IG basing frustration.

[the_forgefather]

I played a game against an IG player who's new to the game and he had some of the old IG heavy weapon teams, which are the ones that aren't on the big bases (two seperate guys and a seperate gun), and when I shot at them with a frag missile it scattered and hit a HWT's gun but he said that it didn't hit the "actual" model so it was a miss. I argued that since a HWT is a single model with two wounds then the gun counts as part of the model, which he refused to believe me and, just to be a friendly player, I agreed and we moved on.

 

Has anyone else encounterd this problem with old IG models? I'm fairly certain that the need to be placed on the large base or that if the gun is hit then it should count as the entire model.

 

I would really appriciate some clarification!

[JamesI]

I would say in this case the gun is part of the model as it should be 1 model on a large base.

[Seahawk]

There is absolutely zero requirement for putting them on a bigger base, as 5th edition is "put on the bases they are supplied with." Think of it like the Eldar: two of them form a team (but stay seperate). If you hit the gun with a template, you're not hitting either of the actual gunners, in essence you're just hitting a marker. That could be how your opponent played. However, next time simply ask him before the game: Which model counts as the actual HWT model for determining hits?

 

I also have old IG models and I've fiddled with different ways of playing them. One is to use both models and if a blast hits either one then it's hit, to "represent" that the new models are on bigger bases. The other way is to simply not use my loader, just the gunner so that I follow the "just one model" thing. You could also suggest these alternatives to him.

 

Lastly, I hate the current HWT's being on ginormous bases. It's all marketing BS. They can't fit in/on any terrain except an open field (just forget about my awesome trench terrain) and look terrible with two little dudes on so much empty space.

[Ntin]

It is oddly enough would be against the rules for him to mount that on a large round base because models can only be placed on bases they came with.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Under the current rules, if the gun is considered part of the model then it takes the hit.

 

It's like saying that a Whirlwind shot didnt hit the Greater Daemon, it his the big stone on his base which isn't part of the Daemon so doesn't actually hit... i.e. nonsense.

[Ashe Darke]

My mate has a load like that and we just take it as the guy with the weapon is the main base so for things like templates if it gets the whole squad it only gets 9 guys for example. When one loses a wound he just takes the other guy off.

 

The big bases are sneaky as they allow you to get loads of guys into combat easily. Stick the big bases at the front of the combat and then everyone is easily within 2 inches of them. You easily get 30 guard capable of attacking that way.

[Legatus]

In the 4th Edition Codex Imperial Guard a Weapon Team consisted of two models using one heavy weapon. The models were on standard infantry bases, the guns were not part of the model. When GW started to release Weapon Team models on a single big base, that was used mainyl for "convenience" (*cough*bs*cough*) and modelling. In the rules they were still considered to be two models.

 

The 5th Edition rules have changed, and now a "Weapon Team" is a single model with two wounds, similar to a Space Marine Attack Bike. For old school Terminators I would argue that they can use the smaller bases since that were the ones they came with, but with the new IG Weapon Team rules using the old infantry models simply does not work with the rules they now have. It is a single model, with two Guardsmen on a consierable large base. If the opponent agrees then an IG player might still se the older models with separate bases, but both players should discuss how they are treated in the game. They are not legal with the current rules for Weapon Teams.

 

There is absolutely zero requirement for putting them on a bigger base, as 5th edition is "put on the bases they are supplied with."

It was ok to still use small bases with the 4th Edition Codex IG, because back tehn the Weapon Team actually consisted of two models, and separate bases were actually what the rules demanded. The big bases were just a bad modelling suggestion back then.

 

But with the current Codex the rules for Weapon Teams have changed, and they are now one single model with two wounds, so it is now actually required that they are put on a single base.

[the_forgefather]

But with the current Codex the rules for Weapon Teams have changed, and they are now one single model with two wounds, so it is now actually required that they are put on a single base.

 

See that's what I thought too because it's a single profile. The thing I have a problem with is that when you determine wounds with the old IG HWTs is that you can just take one wound for each model manning the gun as opposed to taking them on the single two wound model.

 

For example: If a squad of 3 NEW HWTs takes 3 wounds then they would allocate two wounds to one HWT and then the last wound to the other -because each team is a -single model- but the same situation with the old HWTs you could just apply one wound to each model in the HWT.

