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.

Is it absolutely necessary that an IG Heavy Weapons Team be on one base? Or can I have say the guy holding the rocket launcher on his own base and his ammo guy on his own base? What about a Mortar team, can I have the mortar on a small base, and its two operators on their own bases? Its kinda hard to have both those types of teams on a big base on a narrow second or third floor without doing a balancing act.

Given that in the current rules the HWT is a single model with two wounds, rather than 2 separate guys, yes, it's kind of important to have them on a single base.

Isn't the rule that they have to be on the base(s) they came with? So my old ones can still technically be on 2 separate bases. I don't know that it really makes a difference though.

Andrew1975 wrote:Isn't the rule that they have to be on the base(s) they came with? So my old ones can still technically be on 2 separate bases. I don't know that it really makes a difference though.

Your old HWTs are technically representing something entirely different. They're still called the same thing, but the way they function in the game has changed. So this is one of the few cases where updating to the newer basing would actually be the best policy, regardless of what the rules appear to say about it.

If you've got the old models based separately, the easiest adaptation is just to acquire 60mm bases or just make them from plasticard or cardboard, and place the old weapons team models atop the new larger base. This also allows for removing one member as a convenient way of marking a wound on a base.

I use them so rarely it has never been an issue, but I suppose for other people its more important. I'm just not sure that the rules really require you to do it, just as i haven't rebased my old termies. I don't do it for advantage, I have a condition, the doctors call me.............lazy.

The basing rules don't require you to do it... but WYSIWYG would.

If you're putting down two separate models on the table, you're not putting own a Heavy Weapons Team, as they are a single model.

If the people you're playing don't have a problem with it, and you've come up with some sort of workaround for them being two separate models on the table, then there's no problem. But if you're playing a lot of pick up games, it's going to be less confusing for your opponent if you update to the current standard.

I used the 60mm base, with the "loader" magnetized on a 25mm base.
easy to remove a wound!

With my old RT heavy weapons, I only put out the heavy weapon gunner, who happens to have two wounds. So my Infantry squads are only 9 models, one with two wounds. Problem solved with no need for buying or making new bases.

don_mondo wrote:With my old RT heavy weapons, I only put out the heavy weapon gunner, who happens to have two wounds. So my Infantry squads are only 9 models, one with two wounds. Problem solved with no need for buying or making new bases.

See that seams like modeling to advantage to me. You have one model but on the smaller base. I guess I could do that if someone gives me gak about my separate guys.

ok
If not on a base together, they still need to be within the 2" of each other, right?

If they're not on a base together, the rules don't cover it. Requiring them to remain within 2" would be a fair houserule for dealing with it, though... although personally I would be going for requiring them to remain in base contact with each other. That way, they're effectively still on one (albiet slightly oddly-shaped) base, so you can still treat them as a single model without any wierdness from them not being based together.

Andrew1975 wrote:See that seams like modeling to advantage to me. You have one model but on the smaller base.

Don Mondo has not modeled anything for his advantage. That is the way the model was designed and sold by GW.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:See that seams like modeling to advantage to me. You have one model but on the smaller base.

Don Mondo has not modeled anything for his advantage. That is the way the model was designed and sold by GW.

And that model was sold as one member of a heavy weapons team, not the entire team by himself.

How many people would think that half a dreadnought satisfies WYSIWYG? Why should a HWT be any different?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:See that seams like modeling to advantage to me. You have one model but on the smaller base.

Don Mondo has not modeled anything for his advantage. That is the way the model was designed and sold by GW.

Raw/Rai.......Fair? I know fair has little to do with 40K win at all costs, but to use just one model on a small base would be a D move. I would do it if someone objected to me using the two in coherency. Because that's just a d move counter then. Same person could have called me out for not using the original bases if I went to the trouble of rebasing them they were a real douche. The way I see it they could be a great litmus test, if you cry about them I don't really want to play with you anyway.

I could see if I was in a tournament or something, but really, people need to relax a little.

It doesn't make much of difference as long as they remain in base contact and move as one. I personally would allow it in friendly games.

One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the massive difference the base(s) size(s) make in this case towards assaults, who can fight and who can fight back.

Massaen wrote:One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the massive difference the base(s) size(s) make in this case towards assaults, who can fight and who can fight back.

