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.

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

"The Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000 are simply referred to as models in the rules that follow."

That's not referring to the models in the book. It's referring to the miniatures used to play the game.

You're right, it doesn't state that those are the only things considered 'models'...

Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?

Clearly not.

The rules don't tell us that anything else is considered a model. Therefore, nothing else is considered a model. The term 'model' is applied solely to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000'

insaniak wrote:
Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?

Complete rot. 40k is closer to 1:53 and the Emperor wouldn't look too kindly on the recruiting of slaneshi daemons to the ranks of the most holy Adeptus Astares.

You heretics make me sick.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

"The Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000 are simply referred to as models in the rules that follow."
That's not referring to the models in the book. It's referring to the miniatures used to play the game.
You're right, it doesn't state that those are the only things considered 'models'...
Does that mean that I can make my Space Marine army out of a couple of Marines, a 1:2400 scale architectural model of the Central Qld University, and Megan Gale?
Clearly not.
The rules don't tell us that anything else is considered a model. Therefore, nothing else is considered a model. The term 'model' is applied solely to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000'

As I said, it depends on interprettation of the sentence. I see that sentence as specifying that the miniatures pictured in the rule book being used as examples will be reffered to as "models." If they wanted it to say that their miniatures will be the only miniatures used, then they would have stated it more specifically. Besides, it only says their miniatures, not their miniatures as provided or as intended. It doesn't say they can not be converted. It actually allows quite a liberal interpretation.

Skinnattittar wrote: I see that sentence as specifying that the miniatures pictured in the rule book being used as examples will be reffered to as "models."

Sure.

And I see it as meaning that the only model that you can use in Warhammer 40000 is the old Snotling model popping the bird.

Of course, that 'interpretation' isn't backed up by what's actually written there either... but why let that stop a good bit of rules lawyering?

If they wanted it to say that their miniatures will be the only miniatures used, then they would have stated it more specifically.

They would?

Remember, these are the people who forgot to mention what to do when a squad has mixed Leadership, and accidentally left the Access and Fire Points Appendix out...

It doesn't say they can not be converted.

There are a googleplex of things that the rulebook doesn't say you can't do.

Once again, that doesn't make them things that the rules allow.

Actually, my interpretation is pretty plain and simple without any stretching of anything. The sentence in question is pretty broad and not specific at al, just that the miniatures have to be the ones supplied by Citadel Miniatures for Warhammer 40,000. It doesn't say anything close to how they are prepared, used, or anything. You can assume this means they intend you to interpret this as saying "as pictured on the box/blister/codex" whatever, but you are just being foolish. Even a law professional would tell you that they are making no inferences to how you prepare the models for play with that sentence.

But if we were to use your interpretation, we would have to just place a pile of sprues and bare metal figures on the table, since that is all the Citadel Miniatures supplies.

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually, my interpretation is pretty plain and simple without any stretching of anything.

Really? So where do you get the part about it refering to the miniatures pictured in the rulebook from?

But if we were to use your interpretation, we would have to just place a pile of sprues and bare metal figures on the table, since that is all the Citadel Miniatures supplies.

If that makes you feel better.

This is probably a good time to remind you that this ridiculous RAW road down which we have trodden so far is not the way that I would suggest playing the game. It is simply the result of you trying to insert a loophole to get around a rule that nobody particularly bothers enforcing in the first place...

This stupid and really pointless argument is precisely why Games Workshop feels it needs to simplify and "dumb down" the rules.If people can argue for so long about what base size you are allowed to use,what hope is there of getting an in depth,detailed rule set?

it was a joke.

What I am defending is that the rulebook does not deny players the option of modifying WH40k miniatures, and that this allows players to use what base sizes they please, as long as they remain within the parameters that they are supplied (i.e.: if Heavy Bolter A uses 25mm bases standard, then Heavy Bolter B can as well, as long as Heavy Bolter B is used exactly the same in play as Heavy Bolter A). The opposition is enforcing that the rulebook states that you HAVE to use ONLY the miniatures AS they are supplied and "intended" by Citadel Miniatures (is Forge World carried by Citadel? If not, then those models and parts would be out as well).

Skinnattittar wrote:What I am defending is that the rulebook does not deny players the option of modifying WH40k miniatures,

And what you're ignoring is that it doesn't actually allow it, either.

Which makes it a dodgy place to start an argument.

