Taking liberties with IG heavy weapon team basing

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.

**Cortez667**

insaniak wrote:
Requia wrote:And the next paragraph says if you want to mount on a different base that will effect gameplay, ask your opponent.

The point is that since you need your opponent's permission to mount them on anything other than what they come with, it's advisable unless you're playing against a regular group to just put them on the original bases and save potential arguments.

Otherwise, you're going to be asking the question before every game.

Having said that, from my experience, most players aren't anywhere near as picky about base sizes as all the talk online would lead you to believe. I've been running my Ork Nobs on 30mm bases since 3rd edition, and in all that time I think 2 people have commented on it, and that was just to point out that it looked good. Likewise with my bikes on 60mm round bases. Most people don't even notice what bases anything is on, let alone keep track of what they should be on and take the time to check before the game.

If it's not too abusive, it's generally going to be fine.

So as far as HWTs go, so long as the base looks ok, and so long as you discuss how they will function in-gae if you're basing them separately, you shouldn't run into too many troubles regardless of how you decide to base them.

Agreed. I don't think 99.9% of players you'll encounter will care much, if at all. But for purposes og the IG HWTs, the 2 models-on-a-signle-base allows for the 2-wound,2-attack model rule.

But really, who cares. I've always felt that the "If your opponent doesn't care,..." unspoken rule trumps most everything else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
Cortez667 wrote: Its really not worth that big an argument, is it?

It's generally not that big an argument.

Except here, right?

**Cottonjaw**

How.. is this.. even.. a conversation.

You know the HWT is supposed to be on the larger base. If you want your Guardsmen on smaller bases...

TOO BAD.

**karlosovic**

Scott-S6 wrote:Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

You're not taking him at his intent. Anyone can be a wording-nazi and screw everyone over by being super-literal, that's why the game is in it's present state, but that's a discussion for another day.

What the OP was refering to was human tendancy. If a guy says to you "I can do it the official way, but there are reasons to change this slightly".... the only thing the average person hears is "I can do it the official way but blah blah blah"
People never want to hear about avoidable deviations.... but the same person would be perfectly fine with it if there wasn't a choice

"I have this really cool sergeant model, but he has a boltgun and he should have a lasgun. Is it OK if I use him?"
= "Yeh sure, no worries"

"I have this really cool sergeant model, but he has a boltgun and he should have a lasgun. I also have a crap model armed with a lasgun. Is it OK if I use the cool one?"
= "No, I'm a lameass"

**dkellyj**

Ailaros wrote:Back in 4th ed, I also had my missile launcher gunner/loader on two seperate bases:

Then when that became illegal with the new codex, I left the models as-is, but went and bitz-ordered some large bases, flocked them, and then just place my old models on my new bases before the game begins.

And if GW reverses itself again, I'll just let the large bases collect dust. Easy peasy.

Plus, those large bases also work for putting my other heavy weapons teams on. I have 26 gunners of various types with only 12 large bases. Needless to say, swapping out which 12 heavy weapons I want to use in any given week is pretty easy.

THIS!!!!
Its also easier keeping track of wounds on the heavy weapon team. Take a wound, remove the loader/helper. 2nd wound pulls the big base.

**Cortez667**

Cottonjaw wrote:How.. is this.. even.. a conversation.

You know the HWT is supposed to be on the larger base. If you want your Guardsmen on smaller bases...

TOO BAD.

+1.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

karlosovic wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

You're not taking him at his intent. Anyone can be a wording-nazi and screw everyone over by being super-literal, that's why the game is in it's present state, but that's a discussion for another day.