 

The way GW changed this is irriating :P

[Ntin]

Why do Imperial Guard weapon teams and metal terminators get two different outcomes for the same rule? Metal terminators are mounted on an infantry base because that is what they came with. An Imperial Guard weapon team did not come with a single base. A plastic terminator is mounted on the large base because that is what it came with. A plastic Imperial Guard weapon team is mounted on a large base because that is what they came with. A baseless metal Imperial Guard weapon team is no more illegal than an infantry base metal terminator. The same thing can be said for Eldar Guardian weapon teams hitting the Starcannon with a small blast does not inflict a wound on the entire Guardian squad.

[Frosty the Pyro]

in the old rules (the ones for the gun being on its own base seperate from its crew) the gun base never counted for anything, similar to grot orderlies for orks. I beleive he played it right.

 

But with the current Codex the rules for Weapon Teams have changed, and they are now one single model with two wounds, so it is now actually required that they are put on a single base.

 

See that's what I thought too because it's a single profile. The thing I have a problem with is that when you determine wounds with the old IG HWTs is that you can just take one wound for each model manning the gun as opposed to taking them on the single two wound model.

 

For example: If a squad of 3 NEW HWTs takes 3 wounds then they would allocate two wounds to one HWT and then the last wound to the other -because each team is a -single model- but the same situation with the old HWTs you could just apply one wound to each model in the HWT.

 

The way GW changed this is irriating :)

On the other hand an assault canon that deals 3 wounds would only have removed 3 of 6 crew models before, but now it removes 3 of 3 HWT models. two wound models are better at absorbing light fire, but worse at absorbing heavy fire, and at T3, heavy fire doesnt actualy need to be that heavy. Also as there is no special rule to allow it, the new heavy weapons teams have a lassgun less firepower (before they could fire the heavy weapon, and the other crewman could fire his lasgun, or when moving could fire two lasguns, in current as its one model, its the heavy weapon or one lasgun)

[Grey Mage]

But with the current Codex the rules for Weapon Teams have changed, and they are now one single model with two wounds, so it is now actually required that they are put on a single base.

 

See that's what I thought too because it's a single profile. The thing I have a problem with is that when you determine wounds with the old IG HWTs is that you can just take one wound for each model manning the gun as opposed to taking them on the single two wound model.

 

For example: If a squad of 3 NEW HWTs takes 3 wounds then they would allocate two wounds to one HWT and then the last wound to the other -because each team is a -single model- but the same situation with the old HWTs you could just apply one wound to each model in the HWT.

 

The way GW changed this is irriating :ph34r:

The thing is... thats not correct.

 

Wether they are 1 or 2 models makes no difference- their mechanics are the same. If they suffer an ID wound you simply remove both gunner and loader and heavy weapon. If they dont, you can remove the loader was an easy "wound counter" but thats all it is- it doesnt actually change how the model works.

 

And for the record- since a heavy weapon is comprised of a gunner, spotter/loader and gun, if you touch any of them youve touched all three... because they are one.

[Legatus]

Wether they are 1 or 2 models makes no difference- their mechanics are the same.

No, they are not.

 

---

3 new Weapon Teams, all with the same weapon, recieve four wounds. Because of the rules for units with multiple wound models, you now have to remove two full weapon teams. One Weapon Team is left

 

3 old Weapon Teams, all with the same weapon, recieve four wounds. You remove three loaders and one gunner. The unit now has two weapons left to fire.

 

---

An Infantry Squad with new Weapon Team recieves 10 wounds. The unit consists of 9 models, so each model gets one wound, and a second wound is put on a lasgun guarsdman. The Weapon Team survives at any rate.

 

An Infantry Squad with old Weapon Team recieves 10 wounds. The unit consists of 10 models, so each model gets one wound. The Weapon Team might be killed.

 

---

An Infantry Squad with new Weapon Team suffers 5 casualties. The unit is now below 50% strength (4 of 9 left) and would not be able to rally unless an officier was present.

 

An Infantry squad with old Weapon Team suffers 5 casuaktes. The unit is not exactly at 50% (5 of 10) and could still rally if it failed it's morale test.

 

---

Wounds from Star Cannons, Scatter Lasers, Auto Cannons, Grenade Launcher Krak Grenades, Plasma Guns, Krak Missiles, Laser Cannons, Rokkits, Assault Cannons, Tau Misiles and Plasma Rifles or Rail Rifles would all only have removed one guardsman from a weapon team, but they will now remove a whole Team at once.

