PDA

View Full Version : Rebasing IG heavy weapon teams revisited...



Trench_Raider
23-05-2009, 20:02
A couple of months ago when I had made up my mind to get on the band wagon and paint up an IG army, I created a thread on this site about the desirability or otherwise of rebasing individually based heavy weapon models. It got quite a few replies and spawned quite a spirited debate. This post is a follow up to that thread. It has two seperate parts with seperate topics, but they are close enough that I will include them both in the same post. The first is my thinking in regards to the new multi-wound single model weapon teams and the second is my solution to the problem of rebasing my specific models.

Let me say it up front. I don't like the new multi-wound, single heavy weapon team models that are featured in the new IG codex. I didn't like the idea of them when I first encountered them in the various rumors threads and the leaked pre-release copies of the book that were posted around the 'net. Moreover, after seven or eight games using the new list (which for the most part I do actually like) and observing many others my feelings on the matter have been confirmed and I strongly feel that this change was a mistake. It's not a game breaker, but an annoyance that does harm the effectiveness of the list to some degree. Aside from the greater difficulty in actually physically placing the teams on the table, their new found vunerability to instant death and bigger foot print does make them less effective...especially in dedicated heavy weapon units. As I like to say, the Good Idea Fairy really bit someone on the a-- on this one!

But the rules are the rules...

When I first started painting up my IG army I had decided that I would not alter the basing of the heavy weapons in my own army. All my models sport the old traditional shoulder fired guns and would look odd on a larger base. I felt that it would be possible to simply place two models (the heavy weapon and another trooper model) base to base and simply use them as a form of "counts as". But in practice this did prove to be unwieldy and at times confusing to both my opponent and myself. After all by it's very nature an IG force is going to have alot of figures on the table and it's far to easy to loose track of what is what. Thus I came to the reluctant realization that I would have to rebase my heavy weapon models. I also came to the conclusion that rebasing these models would not really hamper my using them in RT and 2nd edition (which I still also play from time to time) to any real extent.

But the problem was how to acomplish this with a minimum amount of work and money spent.

Which brings me to my second point...
Clearly using the official GW large round bases was out of the question. With the absurd profit based decision to combine the bases into mixed bags, you now only got two of the proper bases at a go. True enough you could direct order the large bases, but at the price they were asking for these, this was simply not an option. However I looked around the 'net and found that Litko Areosystems made 60mm round laser cut bases in a variety of materials that would work. http://www.litkoaero.com/
I've used Litko bases extensively in the past for my real wargame miniatures and have been pleased with their pricing and quality. The ones I chose to order were the 3mm thick wooden bases. At 25 bases for 5.49$US, these are a real bargain and one bag would supply enough bases for pretty much any normal IG army.
My solution was to simply glue the existing single figures to the larger base and flock it. I acomplished this today for about 20 heavy weapons teams in a little more than an hour. (see attached photo of one of my lascannon units for the end result) I don't think it looks all that bad, although I still do feel that the shoulder fired weapons look a little out of place based like that. Granted the Litko bases are about 2-3 millimeters smaller in diameter when compared to the GW bases. But they are not small enough to have any effect upon game play and I honestly doubt most people would even notice the difference.

So what is your thought on the new weapon teams and their game mechanics? Good thing or stupid move on GW part? Have you rebased your old models? Did you change your mind as I did?

TR

Angelwing
23-05-2009, 20:53
Good that GW sorted out the rules mess left by introducing the new base size, but the solution makes heavy weapon teams worse.
As you say, rules are rules though and heavy weapons have become a different unit type to before and require a different base (much like WFB ghosts changed from single model infantry to multi model swarms) which effectively overrides the old 'use the base it came with' rule.
I have re-based my models by using a large base, painting it up and then standing my heavy weapons on them. My imperial guard are also my necromunda gang, and I didn't want to render my heavies unplayable in that system. It also means I don't have to change the way I store them, just pop the bigger bases on top of the foam.

