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.

No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to ave 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

Necros wrote:No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to ave 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

This my friend is why they never should have put the weapon teams on one base to start with .

They might do something silly like give them eternal warrior and vulnerable to blasts. The actual unit rules aren't known yet.

Another oddity: When charging, a heavy weapon team will get three attacks instead four. This doesn't bother me much.

Some people might be tempted to mix heavy weapons in an attempt to use wound allocation to retain some of the old survivability. I do not plan to do so.

Necros wrote:No I guess I still counted it as 2 models. Like if I were to have 10 wounds to save, I'd roll the 10 dice and if the HW guy took a wound I'd remove his buddy instead.

So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

It will be HW-team = 1 model, 2 wounds.
Heard it before, got it confirmed and now its in tHe reference-sheet.

Unfunny vs ID attacks. But arent guardsmen always doomed?

Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

BrookM wrote:Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

Looks like you better put them on a large base (my ML are on small bases as well).

Yes, turning two 1 wound models into one 2 wound models has its draw backs (S6 will kill them outright, might loose a lasgun shot), but I think we will live.

Of course, there may be a special rule of some sort that says when the HW team has two wounds it can fire a lasgun and the HW, or when moving can fire two lasguns. We do not know yet.

I am magneting them on one base if it comes to that, but the are not getting glued as such.

And also, this will seriously make me re-think even HAVING HWs in my IG army. I can make do with more tanks, right? Right???

Isn't the last weapon team plastic kit already 2 men at 1 base?

So every 2x28mm owner can go for sets of bigger bases then?

I can see why support squads can be attached to platoons all of the sudden.

Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Ah well, just means more tanks in the end, which is more scary...

I have tediously cut so many guys off of large bases due to the superiority of 2 small. I don't like this at all. and 2 wounds means that they will take priority fire if they get wounded as well. 50% casulties? slightly less casulties! and losing the 2nd lasgun shot just adds insult to injury

We don't technically KNOW that we lose the lasgun shot... Though it is likely. Maybe this is the big nerf! Honestly, on the whole that's not bad.

So from now on our squads will be either ten or nine strong..?

BrookM wrote:So from now on our squads will be either ten or nine strong..?

Or the infantry squad loses the HWT-option and all HWT are gathered in HWT-squads.

That would ALSO suck.

Honestly I think GW should have just said that the HW teams must maintain coherancy within the squad and been done with it.

Centurion.

It makes sense. Loaders rarely have time to fire their own weapon, as they have to spot/ look out for weapon jams, watch for overheating.... etc. Also, gunners and loaders are normally right next to eachother..... 2" in game turns is about 6 feet/yards? Imagine a loader trying to load a gun from 6 feet/yards? away? Doesn't happen. Also, when two men are right next to eachother like this.... it's a lot easier to kill them both with one shot.... so something like a lascannon, that vaporizes terminator armor.... would have little problem going through two guardsmen standing side by side. As far as only 3 attacks go on the charge..... I doubt the gunner, holding a heavy weapon such as a lascannon, would be very good swinging the thing around in a fist fight. Also... ever tried to knife fight after firing off a heavy machine gun? Needless to say even if they dropped the lascannon/ heavy bolter and pulled out their bayonette. they're more likely to drop the bayonette as well than do any real damage with it. Does it suck in game terms? Yes. Is it more realistic? Yes

Unfortunatly, when you play the only army in the game that has any basis in reality, your gameplay suffers from it

Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Hey, that's good idea!

Kill me please.

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Isn't that what they have been in the past editions anyway? A giant 10 wound lascannon with eternal warrior and vulnrable to templates? Heck, a lot of people have even been mounting them on one base as a movement tray.

Heck, I'd be happier if they got rid of the lascannons and replaced them in the fluff with "All of the guardsmen in the unit cross the beams of their lasguns"...... I might just hafta do that myself.... and make all my cadians have little ghosts crossed out on their shoulders.

while i don't like it from a pain in the butt modelling perspective, i do like it from a fluff perspective. it shows that although the IG field many of the same weapons as SM chapters, their status as non-'roided supermen requires a change in how they do it (requires two regular humans constantly working together instead of one high tech spacemarine). i always liked that the metal cadian special weapon guys had to hook up their weapons to a backpack and the marines didn't (you could assume that it was hooked up to the power armor instead) as it followed the same premise. i don't understand why they would change the heavy weapons to fit that but then add the special weapons without backpacks to the command sprue. i'm fine ultimately either way; i just wish they were consistent.