 

Why do Imperial Guard weapon teams and metal terminators get two different outcomes for the same rule? Metal terminators are mounted on an infantry base because that is what they came with. An Imperial Guard weapon team did not come with a single base.

The crucial difference being that the rles for how Weapon Teams work have now changed. Terminators are still single model infantry, and their bases just were made bigger. Weapon Teams on the other hand used to consist out of two distinct infantry models and the gun, but now the complete Team is one model. You cannot just have one model be spread over several different bases. Imagine someone used three infantry bases with one Ripper on each for one Ripper swarm model.

[Ntin]

Gamesworkshop still sells the older style Imperial Guard weapon teams. Regardless a player cannot mount the old style models on the new monstrous creature circle base as it is not a base the model came with.

 

Did rippers ever come with infantry bases? Even in 3rd they were a large round base.

[Legatus]

They allways were one single model. The point is that one single model should not be divided over several different bases. Imperial Guard Weapon Teams are not simply the older models with new bases. They are now a completely new type of model. Essentially, the old Weapon Team guardsmen do not exist anymore in the current Codex. Instead there is a new model type, which happens to consist of the two guardsmen and gun that previously were used as distinct models.

[Ntin]

I am missing the point then. If Rippers have always been placed on one base then it would be illegal to mount them on singular bases and claim each one is a single wound. That is the basing rule for 5th edition a model has to be mounted on the base that it was packaged with. You cannot mount the old Imperial Guard weapon teams on a monstrous creature bases as much as I can mount all my metal Deathwing Terminators on large circle bases. The game carries a huge amount of legacy products it is just one of those quirks.

[Legatus]

I am missing the point then.

Apparently. It is not a trivial issue though.

 

 

If Rippers have always been placed on one base then it would be illegal to mount them on singular bases and claim each one is a single wound.

It is important to realize that "Imperial Guard Weapon Teams" as they exist now in the current Codex Imperial Guard did not exist in previous Editions. You are not using the same unit type and putting them on different baseds. The unit type that was available in previous Codices (one loader minie, one gunner minie, one heavy weapon minie) are gone, and instead it is now a unit type that consists of one single model that includes two guardsmen and a gun on one base. You cannot ue the older minies with their smaller bases, because the unit type they were used for does not exist anymore.

 

 

That is the basing rule for 5th edition a model has to be mounted on the base that it was packaged with. You cannot mount the old Imperial Guard weapon teams on a monstrous creature bases as much as I can mount all my metal Deathwing Terminators on large circle bases. The game carries a huge amount of legacy products it is just one of those quirks.

Actually , models have to be put on the bases they are packaged with. Terminators are packaged with monster bases. Weapon Teams are packaged with large round bases. The intent of that rule is to have a standard for how models are based. Models from a previous era with different bases are counter to that intent.

E.g. imagine you buy a Box of one Imperial Guard Infantry Squad, but because of a packaging mistake they come wit h10 monster bases instead of infantry bases (or no bases at all). You are suggesting that the unit would therefor have to be glued on and played with the large monster bases. I am suggesting that "Imperial Guard Infantry Squad" models are by default supplied with the regular infantry bases and thus would have to be put on those.

 

Terminators come with monster bases these days, and even though I don't like that at all and would also make excuses like "but they came with small bases when I bought mine" I still have to admit that the smaller bases are not the correct ones, and I ask my opponent every time whether he is ok with me using Terminators on smaller bases.

[King Tiger]

the rulebook says page 3 that models are normally supplied with a plastic base, if so they must be glued onto there bases before they can be used in game.

it does not say they must be mounted on the bases currently supplied with the current generation of models

 

this does not mean however that guard players can claim both models as single wounds, as the guard codex does not allow that, but it also means they do not have to base them on 60mm bases, and to actually do so needs them to discuss it with there opponent, as otherwise its against the rules.

 

so the player is fine basing them singular as the rules allow it, but he can't claim there 2 separate models for the purposes of taking wounds, and if he didn't believe you then he obviously doesn't read his own codex

[Grey Mage]

Wether they are 1 or 2 models makes no difference- their mechanics are the same.

No, they are not.

 

---

3 new Weapon Teams, all with the same weapon, recieve four wounds. Because of the rules for units with multiple wound models, you now have to remove two full weapon teams. One Weapon Team is left

 

3 old Weapon Teams, all with the same weapon, recieve four wounds. You remove three loaders and one gunner. The unit now has two weapons left to fire.