Ranger S2H
23-05-2009, 21:04
I dont have any mult base heav weap teams, but I am really annoyed about the sudden instant death effect. I always ask my opponents if they mind if I use the old rules for heav weap teams . . .

another thing: does anyone have any tips on how to transport the large based teams?

Omniassiah
24-05-2009, 01:50
My finished painted ones go in the Customizable foam trays for the army transport bags, if you get the right size you can store them vertically which allows you to get about 9 per tray. if not more.

starlight
24-05-2009, 02:06
a) Dumb move GW. :(

b) I'm just going to have 60mm bases (unlikely to be *GW* bases :p) and put my existing HW troopers on the base. :p

Codsticker
24-05-2009, 02:28
... I strongly feel that this change was a mistake. It's not a game breaker, but an annoyance that does harm the effectiveness of the list to some degree. Aside from the greater difficulty in actually physically placing the teams on the table, their new found vunerability to instant death and bigger foot print does make them less effective...especially in dedicated heavy weapon units.
I agree- heavy weapons squads are certainly more fragile.

So what is your thought on the new weapon teams and their game mechanics?
TR
I can understand why GW made the change that they did; given the way the rules work for wound allocation and such it makes it easier with two models on a single base. However, given the increased fragility of the individual teams, they should have decreased the point cost of Heavy Weapon squads. Their reasoning for not may be that, in general, guardsmen were cheaper and therefore there wass no need to further reduce the point cost. I am planning to take a couple of Heavy Weapon squads in my next game to see how they fair. I won't be taking anything new from the codex as I want to see how the old list fairs under the new codex.

All my heavy weapon teams, but one, are based on the large bases so there is a no need for me to change.

Hashshashin
24-05-2009, 03:19
I never played Guard, but I've thought the bigger bases looked better, it's almost an excuse to have a bunch of small dioramas in your army.

I also like the fact that the ambiguity of some people fielding them on 2 bases and some people using one 60mm base is ended.

I do agree that is sucks that the two can be insta-killed easier, but guard has so many frickkin models on the table to start with it doesn't seem like a huge game changer to me. Also with all the new upgrades the guard just got I can't really feel bad for y'all that this one unit type got *slightly* downgraded

Bloodknight
24-05-2009, 03:36
That unit type is crucial for infantry-only concepts, which some people like. A mixed guard or mech guard doesn't need them, so it is a pretty big nerf for one of the more entertaining Guard concepts, IMO.


I never played Guard, but I've thought the bigger bases looked better, it's almost an excuse to have a bunch of small dioramas in your army.

Yes, they look better, but they play like ass because these huge things never fit where you want them for no reason at all, compared to anybody else's heavy weapons. For me, the inclusion of 60mm bases with the weapon team boxes and the 3.5 Guard codex was one of the stupidest decisions ever made by GW. At least they have now stopped being totally counter-intuitive in the rules. It still sucks having to rebase 34 weapon teams...(no, you generall don't field as many. Maybe a dozen in 1500 points, my army is just pretty big).

alex03
24-05-2009, 06:36
I think this is the case where they made the rule *because* of the modeling choice of the miniature design team.

Step 1: This looks cool, lets base this current team together.
Step 2: Hey that did look cool. Lets base all new teams together.
Step 3: Hmm now we have all this 2 guys on one base and it makes some odd gaming situations.
Step 4: Make new rule to represent new model. Arn't we clever?
Stpe 5: Heavy weapon teams gimped for no reason, but hey they look cool.

Bunnahabhain
24-05-2009, 07:09
I never played Guard, but I've thought the bigger bases looked better, it's almost an excuse to have a bunch of small dioramas in your army.



As bloodknight says, the problem then becomes I have to try and use, and move, these dioramas. As such, for my army, the less likely a heavy weapon is to move, the more likely it is to have a 60mm base; the mortar teams are either firing or dead in most circumstances, but missile launchers are often in normal squads, and moving, so are on 25mm ones.

