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.

Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams use the large bases. Do the rules allow player to split the teams up and put them on 2 separate bases? For example (and I don't know the exact size of the bases) If the team is packaged with a 40mm base for 2 figures, could I split them up on 1 30mm base and 1 15 mm base?

Second question. New IG codex has the stealth special rule and some characters are able to take the camo cloak as a gear choice. One gives you a +2 cover save and the other gives you a +1 cover save. Do they stack for a total of +3 cover save?? I couldn't find any information on his in the rule book or the codex.

Thanks for the help !

Flexen wrote:Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams use the large bases. Do the rules allow player to split the teams up and put them on 2 separate bases? For example (and I don't know the exact size of the bases) If the team is packaged with a 40mm base for 2 figures, could I split them up on 1 30mm base and 1 15 mm base?

The models have to be played with the size base they come with. At the strictest definition all IG heavy weapon teams must be modeled with the large (60mm I think) bases with 2 models in all cases.

That said, I believe some metal IG models are still pakcaged in blisters, like Steel Legion and Vostroyan heavy weapon teams and they have (had) a variety of base sizes. This sets a precedent for different base sizes, some players extrapolate this liberaly to mean that any IG heavy weapon team models can be based in any of the variants they were packaged with.

5th edition and the new IG dex has added another layer to this however.

The IG dex expressly states IG weapon teams are a single 2 wound model! A single 2 wound model has a large amount of important differences from the old system, for instant death, wound allocation, weapon team LOS, vehicle capacity etc. This stipulation effectively ends the debate about IG gun teams being based seperately, and therefore also on a variety of bases they were packaged with in legacy systems.

Certainly, anyone with legacy models is not going to be happy about this.

I would support any reasonable in game compromises or house rules to allow existing and legacy heavy weapon teams to be played, that said, if you are building new models for IG gun teams, base them together on the largest round.

Flexen wrote:Second question. New IG codex has the stealth special rule and some characters are able to take the camo cloak as a gear choice. One gives you a +2 cover save and the other gives you a +1 cover save. Do they stack for a total of +3 cover save?? I couldn't find any information on his in the rule book or the codex.

I think so yes. I do not have the dex/rules in front of me.

Flexen wrote:Thanks for the help !

Certainly, good luck!

Right on ! Thanks for the thought out answer and supporting arguments.

Sure, no problem.

I am one of the legacy IG players with models mounted all sorts of ways.

I have:

60mm rounds with 2 men,

WHFB sqaure cavalry base and a 25 round,

3 bases for mortar crews with guns on 30mm rounds and 2 gunners on 25 rounds,

and some on just 2x25mm rounds,

boy am I in trouble.

Ah well.

EDIT:

For extra LOL WTF my friend has an entire army of Praetorians with the gun chasis on NO BASE AT ALL.

But that's how they came, right? It used to be the gun and then the two crew... How does this work? It seems like GW has a schizophrenic, dysfunctional short term memory.

I still think makes very little sense the way they have it now. Look at the eldar guardian squads. The two crew just need to be next to the gun for it to work... Why can't guard be the same?

Indeed, actually the Eldar don't even need to be next to the gun, it's a cosmetic model that just hovers around.

You'd think since the introduction of rules for field guns (last edition) that GW would have pulled the ig gun teams (and Ork Field guns and ELdar guns etc.) into a USR for field guns.

If they were going to have 2 wound models for IG with all the vulnerabilities that involves I would think that at least the gun shields on the IG guns would provide that model with some protection like an (I 5+) save, or a 4+ save or somesuch.

Ah well. Certainly consistency is lacking.

Even the current GW web page has these problems with IG heavy weapon teams.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat1110133&rootCatGameStyle=

Here is a really awful example:



One would think it wouldn't be to difficult to throw an extra large base in to a 3 model blister that retails for $17 now.

Or perhaps that GW would at least paint up new examples that fit the current rules definitions.

Is that unreasonable?

In the old codex or some errata or something it said that you imagine 2 normal infantry bases under the unit but in the new rules they count as one two-wound model (which also means that the template has to cover half the massive base). For guys already on single bases you'll have to cut out a peice of paper or something and move them around on it

Honestly, just base them on whatever you want. If you are going to tournaments you should be basing them "properly" anyway. If you are not it doesn't make a difference.

Flexen wrote:
Second question. New IG codex has the stealth special rule and some characters are able to take the camo cloak as a gear choice. One gives you a +2 cover save and the other gives you a +1 cover save. Do they stack for a total of +3 cover save?? I couldn't find any information on his in the rule book or the codex.

Thanks for the help !

Camo Cloaks only give you the Stealth USR. I'm not sure what you are reading that says you get a +2 to cover. If you already have Stealth, getting it again isn't going to do much good. So, no, Stealth and Camo cloaks do NOT stack.

colonel584 wrote:...in the new rules they count as one two-wound model (which also means that the template has to cover half the massive base)....

There is no more 50% base coverage, 4+ if not fully covered etc. check the blast rules, if you are touched at all by a template you are hit, a single weapon team is a 2 wound T 3 model and a massive 60mm base. They are really more vulnerable because of it.

The rules are pretty clear now, they just hurt the IG a lot.

What it does protect them from is saturation fire. If a unit takes 9-18 wounds, you can alocate a single, (preferably non-str 6) wound to the Heavy Weapon, and there's no chance the HW will be taken out, allowing it at least one more round of fire.

Augustus wrote:

Flexen wrote:Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams use the large bases. Do the rules allow player to split the teams up and put them on 2 separate bases? For example (and I don't know the exact size of the bases) If the team is packaged with a 40mm base for 2 figures, could I split them up on 1 30mm base and 1 15 mm base?

The models have to be played with the size base they come with. At the strictest definition all IG heavy weapon teams must be modeled with the large (60mm I think) bases with 2 models in all cases.

Actually, by "the strictest definition" legacy models cannot legally be modeled on the 60 mm base, because they were not, and have never been, packaged with the 60 mm base. They were packaged with two small bases for the two gunners, with some kits (like the metal Cadian missile launcher) including a fantasy cavalry base. But, as Gwar! noted, this observation isn't really relevant, because the only time this will matter is tournaments, and most tournament organizers frown on creative base modeling, especially in a case like this where it seems to run so clearly contrary to the designer's intent, and would create a confusing distinction between "classic" and "current" Imperial Guard armies.

I personally have no plans to re-base my heavy weapons, but I do now place both models on a single 60 mm base during games, since it's so clearly the intent of the new rules. I would hope that no one dings my painting score on this (my models are otherwise well painted) but I expect no other dispensations.