What the OP was refering to was human tendancy. If a guy says to you "I can do it the official way, but there are reasons to change this slightly".... the only thing the average person hears is "I can do it the official way but blah blah blah"
People never want to hear about avoidable deviations.... but the same person would be perfectly fine with it if there wasn't a choice

"I have this really cool sergeant model, but he has a boltgun and he should have a lasgun. Is it OK if I use him?"
= "Yeh sure, no worries"

"I have this really cool sergeant model, but he has a boltgun and he should have a lasgun. I also have a crap model armed with a lasgun. Is it OK if I use the cool one?"
= "No, I'm a lameass"

Two different things, dude. This isen't being super literal. Its the way the rules are written. If people dismissed everythin g they diden't argee with in their respective codexs/army books, there'd be no point to the rules to begin with.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and those cadians above look so sick.

**karlosovic**

Cortez667 wrote:
karlosovic wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

You're not taking him at his intent. Anyone can be a wording-nazi and screw everyone over by being super-literal

Two different things, dude. This isen't being super literal. Its the way the rules are written. If people dismissed everythin g they diden't argee with in their respective codexs/army books, there'd be no point to the rules to begin with.

Did you miss the first sentence? It's the reference for my 2nd sentence.... follow the quotes - it couldn't be more obvious how to follow the flow of discussion

**Cortez667**

karlosovic wrote:
Cortez667 wrote:
karlosovic wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

You're not taking him at his intent. Anyone can be a wording-nazi and screw everyone over by being super-literal

Two different things, dude. This isen't being super literal. Its the way the rules are written. If people dismissed everythin g they diden't argee with in their respective codexs/army books, there'd be no point to the rules to begin with.
Did you miss the first sentence? It's the reference for my 2nd sentence.... follow the quotes - it couldn't be more obvious how to follow the flow of discussion

Obviously your train of thought wasen't...you should probably work on that.

Have a nice day.

**Dylan Gould**

An easy workaround is to have a clear plastic 60mm disc. Keep your gunner/loader on it, and use it like a movement tray, and you get both the appearance and the rules satisfied.

**Cortez667**

A good compromise, and one that few could take issue with.

**Almarine**

Well well well, I kinda thought this thread was over weeks ago.

Anyway thanks for all the replies guys, but you're sort of answering the wrong question. I know the rules say to put models on their respective bases, and I realize that makes it illegal to put a heavy weapon team on separate bases. I thought I made that clear, maybe I didn't.

What I am/was after here is your opinion on the severity of this "crime". Basically, how would you feel if your opponent did this? I guess this should have been a poll. Like, would you not mind because it looks good, or would you be a bit cheezed off, or would you not play at all?

As for the transparent 60mm bases idea, those don't really do anything for me. It's not like you don't see it or don't move it just like a regular 60mm so I might as well use one of those.

Also +1 to karlsovic for better illustrating my take on that particular thing.

**colonel**

i still use 3rd ed cadians HWTs on the smaller bases, and ive never had a complaint

**daedalus**

Almarine wrote:Anyway thanks for all the replies guys, but you're sort of answering the wrong question. I know the rules say to put models on their respective bases, and I realize that makes it illegal to put a heavy weapon team on separate bases. I thought I made that clear, maybe I didn't.

What I am/was after here is your opinion on the severity of this "crime". Basically, how would you feel if your opponent did this? I guess this should have been a poll. Like, would you not mind because it looks good, or would you be a bit cheezed off, or would you not play at all?

Yeah, that happens usually whenever this or WYSIWYG threads come up. People can't shake "DA ROOLZ" long enough to think about what the situation implies.

For what it's worth, I see no problem with it. I'd play you, long as you had some means of differentiating the loader model from the rest of your gunners. Perhaps another crouching model would be appropriate. Most of the differences that would occur as a result of this change would be putting you at a disadvantage anyway. The only thing you'd get back is that you'd have 10 models instead of 9 for the purposes of determining leadership saves, with, with guardsmen is not really a huge advantage anyway. Especially as I would hope you'd have a commissar handling that stuff for you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perhaps this would have been better suited in the modeling or proposed rules section. Might have been better received there.