I'm not really planning to run HW teams in my regular squads anyway, I stopped doing that a little while ago, makes it easier to have the troops more mobile for objective capturing and then you don't have to worry about giving up a lascannon shot, so I started making my HW teams be in HQ anti-tank squads and it's worked a lot better for me. So that's how I'll continue to do it, and I'll take all those extra special weapons that my drop troop vets were using and just make special weapon squads for the regular platoons.

Necros wrote:So, if you have a squad of 3 teams and someone shoots a melta gun at you, you gotta take off a whole base even though it's assault 1? But if all 3 get splashed with a flamer, they roll for 3 wounds, not 6? Then if all 3 are wounded do you end up with 3 models with 1 wound, or 2 models and 1 have 1 wound left?

Yes & Yes. 2 models (1 w/ 1 wound). slowed.

If they get fanned by an enemy Exterminator (Heavy 4 S7), the entire unit dies. slowed.
____

Narlix wrote:This my friend is why they never should have put the weapon teams on one base to start with .

QFT.

2 models each on 25mm bases is a *lot* easier to manage, and a lot less confusing.

Worst case, require 2" coherency between gunner and loader.

____

BrookM wrote:Woah, hang on.

What about the people who field their missile launcher teams on two 28mm bases?

Well...

We can be "counts as" 1 model with 2 wounds, using the Loader as a wound counter.

One thing is for damn sure, I'm *not* cutting off two dozen tabs, buying new bases, and rebasing my minis. I'm going to field them on the bases which were supplied with the models, which happen to be 25mm slottabases. I didn't re-base my Termies, and I'm not rebasing my MLs.

What is interesting is to see what GW does with the other "classic" minis which have tabs, whether they're still going to be sold on individual 25mm bases.
____

strange_eric wrote:Wow HW squads being one model? That's purely stupid. On so many levels. I don't think one single person was confused about how the "2 models 1 base" thing worked, why change it? Ugh.

Ah well, just means more tanks in the end, which is more scary...

You know, I saw "2 models 1 base", and thought "oh, crap, there's a scat video for 40k?"

The problem was the "scenic" bases, so rather than be rules- and play-smart and clarify things to be uniform 25mm bases which are rules-simple, GW decided that large bases would be the answer.

Oh, there will be tanks!
____

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Better line them up single file, so they can insta-die to a single autocannon hit...

Narlix wrote:
Calling 2 Guard squads with Chimeras a static gun line, is like calling 2 units of firewarriors with devilfish a static gun line. A static gun Line would be 4 Squads of IG grunts The chimeras means they can move and most likely will move.

Yet you assumed that the Chimeras and the squads get to fire everything, including infantry-borne heavy weapons. In this case, they must be sitting still. If they move at the same speed as the Valk, they will fire much less, and will have to care about difficult terrain. You cannot argue that the squads and IFV's have both mobility and superior firepower. Again, I'm sure this layout has some advantages (eg four units) but without knowing any more details, I'm loathe to say it is better or worse, and I'm not going to get all emo because we suddenly get a fast skimmer that addresses all our woes in the movement phase.

Angron wrote:Hmmm... then what is "Penal Guard"?

Penal Guard

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Yes, Guard are being so simplified that you have 20+ different tanks and probably the longest summary sheet in the game.
Heaven forbid you would get one tiny nerf amidst all the new bling. Smurfs have been doing just fine with 2-wound attack bikes since 2004.

And I for one would be thanking my lucky stars if my opponent was pouring massed melta/lascannon fire into my 4-pt infantry. But that's just me.

Recklessfable wrote:

Angron wrote:Hmmm... then what is "Penal Guard"?

Penal Guard

Hmm, I prefer a Black Russian myself, it always intimidates the clergy.

The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The difference being, Attack Bikes are indeed a single model.

In exactly the same way any two guys mounted on one base are a single model, yes.

lord_blackfang wrote:

AlexCage wrote:Pfft. This is just the first step on the road to further simplification of the guard. Soon you won't have individual guardsmen (Let's face it, they don't spend much time on the table anyways).

We'll just have giant, 10 wound entities with a rapid fire 10 lasgun. Mounted on a 150mm base.

Yes, Guard are being so simplified that you have 20+ different tanks and probably the longest summary sheet in the game.
Heaven forbid you would get one tiny nerf amidst all the new bling. Smurfs have been doing just fine with 2-wound attack bikes since 2004.

And I for one would be thanking my lucky stars if my opponent was pouring massed melta/lascannon fire into my 4-pt infantry. But that's just me.

This. A hundred times this.