Particularly an argument that's going to be completely uneccessary against the vast majority of opponents. Start in with some long-winded explanation about how your illegally based models are actually legal because of some obscure loophole that sounds like it's made up out of whole cloth, when all you actually needed to do was say 'Yep, they're based seperately because I prefer it that way... but I play them like this...(insert house rule adding rules governing how the team operates)' and all you're going to accomplish is to convince your opponent that you're a rules lawyer who needs to be watched closely in case you decide to trot out any more 'interpretations' like that in the middle of the game.

.

Yes, Hades, you can take three wounds and still have three heavy weapons that can fire. And concerning the bases, the big base is for convenience of movement according to the FAQ, so that you don't have to move two models, but have instead the option of moving just one. If you use the big base you should indicate where the two small bases would be for the two guardsmen for the purpose of being in range and plate coverage. If you don't, then you have to create house rules for how to manage them. Whatever says otherwise is not in the BGB, Imperial Guard Codex, or the FAQ, which is all that matters for RAW. For friendly gaming just be consistent and have fun*.

*Rule number 1 for gaming

Angst wrote:If you use the big base you should indicate where the two small bases would be for the two guardsmen for the purpose of being in range and plate coverage.

Not necessary at all.

The rules tell you how to measure range, and how to determine hits from templates and blasts.

Models sharing a base have no effect on how those rules work. Range is still measured in exactly the same way as for models 1 to a base, and blasts and template hits are likewise worked out exactly as normal.

The IG large double model bases do seem to be a wierd one in 40k, I don't think there are any other models that allow two indipendent models to share a base. So there are going to be some odd claims, such as instant death.

What sort of odd claims?

And why would Instant Death be a problem?

Hey, new here so don't bite my head off.

I was curious what people thought about this based on the differing opinions here.

Some say that there are three men with one heavy weapon each and three others that, while part of the crews, are essentially superflous for anything other than casualties.

Does this mean that a character like a Vindicare assassin could pick off the guardsmen with the heavy weapon leaving behind a regular guardsmen with a huge base?

Ventus wrote:Does this mean that a character like a Vindicare assassin could pick off the guardsmen with the heavy weapon leaving behind a regular guardsmen with a huge base?

If there were 3 'gunners' and 3 'loaders' then yes, the Vindicare would be able to pick one off.

That's not the way the teams work, though. The Heavy weapon is given to both models, not just one of them. Either of them can therefore fire it (It's generally assumed that they can't both fire it at the same time... this is a hole that they plugged with the Eldar weapon teams, but haven't fixed for Guard yet)... so the Assassin would have to kill both of them to silence the weapon.

But he could still kill off a whole team if there were three Heavy weapon bases left and one had a wound, right?

Also, could he kill of a whole team if he used his special round that deals two wounds?

Ventus wrote:But he could still kill off a whole team if there were three Heavy weapon bases left and one had a wound, right?

The base doesn't have a wound. They're two seperate models. Marking one with a wound means that one model is dead, not that the 'base' has a wound.

So yes, if the Assassin targets the model from the team that has already lost one member, there is only one to kill... so killing him kills the weapon.

Also, could he kill of a whole team if he used his special round that deals two wounds?

No. The team is comprised of two seperate models. The Turbo-Penetrator round inflicts two wounds on a single model.

insaniak wrote:What sort of odd claims?

And why would Instant Death be a problem?

That since it is one base, that means only one wound may be delivered to the models (a blast template weapon would only inflict one wound). Some have asked if they count as two wounds instead of two models. Things like that. I have had some people insist that the large base means it is two models acting as one in all senses, or that they count as one model so wounds can not be "handed around" to other models (if the HB team takes one wound, all subsequent wounds must first be applied to the HB team to remove it as soon as possible). Instant Death for people who think that the one based model means it is a two wound unit.

All of which are sorted by the FAQ pointing out that they are two seperate models.

Indeed, the team is in fact two separate models. This is why they are not classified as a multiple wound model and as such are not subject to the casualty removal rules for multi wound model units. It is unfortunate that the teams are based how they are as it contradicts and brings up constant rules issues.

However, guard players simply have to accept that the base counts as two models, so a template giving a partial on the base will actually be two partials. This is both hurtful (for the reason I just mentioned) and helpful, because it is incredibly difficult to cover two full teams with an ordinance template and utterly impossible to do with a blast. With the teams it's either all or nothing. If your play guard and dislike this, I'd recommend basing your heavy weapons separately like they used to be.