 

---

An Infantry Squad with new Weapon Team recieves 10 wounds. The unit consists of 9 models, so each model gets one wound, and a second wound is put on a lasgun guarsdman. The Weapon Team survives at any rate.

 

An Infantry Squad with old Weapon Team recieves 10 wounds. The unit consists of 10 models, so each model gets one wound. The Weapon Team might be killed.

 

---

An Infantry Squad with new Weapon Team suffers 5 casualties. The unit is now below 50% strength (4 of 9 left) and would not be able to rally unless an officier was present.

 

An Infantry squad with old Weapon Team suffers 5 casuaktes. The unit is not exactly at 50% (5 of 10) and could still rally if it failed it's morale test.

 

---

Wounds from Star Cannons, Scatter Lasers, Auto Cannons, Grenade Launcher Krak Grenades, Plasma Guns, Krak Missiles, Laser Cannons, Rokkits, Assault Cannons, Tau Misiles and Plasma Rifles or Rail Rifles would all only have removed one guardsman from a weapon team, but they will now remove a whole Team at once.

Yes- you are correct, the old rules are different than the new rules.

 

However the old models do not change the mechanics of the new rules.

 

Thus- It does not matter if you use the old models or new models the rules will be the same.

 

So if a template touchs part of the model it touches all three, couting as one. If the entire base is removed, you must remove all three models. If you like, the loader can be used as a wound counter- or not fielded at all if desired, it wont change how the new rules function.

 

I hope that makes my point a bit more clear.

[Seahawk]

Grey Mage has it right, expanding on my original thoughts. It doesn't matter how it looks, if you play it right and by the rules then it's right.

[Legatus]

Ah, yes, it seems I have been misunderstanding your point. However, even tryingto apply the same game mechanic as with the larger base to three separate pieces could be confusing. If assaulted, and only the loader was touched, the gunner would not be allowed to move in, for example. Upon disembarking, the loader and gunner might be placed in close BtB contact, but after some movement the two may be positioned with 2" space between them, which would also be odd.

When in combat, and where only the gunner was in contact with the enemy, with the loader 1" behind him, other friendly models would also be allowed to attack if they are within 2" of the loader (who himself is not in contact), as usually he would be part of the "Weapon Team Base".

[stinkenheim]

i have the old heavy boter models as it is easier for me to position them in scenery (i play cityfight mostly and small walkways ae impossile for a 60mm base to fit on), but i have mounted the gun and sooter on a 40mm base and keep the loader in btb contact at all times. if someone shoots them then aslong as they touch any part of either model its able to fire and with wounds i do remove a loader to keep note of hw many wounds the team has left.

when it comes to combat, again i try and keep the loader and shooter i btb contact and will not spread them out at all, nor will i spread them when moving them about.

 

to me it is about how the person plays with the old models, and in the OPs example, claiming the gun is not part of the model is wrog, as despite them being on seperate bases to all intents and purposes they are one and the same. fair play to you for letting it slide, but you can feel annoyed at the way your opponent dealt with it.

 

+edit+ for some reason it duplicated my text...

[Seahawk]

However, even tryingto apply the same game mechanic as with the larger base to three separate pieces could be confusing.

Only for the unwilling to adapt! The unthinking to ignore! Potatoes! :)

 

Really though, it's not that hard to play with or against, so long as some method is consistent. Nobody here complains at least, and the age range of players who've faced it without a problem is 14-24. I suppose it really does depend on who you play with.

[Isiah]

to me it is about how the person plays with the old models, and in the OPs example, claiming the gun is not part of the model is wrog, as despite them being on seperate bases to all intents and purposes they are one and the same. fair play to you for letting it slide, but you can feel annoyed at the way your opponent dealt with it.

 

I agree completely. The rules are clear. No matter the basing method is used – from a practical gameplay standpoint it's the current rule mechanics that are used and no other. It might be visually confusing I agree, but a it of common sense can soon resolve odd issues occuring.

 

If anything I think the OP was over-generous in this instance. Seems to me the IG guy was pulling a fast one here. He needs to learn that models don't necessarily dictate the rules – the rules dictate the rules.

 

Cheers

I

[the_forgefather]

Wow! Thanks so much ya'll! This guy is a friend of mine so next we play I'll use some of the examples ya'll provided to help make sense between the old and new versions, and, with this new found knowledge, we can hopefully come to an agreeable(is that spelled right?) agreement! :D

 

-The Forgefather