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.

BoxANT wrote:What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

It doesn't really "balance" guard heavy weapons if you make them much cheaper, but require people to rebase their miniatures. IG armies have more heavy weapon models than some armies have miniatures. This is not a trivial procedure.

I don't like 2-wound HW teams for a lot of reasons, but the modeling aspect is far and away my biggest problem. I feel it's a terrible way to treat people who play with metal IG. These are the players who have already spent two to three times as much money for their IG armies as people playing with modern plastics.

As I said earlier, the easiest and fairest solution is for GW to give players two HW options: Replace a single lasgun model with a HW model, and have the "loader" model have no in-game rules, or replace two models with a two-wound "HW team" model. Neither option is as powerful as the current HW team rules, but it seems to be the simplest way to deal with the (largely non-existent) "problem" of IG heavy weapons basing.

Seriously, the last 4+ pages have been about the 2-wound heavy weapon teams? Really?

I guess the fact that that issue is all HBMC has to bitch about is a win for the developers.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

We ain't seen the rules yet Ozzy. Only a summary. I'm savin' my bile for the moment.

BYE

18 pages on just a summary... We have way too much time on our hands (and I'm including myself in that...).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm more annoyed at it from a modelling perspective. Some of us don't have any of the newer models, and soem of us have more old than new (I have 4-full platoons of metal Guardsmen, and only two of plastic). Most of my Heavy Weapons are not on bases, and all the crew are on regular bases (except the newer plastic ones, but even the loaders are on standard bases).

Making what is very much a distinct set of models into a single model is annoying for those of us who have never used them in that manner and don't base them like GW does.

BYE

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

Ozymandias wrote:18 pages on just a summary... We have way too much time on our hands (and I'm including myself in that...).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Aren't you in a movie in a few weeks?

Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

And if they do, it will obviously be "balanced" by giving them Vulnerable to blasts, too.

Mahu wrote:Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

I'd disagree. I think the old metal Catachan Missile Launcher team on separate bases looks much better than two models stuck on a big ass circle.

Between the new LRBTs, the new chimeras, the new hellhounds, and new artillery, I am actually thinking about running with zero infantry based heavy weapons (meltas and flamers baby).

That could very well be the way to go. That'll solve your 2-wound HW team problem for ya!

Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well as long as GW remains so needlessly tightlipped about what's coming out in an hour's time, let alone 3 months, it's not like we'll have much else to discuss.

Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

Well, we're discussing rumors. By definition, that's going to involve suppositions. If that was a bad thing, this forum would just be called "News."

Personally, I'm trying not to get too bothered by the rumors of 2-wound HW teams because we don't really know if they will be mandatory or optional. But I'll admit that I'm troubled by posters who think that making this change mandatory is a good thing. It's a "innovation" that few IG players were clamoring for. It has the potential to invalidate older models, and from a games design standpoint it is extremely messy.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Since when has that been a justification for derailing a thread? "There was nothing else to discuss." Bloody pathetic. This forum is called News & Rumors, not Rants & Suppositions.

We are discussing it Aggy. Calm down.

BYE

Can someone please explain why you would be forced to rebase your HW teams?

At the moment, both guardsmen in a HW team are treated as seperate models. For those with the older models this is dead easy, just take them off one at a time. No-one is saying that the new-model HW teams should be ripped off their large base and based seperately because this matches with the current way the rules work. You just place a wound marker on the base if only one of them dies.

Similiarly, under the forthcoming version, when the single 2-wound model dies, you remove the large 2-man base OR both older-version models. If the team takes one wound, you put a wound marker down on a large base or (conveniently) remove one of the two team members.


i.e. from a modelling point of view (drum roll please)...


...NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!


In game terms there is a slight change in the way that wounds are allocated to the unit. In some circumstances it makes the HW team more survivable, in others, slightly more vulnerable (feel free to Mathhammer it yourself if you don't believe this). As has been pointed out, however - it's cheaper. This surely more than makes up for the fact that in some (not all) circumstances it's slightly easier to kill - because as we all know killing guardsmen was sooo difficult before...


Just my $0.02 but I think people are making mountains out of molehills.

Oh wait, its the interwebz...

Mahu wrote:Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

I'm pretty sure that this is also cool:


Anyway, I support the right to have hw teams on separate bases simply because it opens up some cool converting doors.

The large bases wouldnt be so big a deal if they wernt manditory. They are fine if you play on a flat surface with no terrain. But if you do use terrain they are a PITA to get into or out of terrain. They are also very inconveniant to pack and un-pack.
I just made a 60mm ring out of some sturdy wire and when I place my HW teams I just make sure they both fit under the ring. Problem solved.

Centurion.

Aren't the HW bases 65mm, not 60mm? In fact, I just measured one. They are 65mm.

GW measures them from the top, not the bottom rim.

Not a problem, I just wrapped the wire around a spare base, so it is the correct size.

Centurion.

BrookM wrote:GW measures them from the top, not the bottom rim.

Are you sure? I bought 25mm base bottoms for some bases and they appear to match the bottom of the bases perfectly. I'm just curious also because it makes absolutely no sense to not measue the base at its widest point...

C'mon guys - what's 5mm between friends, ey?

BYE

Wars have been started over lesser things, plus that gamer on the other side of the table is sometimes a friend, sometimes the enemy, more often than not a gentle caressing rear end in a top hat.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do you honestly believe they're going to give Eternal Warrior to Guardsmen? Really?

BYE

It's no more rediculous then 5 pages of discussion on a stat. line in a summary.

Besides, this is Games Workshop we are talking about, when did their decisions become rational?

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

stonefox wrote:But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

Phhhbbbtttttttttttttttttt You gonna be at the Rapid Fire tourney on the 7th? Maybe AI can get Matt to let me run an IG list based on the current rumors...........

Back on topic.
Seriously, since the weapon is not degraded in performance by the loss of a crew member, why didn't they take this opportunity to derail the whole two-man heavy weapon team concept and make IG heavy weapons single man items. Provides a little more vulnerability to the heavy weapon, eliminates questions about how that loader counts for wound allocation (altho the two-wound model also does this), basically simplifies and streamlines the whole thing, But nope, instead we're apparently going to get two-wound heavy weapons. 'S allright, the two models btb are the heavy weapon team. Cause I'm not rebasing all my RT-era IG heavy weapons.

Well instead of female dogging about what we dont know, I would rather female dog about what we do. Just looking at the sheets I would have to rate to russ's in the following order of power.

Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

However I do not see the points costs supporing this list