OK, this is getting a bit silly in my opinion, and while being silly I think there are still good arguments. So, from what I've come across and from what's written here's my answer -

the whle convert steel into cadian argument - while some may see this as cheating, I would say yes, go for it. Why? There's nothing (that I know of) in the IG codex saying that the whole army has to be from one founding. Indeed, as far as i am aware this 'themed' steel legion etc, came about with the release of steel legion 'rules' in WD and the plastic squad sets, making it easier and cheaper to theme an army around e.g. catachan. However, models could still be mixed. I used to play a catachan army, but used mordians for officers, command platoons etc and they blended in well. Why not do this for heavy weapon squads with the different 'costume' representing Health and Safety wear against the weapon - e.g. steel legion long coats being slight more heat resitant to protect the users from touching the hot weapon. No effect on the games, it would be assumed 'hot' weapons - flamers etc, are far hotter on the recieving end than the firing end, so the 'protective' clothing won't actually count as armour. There, you go, you don't have to use the big bases, you can use whatever as long as you don't mind different cloths in the army. On the other hand, convert the buggers! My admechs are half long coats and half cadian - which base could I use? Considering the combination now means that the models is technically supplied with boths choices I can use whatever i feel like.


If your not happy with that lets try the 'use with whats supplied'

cadians (don't quote me) are supplied with the large and small bases, if they don't come with the smal bases then maybe this is a GW mistake. But anyway - the large base is supplied for convience of movement, it doesn't say the models have to be attached to this base, just that they should be mounted on this base. The set comes with obvious modelling bits, sandbags etc that coincidently make a nice shapped 'pocket' for a normal base to fit in. When i make mine i will be mounting my CADIAN models on the small round bases, and then putting them on the large base for ease of movement. They are two seperate models (3 if you count thw eapon on the large bases as a diorama) and will be affected indiviaully rather than by the large base. Since rules affect models, NOT weapons, the model for the weapon is technically irrelevant, same as the sand backs are irrelevant, the only thing that matters are the guardsmen, who are treated as separate models, are modelled as separate models and for those really picky players are still mounted on the large base they are suppllied with.... You could actually do this with any founding - mordian, stel legion etc. In fact I know many people who do exactly the same thing in WFB with empire cannon crews! They don't argue about this sort of thing. They are seperate models on one base. And if someone does start moaning about 'blasts etc affect the large base 'cus thats what they iz mounteded on' then who cares - the chance of getting 1 partial from the large base being covered (50/50 chance with two dice) would usually give the same result as treating them as separte models and taking the one hit.

to sum up my opinion - use whatever base you want, whether you mount the squad on two small bases or one large base. if your going to a tournament and expect this problem could arise make a larger base to put underthem, or simple put a 'plain base' under them. end of the day the chance of them getting killed in omst circumstances is the same and the few exeptions are so rare they are realistically unlikly to affect the outcome of the game.

I have a question about IG Heavy Weapons Teams:

If I have a Heavy Weapon Team inside a Chimera, can the Heavy Weapon fire out of the Chimera using its Fire Point, or not?

Why wouldn't it be able to do so?

The Chimera entry (Page 45) mentions that "...one model may fire a weapon from the top hatch..."

I wasn't sure if this prohibited a Heavy Weapons Team from firing out of the Chimera's Fire Point, or not, because the Team is comprised of two models.

The team is comprised of two models... but only one of them fires the weapon each turn.

yes a team is two in the regular platoon squads but that does not mean it takes two to fire. I does not say that ANYWHERE. The 2nd guy could be there to smell the other one's farts as far as anyone else is concered. So yes. Why else would the rules say that they MAY FIRE A HEAVY WEAPON if the vehicle did not move.

If a girl (SoB) can carry a lascannon, then why can't one IG just carry the sinking thing.
Come on they PULL the lascannon around! LAZY IG!

The first Guardsmen fires his heavy weapon and the other one can fire his lasgun. SIMPLE!

Also the heavy weapon cannot be fired from the hatch of the chimera, only the six lasguns that are presented on the chimera may be fired. I found that out from GW staff. LOL

Um, a girl (SoB) can't carry a Lascannon. Sisters only have HB, HF, and MM as their heavy weapons.

Also, your GW staff are 'tards who need to RTFM. The IG Codex specifially states that a Guardsman may fire his weapon from the roof hatch on a Chimera. If that Guardsman is armed with a Heavy weapon, then he may fire it.