, but it was also stupid that the loader was able to simultaneously feed in the Autocannon Shells and still somehow have the ability to fire a Flashlight. But anyway, It was stupid then, it's stupid now. It's called Abstraction. Without it we'd be in the Bog that was 2nd editions hour long "Cleanup" Phases.

terminus wrote:As for Ld, Commissars. 'Nuff said.

I Do have to giggle here. You think that Ld8 for 5 Points is useless, but ld9 for 35 (that dies just as easily) is fine? That's a bit... odd... to say the least. At least you get a second way to deal with those annoying sergeants eh?

I always imagined that the loader was more of an assistant, ammo grunt, and backup gunner. His main job was to assist in carrying the weapon, ammo, and its accouterments during marches, not so much in keeping it loaded and firing during battle as being a backup if something happens to the weapon (jamming for instance). Because lets face it, Heavy Bolters fire three "abstract" rounds, so even if we want to place a multiplier of twenty to that for the number of "covering fire/automatically sprayed and missed" rounds, we still only have sixty rounds, which is half what an M2 .50 cal would be loaded with on one box. Something a bit more realistic would be a multiplier of two to three. So Autocannons, Heavy Bolters, and probably even Lascannons (which fire from a single battery) wouldn't need to be reloaded during a 40k scale battle. I saw nothing wrong with how it worked and I think the way it is now is just as poor, but makes heavy weapons that much more complicated and vulnerable, generally detracting from their value in squads the most, but still in general.

As for Commissars, in the last edition, Sergeants were less needed because of the Command Bubble, now they are more valuable, but are still way overpriced for squad to squad duty. However, scrum five squads together... they are much more valuable, especially giving Stubborn in Close Combat.

If I'm using commissars, I always squeeze two squads together.

My standard configuration is the following, using DKoK models:

2 squads, 2 autocannons, 2 plasma guns, vox, commissar with power sword = 200 points.

I use two of those, while running the chimeras empty as mobile terrain/additional heavy weapons/blockers for my other tanks.

That said, they've been getting into the thick of it quite often lately, so I'm seriously considering safeguarding my Sarges and giving them power weapons, perhaps downgrading the plasmaguns to grenade launchers to make up the points.

Aye, 20 man Guard Squads are much more effective than 50 man Squads. 50 Man Squads without a Commissar are easy to slice up due to Sweeping Advance.

Although Terminus, considering you have DKoK, you are officially permitted to do whatever the hell you want

That's what I like to hear!

Thanks for providing the link for the bases. I've been slicing my fingers trying to remount my autocannons for a week.

My guard with heavy weapons are on single bases and they're staying that way. Forget about how stupid those big bases are on the table, they're ridiculously difficult to transport. I don't think it's that big a problem to keep track of wounds and to remove two normal sized models if they take a S6 hit. I honestly don't think it has any kind of significant game effect to not use the big bases. Using small bases gives you the massive disadvantage of fitting more models under templates which balances out any advantage you might gain from not using those huge bases.

If my opponents don't like it, I could care less. If they're really going to complain that I didn't want to remodel a dozen models I've had for years, then I just won't play them.

There's only so much slowed monkeyness I'll put up with from GW before I just refuse...

For all the complaining people have had about the old rules where squad members kept grabbing the heavy weapon, it's actually quite plausible. Quite frequently in real battlefield conditions, gunners get replaced when they get wounded on crew operated weapons. It made perfect sense both rules wise, fluff wise, and simulation wise. Now the rule is just slowed and aimed at making GW money...

I hate the big bases as you cannot fit heavy weapon teams on balconies in cities of death, or hide them in jungle, whereas my old school metal HWs did it easily (better LOS harder to assault). I play mostly at home so transport is not really a problem but as I have access to a laser cutter I think I will cut my own bases and model them with different terrain effects to match cities of death, desert and jungle (my usual set ups) I can then use them to put my teams on if I want to, or just keep them as small scatter terrain pieces. My house rule will be treat them as a single model in game terms but model them as 2 members of a team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have put together some pics of what I plan to do about the new large base 2 wound rule using some existing objective markers of mine. There are more in my home gallery. Probably get some more pics and put them in the painting and modelling forum once I have cut my bases and textured them.

Kasrkinlegion wrote:My guard with heavy weapons are on single bases and they're staying that way. Forget about how stupid those big bases are on the table, they're ridiculously difficult to transport. I don't think it's that big a problem to keep track of wounds and to remove two normal sized models if they take a S6 hit. I honestly don't think it has any kind of significant game effect to not use the big bases. Using small bases gives you the massive disadvantage of fitting more models under templates which balances out any advantage you might gain from not using those huge bases.

Sadly it is. The large base is a lot easier to clip with template and blast weapons, and since the small bases are "non-standard", and will get you disqualified from tournaments. If you just play your friends, then yeah, it's fine.

---

I wonder how the game would be affected if basic-weapon-armed soldiers could pick up the special weapons of fallen squad-mates as long as they are close enough. I guess we would see smaller squads and a lot more special weapons.

I tried rebasing my HW teams and I was unable to "transplant" my scenery bits. :(

I did manage to find over 5 60mm bases in a single, forgotten box and got lucky with a GW bases grab bag that came with 2-3 more for 8 bucks. So far its 3 down, and about 8 or so to go.

I agree with Mayhem, it is a pain to put those large based HWs in CoD buildings.