Well since you don't need to be base to base with every model does this really make a difference? These are guardsmen, they are all gonna die in close combat.

insaniak wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:See that seams like modeling to advantage to me. You have one model but on the smaller base.

Don Mondo has not modeled anything for his advantage. That is the way the model was designed and sold by GW.

And that model was sold as one member of a heavy weapons team, not the entire team by himself.

How many people would think that half a dreadnought satisfies WYSIWYG? Why should a HWT be any different?

Has GW ever intentionally sold half Dreadnaught models? Or with a foot on separate bases? I am saying that Don Mondo has not invented or created a smaller based model. He has modeled nothing. GW has. Don Mondo is just looking at the Rules of the Game, and is legally doing what is most rewarding for him. His reward happens to be convenience. He could just as easily done a number of things for a number of reasons, but even if he is legally using this situation to give him an in game advantage, how is that different from any of us using the Rules of the Game to increase our chances of winning? Like, I am allowed 6 Troops in the FOC. Scenario 1 at he local Tourney is Objectives. I think I'll bring 2 just so that people don't think I'm a D-bag for trying to win. Or, you can buy a 20 point Psyker with Force Weapons in Power Armour. As d-bag of a move as that is, you can still do it. I bring 10 Nob Bikers differently allocated, some with Ammo Runts even though my Dakkagunz are Twin-Linked. So what? I do not see the logic of persecuting anyone for legally playing the game, for fun or to win. If you wish to harangue someone, GW has Toll Free numbers you can call. This is their game, these are their rules, these are their models, and we are left to type into the wee hours of the morning as to why we are outraged somebody is doing something we don't like.

The guys at my store told me not to glue my HW soldiers to the base, and instead glue them to the smaller infantry bases so I can use them both as typical infantry and as gun crews. When they're HWS, I just set them on the 60mm base with the heavy weapon. Is this ok? Seems like falls under the same type of stipulations that other guys on here are doing

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Has GW ever intentionally sold half Dreadnaught models?

Have they ever intentionally sold half of a heavy weapon team?

I am saying that Don Mondo has not invented or created a smaller based model. He has modeled nothing. GW has.

Which doesn't change the fact that the model is no longer legal as is, as the way HWTs work has changed. Just as that Space Marine Scout with a shuriken catapult is no longer legal, despite being a GW model.

Playing a single model on a 25mm base does not satisfy WYSIWYG under the current codex, because under the current codex the HWT is two guys on a single base.

I do not see the logic of persecuting anyone for legally playing the game, for fun or to win. If you wish to harangue someone, GW has Toll Free numbers you can call. This is their game, these are their rules, these are their models, and we are left to type into the wee hours of the morning as to why we are outraged somebody is doing something we don't like.

Or, you could stop trying to build this up into a bigger issue than it actually is...

Nobody is being 'persecuted'. Nor are they being 'harangued'. Nor is anyone else 'outraged'.

In practice, most people (myself included) won't care in the slightest how you represent your base your heavy weapon teams, or how many models you put on the base. But that doesn't make it 'legal', which was the argument being made. It just makes it something that people don't mind compromising on, because it's not worth arguing about at the table.

As with so many rules discussions, the purpose here isn't to tell people what to do. It's simply to present the various arguments that apply to the discussion, so people can make an informed decision for themselves.

insaniak wrote:Have they ever intentionally sold half of a heavy weapon team?

Yes. Apparently they sold two halves at some point.

insaniak wrote:Which doesn't change the fact that the model is no longer legal as is, [ ] because under the current codex the HWT is two guys on a single base.

I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that the Codex calls for 1 model with 2 wounds. As to what the model looks like and the base required to field it, GW has grandfathered in older models. Why does Don Mondo HAVE to have 2 figures on the base? Why does he HAVE to use a base other than the one supplied?

insaniak wrote:Nobody is being 'persecuted'. Nor are they being 'harangued'. Nor is anyone else 'outraged'.

Andrew1975 is incensed enough to accuse Don Mondo of 'modeling for advantage', which by the rules means 'cheating'. That's a pretty strong accusation in a social gaming forum.

insaniak wrote:In practice, most people (myself included) won't care in the slightest how you represent your base your heavy weapon teams, or how many models you put on the base. But that doesn't make it 'legal', which was the argument being made. It just makes it something that people don't mind compromising on, because it's not worth arguing about at the table.