Done well, the 60mm do look better, but they are a right pain to use. They're simply too big for infantry.
Just imagine if every Dreadnaught, War walker, MC or similar sized model , instead of being on their (normally) 60mm bases, was required to rebase onto CD sized bases, because it looks better, and it means the defilers and soulgrinders legs now fit neatly on it, ending ambiguity.

The added vunerability to ID is just the icing on the cake for them though. Eternal warrior would have fixed it nicely, and it's not as if it's an uncommon rule, at least until the new codex X, when 'Ignores Eteranal warrior' gets invented....

Gen.Steiner
24-05-2009, 07:38
My response has effectively been to ignore it completely. My Guard armies, bar one, are all for 1st, 2nd, or 4th Editions of 40K anyway, so I haven't bothered to rebase any of them.

My 5th Edition army, on the other hand, well, that has to have the bigger bases... but I'm going to 'cheat' and drill holes in them so that I can slot the 25mm and 40mm bases into the larger one so that I can use them for, well, other systems.

I'm increasingly into the idea of using Dropwing or Stargrunt II to play 40K with rather than 40K.

krillbur
24-05-2009, 07:51
So, there is a rule that says you have to use the base GW supplies with the model? What if i just let my squads be 9man and the Heavy weapon dude has 2 wounds, wouldn't that fit the rules? or would people eat me up at tournaments?

silentsmoke
24-05-2009, 07:53
I have been collecting guard (have a massive army) since day one - to be honest I cant see what all the fuss is about!!

Rules as rules and not everyone will like it!

Bunnahabhain
24-05-2009, 07:59
So, there is a rule that says you have to use the base GW supplies with the model? What if i just let my squads be 9man and the Heavy weapon dude has 2 wounds, wouldn't that fit the rules? or would people eat me up at tournaments?

You are supposed to base the model with the supplied base, If you're going for a different base to that one, then you're supposed to check with your opponent that they don't mind. page 3 , main rule book.

The problem with this is that guard heavy weapons have come with assorted different bases over the years.

Now, a standard squad consists of 10 men,( so 10 wounds) 2 of which may form a heavy weapon crew( so still 10 wounds). You implied 9 men+ 2 wounds from heavy weapons team...

If you run squads of 8 normal men, a heavy weapons trooper, and one other man, who is clearly the other half of the heavy weapons team- ie carrying ammo, using binoculars , etc, etc, and keep them very close to the heavy weapon, then you shouldn't have a problem.

freddieyu
24-05-2009, 12:27
I had to rebase, but for those already on 40mm and 20 mm bases i didn't want to remove them..so what i did was to rebase them straight on the clear flying bases...

here they are:

http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr193/freddieyu/Newly%20finished%20models/IMG_4737.jpg
missile launchers

http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr193/freddieyu/Newly%20finished%20models/IMG_4736.jpg
mortar

http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr193/freddieyu/Newly%20finished%20models/IMG_4733.jpg
autocannons

sometimes the edges jut out a bit but not so much....and oh those blue crystals are there on purpose since my army is a mining world, where blue energy crystals are the main resource for the imperium...

madprophet
24-05-2009, 17:51
I took 60mm circles of thin balsa and 60mm circles of 3mm balsa. I drilled out 3 - 1 1/4" holes using a paddle drill bit in the 3mm balsa and glued them to the thin balsa circle. I then finished the bases normally and I can place my existing HW crews and the HW itself in the base. I can store the pieces like before and mount them for a game (I can even remove the loader to mark a single wound on the base).

JCOLL
24-05-2009, 18:25
I'm with the crowd that doesn't understand all the fuss. To be honest I haven't been playing as long as some of you, but have been playing long enough to buy heavy weapons teams in a blister containing small bases rather than the big round ones. I always though the 60mm base looked better, as has been said a small diorama, which I have taken full advantage of. I can understand the upset it has caused, but is it really for gamin reasons or just having to change. Some people don't like change. I think the simplest solution is to use a 60mm base and build the base up around at least the loader so he can be removed when wounded. In game terms, if the hvy team can't fit somewhere it's as if their weapon is too big to fit in that particular area, or they don't have a proper angle of fire, so they have to take a position better suited for the big guns.