**Almarine**

daedalus wrote:
For what it's worth, I see no problem with it. I'd play you, long as you had some means of differentiating the loader model from the rest of your gunners. Perhaps another crouching model would be appropriate. Most of the differences that would occur as a result of this change would be putting you at a disadvantage anyway. The only thing you'd get back is that you'd have 10 models instead of 9 for the purposes of determining leadership saves, with, with guardsmen is not really a huge advantage anyway. Especially as I would hope you'd have a commissar handling that stuff for you.

Perhaps this would have been better suited in the modeling or proposed rules section. Might have been better received there.

Hehe, "better received" in that I might have gotten more positive feedback maybe, but the only thing that matters is how you and your opponent get along, in the real world. The kind of empty praise and encouragement that fills those boards isn't what I'd base my army on. Pun intended.

Anyway, I'm glad you'd be on board with it. For what it's worth I would just treat the two as one model for the purposes of leadership tests and such, they're just separated for visual effect.

**karlosovic**

On a completely side note, I'm sick of having to remodel my army everytime GW changes the rules. I realise they're a minature company, but do they seriously believe I'll buy more stuff just because a Long Fang sergeant can't have a bolter anymore?

**Arclaw**

I'd say the new "heavy weapon teams are now one model" thing would over-write the "place model on base it's supplied with" rule... theres contention with the 2nd Ed Tallarns I'm painting, because even ones bought new from GW don't come with a 60mm base, but have the firer/loader separate as 1 or 2 infantry bases (sometimes the firer is just a gun, with no base). I just buy 60mm bases separatley and mount my HW teams on those... looks far better that way anyway, in my opinion!

**Cortez667**

Arclaw wrote:I'd say the new "heavy weapon teams are now one model" thing would over-write the "place model on base it's supplied with" rule... theres contention with the 2nd Ed Tallarns I'm painting, because even ones bought new from GW don't come with a 60mm base, but have the firer/loader separate as 1 or 2 infantry bases (sometimes the firer is just a gun, with no base). I just buy 60mm bases separatley and mount my HW teams on those... looks far better that way anyway, in my opinion!

Agreed. My Praetorians look lovly on the 60mm bases.

**kmdl1066**

Cortez667 wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Cortez667 wrote: Its really not worth that big an argument, is it?

It's generally not that big an argument.

Except here, right?

Well it's kinda fun to have a place play "asshat pedantic rules lawyering jerk" about stuff that you wouldn't care about on the table top.

**Sckitzo**

Ehh if you played me, I could care less.

But, I do the same thing so would be a bit hypocritical for me to complain

LC's I leave on the 60mm base, right now the HB's are going onto the cav bases as I'm proning the guys out, and ML's will most likely move over to the cav bases as well as I just have them on 25mm ones right now, but it does make it a bit confusing. I bought all these guys I'd say 4ish years ago? Sometime early 07, I know I had the 4th Ed codex. Now that I'm getting back into the game, I like the idea of using a transparent disc, I just hate how the HWT's look on that giant disc.

**Cortez667**

kmdl1066 wrote:
Cortez667 wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Cortez667 wrote: Its really not worth that big an argument, is it?

It's generally not that big an argument.

Except here, right?

Well it's kinda fun to have a place play "asshat pedantic rules lawyering jerk" about stuff that you wouldn't care about on the table top.

Agreed.

And actually, this thread has made something occur to me. I'd probably not really care about this issue if my opponent showed up with some IG HWs on 2 seperate bases. I just want to play, and arguing aboput this at a Tourny would just be a waste of time. But I care enough about it on principal to argue against it here. Interesting, No?

**axeman1n**

The only benefit to having two bases is to limit the profile for blast and template weapons. I'd say let them take the good with the bad. If two of their models are under the template, then you get two hits, even though one of them is supposed to be based together with the other. If they are fielding 9 models, one of which is on a calvary base, and counts as a W2 model, then I guess I don't know. I think after my last tournament, geting ruled against on that valk call made me bitter about all rulings.
If you play in tournaments, you dont' have time to agrue over modeling. Just let them play what ever cheese ball models they felt like scraping together.