As with so many rules discussions, the purpose here isn't to tell people what to do. It's simply to present the various arguments that apply to the discussion, so people can make an informed decision for themselves.

You are holding your colloquial conventions on par with the universal written Rules of the Game. 'This is how I/we do it around here' is not the rule of law. If you truly wish to 'inform' people of various 'legal' arguments in a GW game, such as the one presented by the OP, perhaps you should reference the GW rules, and not arbitrary social contracts.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

insaniak wrote:Have they ever intentionally sold half of a heavy weapon team?

Yes. Apparently they sold two halves at some point.

No, they sold a "heavy weapons team" which consisted of two models on individual bases. If you wanted to use a vintage "heavy weapons team" you would need to field it as it came (two models on their own bases). Just to be clear, you can use older GW models, and it is, as far as I can tell, completely legal. This came up in the Ork Trukk thread about a month ago.

There is a term, "Modelling for Advantage", that can apply to conversions, counts-as, scratchbuilds, and re-basing (using a different base than the one supplied with the model) in an effort to garner an advantage. Using an unchanged, vintage model does not fall under "Modelling for Advantage". It can sometimes be beneficial to use the older model, so we need a term to describe this situation. What do you call using vintage models for an advantage? I'm trying to get "Advintage!" to catch on.

In order to use the vintage heavy weapons team in place of the current one, Don Mondo would have to field both models. Technically, he'd also have to keep track of the number of wounds the team has taken, and remove both models once the team lost both wounds. This would be completely legal. The smaller footprint of the team could be considered an advantage, but it is legal by the GW rules. (Some tournaments have taken to ruling differently on this).

If he were to field only half of the vintage team, he would not be fielding a vintage heavy weapons team. He would also not be fielding a modern heavy weapons team. What he would be fielding would be best described as "counts-as". And given that the base size is so much smaller, he could be called on "Modelling for Advantage".

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Andrew1975 is incensed enough to accuse Don Mondo of 'modeling for advantage', which by the rules means 'cheating'. That's a pretty strong accusation in a social gaming forum.

If he is only fielding half of a vintage heavy weapons team, then it would be accurate to call him on "Modelling for Advantage". He isn't using the vintage heavy weapons team, he is only using part of it.

IcyCool wrote:In order to use the vintage heavy weapons team in place of the current one, Don Mondo would have to field both models. Technically, he'd also have to keep track of the number of wounds the team has taken, and remove both models once the team lost both wounds.

This is double plus good. I agree completely. My beef was with Andrew1975 accusing Don Mondo of cheating while trying to deal with the same issue as the OP. And what about the OP? Wouldn't Wobbly Model Syndrome would take over for him, and he can safely put his modern HWTs nearby on the board? I still think he could use the vintage models in the manner you described if he can get a hold of them.

Hold on I wasn't trying to flame anybody, and I would hardly call my response incensed, take a chill pill. Again lets just be fair about things, no need for people to bring out the nucs! I think it would be fair to use them as two models and keep them in coherency of each other, just like in the old rules. If one dies you just remove it. They are guard, chances of just one dieing are pretty slim. To just use one model seams to be pushing the rules to unfair and unsportsmanlike levels of game play.....ITS A GAME. If you are going to use the old teams you should use them both. It just courtesy. This issue can be fought in the legal courts all day. This says this, that says that. I didn't know I was going to court or I would have worn a suit to my game night.

In the end I have the models nicely painted and based, I'm going to use them, if you really have a problem and press the issue, I'll use just the one, but at that point we probably shouldn't play if we can't play nice with our toys.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Yes. Apparently they sold two halves at some point.

'Apparently'?... Can you find a picture of a blister that includes only the heavy weapon guy?

I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that the Codex calls for 1 model with 2 wounds. As to what the model looks like and the base required to field it, GW has grandfathered in older models. Why does Don Mondo HAVE to have 2 figures on the base? Why does he HAVE to use a base other than the one supplied?