Sorry for everyone who feels displaced by the new ruling, but I kind of like it. Clears up a lot of ambiguity that's been around the last few years. It always confused me when an oponent had some heavy weapons on single bases and some on large ones. Just didn't seem right. Later!

Bloodknight
24-05-2009, 18:29
I don't care about buying a couple of bases. Terrainwarehouse has noce ones for a good price, and I am ordering these. I don't like the in-game-effect they have which is a combination of disadvantages with no positive aspects.
As for modelling purposes: I will completely rebase mine, because sticking based minis on a large base almost never looks good due to the height differences.

Trench_Raider
24-05-2009, 19:40
Some people don't like change.

I'm very much a traditionalist. But there is nothing wrong with change...but is has to be change for the better or even change for a reason. Arbitrary change is never a good thing.

TR

Horus38
24-05-2009, 23:00
Some old school models!

I mounted my eldar weapon support platforms on the same large thin bases freddieyu did in his photos. I found that was the best way for me to consolidate them.

Noserenda
24-05-2009, 23:24
Gah, I cant see me using heavy weapons outside of maybe some Mortars in the forseeable future, theyve rendered Heavy Weapon squads to poo, and the bigger bases just look bad in a squad of normal based troops, plus they make finding room in cover a nightmare :chrome:

freddieyu
24-05-2009, 23:24
I took 60mm circles of thin balsa and 60mm circles of 3mm balsa. I drilled out 3 - 1 1/4" holes using a paddle drill bit in the 3mm balsa and glued them to the thin balsa circle. I then finished the bases normally and I can place my existing HW crews and the HW itself in the base. I can store the pieces like before and mount them for a game (I can even remove the loader to mark a single wound on the base).

great idea! i thought about doing the same thing using earth magnets..but since i had a lot of the clear flying bases i said what the hell i'll just stick them on...and i did them real quick all of them finished in 1 day...

freddieyu
24-05-2009, 23:29
Some old school models!

I mounted my eldar weapon support platforms on the same large thin bases freddieyu did in his photos. I found that was the best way for me to consolidate them.

ha glad you noticed! and because they have been with me a long time it is difficult to simply get up and say "gotta redo them!"

but times change, so, voila!.....no big deal, and i still use HW teams as a HW squad, and also within the standard squads...my tactics with them hasn't changed, except to be more careful where to deploy the HQ squads, i guess..

fwacho
25-05-2009, 03:35
I've had a guard army since 2001. fully painted infantry heavy. (over 100 well-painted infantry models) I just see it as a pain in the butt to re-base my heavy weapons teams. The real reason is that i won't be able to fit them in my carrying case if I re-base them. I am however perfectly willing to keep them in base contact and treat them like they are 2 wound model. I do plan on eventually having some bases I can put them on.

krillbur
25-05-2009, 06:54
Now, a standard squad consists of 10 men,( so 10 wounds) 2 of which may form a heavy weapon crew( so still 10 wounds). You implied 9 men+ 2 wounds from heavy weapons team...

If you run squads of 8 normal men, a heavy weapons trooper, and one other man, who is clearly the other half of the heavy weapons team- ie carrying ammo, using binoculars , etc, etc, and keep them very close to the heavy weapon, then you shouldn't have a problem.

what i meant was 8 models + the heavy weapon dude. that makes for 10 wounds and should work since the HW is considered 1 model with 2 wounds. It is butt ugly but thats how we play them now. keeping the loader in base contact is a good idea but its bound to screw up when moving 6 almost identical squads and still if you hit both the loader and gunner with a blast, you only hit one model. So its confusing at best, thats why we remove the loader until we rebase them.

My problem isnt the rules, The guard got plenty good stuff to make up for weaker HW team. Its just more fun bulding all the other cool stuff then rebasing ye olde lascannon:p

solkan
25-05-2009, 07:20
I'm very much a traditionalist. But there is nothing wrong with change...but is has to be change for the better or even change for a reason. Arbitrary change is never a good thing.

