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.

In a league game last night, i had an Anti-Tank squad with 3 rockets in hth with some Tyranid Warriors. The teams were all on the large bases, with 2 guys on each. The warriors killed 3 models, so i placed a wound marker on each base, taking the loaders as the casualtys. Neither my opponent or I had any problem. However, there were 2 Arbitratos watching, and said I was doing it wrong. They said the rules state that I have to remove whole models when possible, so I had to remove one entire base, taking a rocket launcher away. I argued about it for a bit, since there are two models on the base, and they are based for "conveinence". However, they were arbitrators, so I had to do it.

Were they right or wrong? Could someone tell me where in the rulebook I can find an answer either way?

I.G v4 FAQ :
"Heavy weapon teams are supplied with a large base to contain both c rewmen and the weapon. Treat them as two separate models that are based together for convenience of movement."

So you were right and they wrong.

it's for that very reason i'm basing them together on the large base, with the loader "loose" on a standard base.

You're definitely right. It's six models, two models per base, not three two-wound models. You were removing whole models.

Exactly, they are based to help you out and look cool, not to screw you over cause a ref can't read a codex

Slightly off-topic... but i still disagree with the "model not holding the heavy weapon can fire his rifle if in range" rule.... YES i know it was chapter approved and all... but still seems kinda lame to me... there's like another 600 guardsmen to fire from, and my room mate likes to roll EVERY SINGLE GUARD onto one unit to up his chances... their codex says "Two guardsman can make up a heavy weapons team"... how does that imply that the loader gets a rifle too... it should be if you use the rifle the loader has the guy with the big gun should use his rifle too b/c he can't use the heavy weapon b/c it's not loaded, b/c the loader is firing his rifle................. yeah... that's kinda stretched thin...
LOL!
sorry for the rant...

"Two guardsman can make up a heavy weapons team"... how does that imply that the loader gets a rifle too

Because both models in the heavy weapons team keep their lasguns.

so.... technically... a HW team with 2 Guardsmen, can fire the auto-canon at you, then turn around and fire both lasguns? or they only have the option to fire the HW or the lasgun.... i dunno... still doesn't make sense, the HW team is made up of 2(two) guardsmen, i say it should be either BOTH fire the HW or BOTH fire their lasguns, not split it down the middle... granted everyone always yells at me for bringing this up...

Close, but Technically they do keep both their origional weapon and then, the team is assigned a heavy weapon as well. So, when moving the team could fire their 2 lasguns, and while stationary they could fire one lasgun and one heavy weapon.

It is widely played that the team must sacrifice one lasgun for the heavy weapon, but I have never seen anyone claim that the team loses both lasguns for the heavy weapon.

Realism has a hard time translating over to the game world. In the real world a two or three man team would require all members to have to concentrate on the weapon while in use. In the game world it would only result in even more of a handicap for guard squads who have to pin themselves down to fire (losing most of their shots) or becomming overpowered like increasing their BS, giving them re-rolls, or allowing them to move and fire (all things that other game systems have done). It's just one of those things that the designers have to do to keep the game playable. There are four things that (when played realistically) that would break the game of 40K because of imbalance.

Snipers
Indirect fire
Heavy (crew served) weapons/artillery
Ordnance

Now, let ME apologize for the rant!

no apology necessary...
Thanks for the clarification... although (granted i think i'm still just a rookie and need to up my skills / rework my lists) i think the guard are strong enough... my roomate (who plays guard) ALWAYS seems to beat my orks when we play :::shruggs::: although in the past 2 games i won the first and tied him on the second (which kinda brought up a question regarding VP's and what counts for him squad vs. unit)... they made some armies so confusing to learn all the ins and outs of how to use them it ridiculous...

If you're talking about the IG command Squads and VP's then yes, they did screw them up! If you search these forums you can find out how most people play it.

As far as your record goes: suggest playing some 500 point games. I had about a 10 month grudge match with an ork player going where we would play a couple times a week. He was just starting so we started at 500 points then went to 750, 1000, and so on. At the 500 point level the Guard have a heck of a time against the orks, and it's really only at the 1000 point level that the balance swings the other way.

LOL! i noticed that... i used to play 500 point games with 2 troop choices including nobs... when i removed the nobs, and added just Warboss a group of PURE sluggas and shootas i did MUCH better....

Beavis: Against an opponent I would allow the loader to fire his lasgun. But since generally (with rare exceptions) only vehicles can fire more than one weapon per turn, I wouldn't allow the gunner to fire both the heavy weapon and lasgun. One or the other, not both.

-Hans

I wouldn't allow the gunner to fire both the heavy weapon and lasgun. One or the other, not both.

Of course not. Infantry models can only fire 1 weapon per turn.

i have missle launcher models standing up firing from the shoulder on a small base - is this legal? i would think so because nowhere does it say i have to use big bases

"i have missle launcher models standing up firing from the shoulder on a small base - is this legal? i would think so because nowhere does it say i have to use big bases"

well, actually, on pg. 6, BGB:
"GW miniatures are usually supplied with a base and this should be viewed as the minimum size base they can be mounted on..."

so as long as it's the base he came with, it'd be okay.

i mounted the loaders on small bases, the put them on the large base.

The FAQ for the Guard states that the larger bases are used for convenience only, and to treat them as separate models.

In previous versions, they did come with 25mm bases, and I wouldn't complain about it. Most people would probably feel the same.... though some folks would possibly raise a stink about it. I'd put them on my 'don't play them' list.

-Hans

The FAQ for the Guard states that the larger bases are used for convenience only,

No it doesn't. It says merely that they are based together for convenience of movement. There is no 'only' in that statement, no matter how many times people try to insert it when quoting from the FAQ.

Nor does it make any difference. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the basing rules on page 6 may be ignored if the model is based a particular way 'for convenience of movement'... The reason for the model being supplied with a particular base has no bearing on it whatsoever.


That's just RAW, though. In practice, nobody will have a problem with seperately based teams. You just need some house rules to govern how they work.