The codex calls for one model with two wounds because it is representing two guys who form a weapons team. Yes, GW show outdated models in codexes from time to time... but usually only where those models are still legal. And for what it's worth, you won't find a single picture of individually-based HWTs in the current codex.

insaniak wrote:You are holding your colloquial conventions on par with the universal written Rules of the Game. 'This is how I/we do it around here' is not the rule of law. If you truly wish to 'inform' people of various 'legal' arguments in a GW game, such as the one presented by the OP, perhaps you should reference the GW rules, and not arbitrary social contracts.

Playing this game doesn't always come down to strict RAW. In fact, as has been demonstrated countless times in the past, playing the game strictly by RAW is pretty much impossible.

So discussions on this forum quite frequently include local conventions, to give people an idea of how these things are dealt with in the real world. WYSIWYG is not something I've made up for my own local games... it's a fairly widespread gaming convention, that has been at the core of the 40K game since its inception. How closely it is adhered to varies from gamer to gamer... but it's every bit as valid a point of discussion in a thread like this as the actual rules as printed in the rulebook, because it deals with how people actually play the game.

insaniak wrote:Can you find a picture of a blister that includes only the heavy weapon guy?

No, but I can find one of two parts of the Heavy Weapons Team this are not on a single base.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:No, but I can find one of two parts of the Heavy Weapons Team this are not on a single base.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that what you posted isn't a heavy weapons team, how does that prove that they were sold individually?

So, what you are saying is that if I can't find a picture of my Rogue Trader models in my current Codex, I can't use them?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the fact that GW sometimes show old models, or that old models are sometimes still perfectly usable in later editions of the rules in no way proves that all old models are still appropriate for use now. Units change. Usually, that's not a big issue... but sometimes, it results in models needing to be modified a little in order to fit the current game.

In the grand scheme of things, rebasing a few HWTs is pretty minor compared to some of the changes needed to bring certain old models in line with the current game.

Then why are you presenting your arguments as such?

I'm not.

You told a forum of 40K gamers that Don Mondo is a malicious cheater. That's what 'modeling to advantage' is. Premeditated and with full knowledge. It is not a phrase to throw about loosely.

There is a world of difference between 'modelling for advantage' and 'malicious cheater'. Again, stop trying to build this up into a bigger issue than it actually is.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:You told a forum of 40K gamers that Don Mondo is a malicious cheater. That's what 'modeling to advantage' is. Premeditated and with full knowledge. It is not a phrase to throw about loosely.

If Don Mondo is using half of a vintage heavy weapons team to represent a heavy weapons team, then he is, in fact, using counts-as. Since his counts-as does not have the correct base size for the model he is representing, he is "modelling for advantage", and is cheating.

I fail to see where anyone claimed this cheating was malicious (except your post above).

Gaining an unfair advantage (i.e. an advantage not allowed by the rules) is cheating.

To be clear:

You can model for advantage and be unaware that it is cheating.
You can model for advantage with the intent to sow torment and sorrow upon your unsuspecting opponent.

There is a whole range of intents between those two. There is one thing in common though, the "modelling for advantage" part (which is cheating). In friendly games this may not matter much to his local gaming scene. It does seem like a small deal. But that doesn't make it legal by the rules, it is still cheating.

Edit - I meant to address this earlier, but Ghenghis Jon quite accurately points out that "Wobbly Model Syndrome" covers the OPs concerns about the modern heavy weapons team not fitting on the upper floors of a ruin.

Ghenghis Jon. You are obviously just trolling. Stating an opinion that something seams like modeling for advantage to me does not equate to me calling him a cheater. Nowhere did I chastise him, I just said I would handle the situation differently. The only person chastising anyone is you. You need to settle down.

You told a forum of 40K gamers that Don Mondo is a malicious cheater

No I didn't. I am gonna call you a liar though. You are exactly the type of person I would never want to play against. RAGE!

You know what I never even said it was illegal, or against the rules. I actually said it was fine....it was modeling for advantage, but not in an illegal way. I feel its a d move. Just like the sideways vehicle move, completely legal....completely unsportsmanlike like thought. If you really need to play that way I feel bad for you.

Oh and that ancient Rapier lazer destroyer is not a heavy weapons team. It cannot be part of an infantry unit, it's like a mole mortar or a tarantula. Stop trying to ignite a fight that isn't there. In fact you couldn't even use that without the rules from imperial armor as it's not a reg 40k piece of kit anymore and is not in the codex.