TR

Well, aren't you one codex late for complaining about this? I thought that the previous IG codex introduced the 'two models, one base' rule for fire teams to go along with new models or something.

MegaPope
25-05-2009, 10:41
Effectively, what GW was annoyed about (or at least the bean counters must have been) was people's practice of buying a three team heavy weapon box set and then making a minimum of nine weapon teams out of it - hardly anyone ever used the two leg prop for the missile launcher because it was also the front stand for the mortar.

So effectively, you ended up with three MLs (using the components mostly on ordinary 25mm based models), three Mortars and three of the tripod mounted weapons - which were the only ones really big enough to warrant the full 60mm bases, and also the only ones that actually needed the crews to have the kneeling legs.

So, all my weapons teams are on different sized bases. I'm not going to be rebasing, as they will no longer fit in my case if I do, and to be frank, if I can't tell the loaders apart from the regular Guardsmen in an army I've used for years, then my memory is probably failing in many other more worrying ways as well :D.

electricwolf
25-05-2009, 12:31
This topic has been gone over and over again on Warseer and i've seen both sides and i listen to everyone. I have the opinion of what the rules actually say "models are to be based with the bases they are Supplied with".

Until Gw comes out with a FAQ exactly stating what they mean by this the debate with esentially never stop.

I have models using both size base and i have stayed true to the "using the bases they were supplied with" rule. I will take and make the models on the smaller bases more look like they are a team by adding things to the loaders model or base that sets him apart from the rest of the squad.

In reality though, anyone can be a loader, they are only carrying the ammo. If one loader gets shot someone picks up the ammo and brings it to the gunner. So reallly anyone could be a loader at least until either the gun is destroyed or you run out of men to carry the ammo.

I might consider making a nice wooden base for some heavy weapon teams where i can just drop the small based model into an open hole in the wood, but it's not going to be a priority for me.

Tarax
25-05-2009, 13:34
This topic has been gone over and over again on Warseer and i've seen both sides and i listen to everyone. I have the opinion of what the rules actually say "models are to be based with the bases they are Supplied with".

Until Gw comes out with a FAQ exactly stating what they mean by this the debate with esentially never stop.


You mean, like with the Terminators on 25mm and 40mm bases?

I think what is meant by 'using the bases the models are supplied with' is that the latest version of a model should be used. Eg the old Terminators with 25mm bases should now be on 40mm bases. Likewise the Heavy Weapon Teams should be on 60mm bases.

electricwolf
25-05-2009, 13:47
You mean, like with the Terminators on 25mm and 40mm bases?

I think what is meant by 'using the bases the models are supplied with' is that the latest version of a model should be used. Eg the old Terminators with 25mm bases should now be on 40mm bases. Likewise the Heavy Weapon Teams should be on 60mm bases.


I totally disagree. I think what is meant is that you use the bases that are supplied with the models. If i rebase a terminator on a 60mm base that is not the base it was supplied with. All of my deathwing (50+ models) are on the 25mm bases. What you are saying is that all of them should now be on 40mm bases?

freddieyu
25-05-2009, 14:14
I totally disagree. I think what is meant is that you use the bases that are supplied with the models. If i rebase a terminator on a 60mm base that is not the base it was supplied with. All of my deathwing (50+ models) are on the 25mm bases. What you are saying is that all of them should now be on 40mm bases?

Gawd that's a lot of termies......shudder...

Shinnentai
25-05-2009, 14:31
I assume there has been no official word on whether we're allowed to keep using the models on separate bases? Or the medium sized 40mm bases? I know there's been a lot of discussion about the rulebook saying we have to use the bases supplied with the models, but I'd like a clear-cut judgement from GW on this specific issue before I start rebasing my heavy bolters. I'd also much prefer to use 40mm bases for my planned missile launchers.

Gen.Steiner
27-05-2009, 21:45
I'm going to continue using different bases without fear of idiocy, primarily because I never go to tournaments! :p