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.

Except you are only allowed to glue it to "the" base, so you cant put both one on top of the other.

If you are using daemons it is within the rules for you to use square bases. A TO, unless they have wildly random personal issues, is unlikely to rule that Daemons cannot use square bases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you are only allowed to glue it to "the" base, so you cant put both one on top of the other.

If you are using daemons it is within the rules for you to use square bases. A TO, unless they have wildly random personal issues, is unlikely to rule that Daemons cannot use square bases.

How is a TO making a ruling somehow an indictment of personal issues? Argue the rules. Don't make accusations against people that don't play by the rules you want to see used.

I offered a reasonable solution. If certain people are that opposed to following unofficial rules for a game never intended for tournament play, so be it. Let's be honest, these rules plain suck. Yes, there is leeway or else we'd never have arguments and if that offends anyone, please play Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh! or competitive Scrabble so you can rules lawyer all you like with definite answers available.

Mikhaila- the rules have been argued and are settled: RAW, Daemons MUST use either the square or round bases they are supplied with. Using either is 100%, unutterably and unquesionably legal.

Thus to rule that they cannot be used indicates a bias against their use not based in the rules, but on the persons personal preferences. This is within their rights as TO, however to wilfully change the rules for no reason is not necessarily a sound, rational decision.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mikhaila- the rules have been argued and are settled: RAW, Daemons MUST use either the square or round bases they are supplied with. Using either is 100%, unutterably and unquesionably legal.

I love this. RAW lawyer meets TO.

RAW advocate: "But RAW clearly states that..."

TO: "Shaddap you."



In 40k, the advantage of using square bases has been pretty clearly defined. It seems like it could be argued that using them would violate the rules against Modeling for Advantage.

Personally, if I was going to play Daemons in both games, I would magnetize the bases.

The rule for bases in 40K states equal or larger base then the model comes with. Deamons in 40K may be based on Square bases. My old tyranids are still on square bases. My old metal chaos terminators are still on 25mm bases. I have had one TO tell me I could not use those models due to the bases and I told him to buy me new bases then. You cant force a person to change their model cause you dont like it. ( unless it violates the rules)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mikhaila- the rules have been argued and are settled: RAW, Daemons MUST use either the square or round bases they are supplied with. Using either is 100%, unutterably and unquesionably legal.

Thus to rule that they cannot be used indicates a bias against their use not based in the rules, but on the persons personal preferences. This is within their rights as TO, however to wilfully change the rules for no reason is not necessarily a sound, rational decision.

I'm not argueing the rule at all.

I'm saying that resorting to: " Obviously I'm right, and if you disagree you have personal problems.", is BS.

For the record, my last GT allowed square bases, so I'm not pushing this from a personal standpoint. But, I do find your use of words like "Unutterably and unquestionably legal", to be pretty laughable, since there are people questioning it in this discussion.

Cgage - actually that was 4th ed. In 5th it must be on the base supplied with the model.

MR - I take it you failed to read the part where I said the TO could not let them be used? Sigh. A TO can decide to change the rules for any reason. Doesnt make it a valid decision from an objective standpoint, however.

Modelling them on the bases supplied CANNOT be "modelling for advantage" - which also doesnt have a rule, there is just no rule allowing conversions.

Mikhaila - it is 100% legal. People questioning it doesnt mean they actually have an argument based in actual *rules*, same as someone arguing about a very clear rule doesnt mean the rules isnt clear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mikhaila - it is 100% legal. People questioning it doesnt mean they actually have an argument based in actual *rules*, same as someone arguing about a very clear rule doesnt mean the rules isnt clear.

And some people can be wrong even when they feel they are "unutterably and unquestionably 100% correct".

Your stance in questioning the rationality, or personal issues of a TO, based on a ruling in their toy soldier tournament falls into that catagory.

Go argue the rules all you like. Be 100% correct. Do whatever makes you happy.

But rules in the game are always going to be argued, played differently in different areas, tournaments will have rules that affect only that tournament, and TO's can make rulings that you disagree with.

Modquisition on. Lets keep it to the topic and polite people, or this thread will be closed and ankles given a thorough biting!

cgage00 wrote:The rule for bases in 40K states equal or larger base then the model comes with.

That's actually something from the 4th edition. Now it has to be the base it comes with or you must get the opponent's permission. However most people wouldnt call BS on you unless you put your entire Hormagaunt brood on Trygon bases or put Canis on a dinner plate.

Sidstyler wrote:
Who said I was putting words in your mouth?

Mattlov wrote:If an opponent really complains about it, tell him you have larger bases to be covered with templates. There really shouldn't be a problem with it, by anyone, for any reason.

Emphasis mine.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Daemons come with both and older models that are still legal came with square bases only, so technically it's illegal not to use them.

Well then technically wouldn't it be illegal to mount them on one or the other? If they come with both then apparently you're supposed to use both of them...so you SHOULD be gluing one on top of the other.

You said you got irked when you saw someone said that "no one" should have a problem with it. However I didnt say that, apparently someone else did, hence why you're putting words into my mouth and getting worked up because of it. I do agree with mattlov's stance though, no one "should" have a problem with it, but as humans we do. As for RAW vs RAI, you were the one earlier telling people how "Those are the rules". Hence, why your cake is a lie

In the spirit of the game, people really shouldnt care about the type of base used. We all know that it's an expensive game and if the OP can actually make his army look aesthetically pleasing and conform to all the rules, why shouldnt he be rewarded for his efforts and allowed to use his army as he wishes? In terms of pure RAW, the book states that you have to mount them on the bases they came with. It does not state which bases if it came with different ones, nor does it mention if they had to use ALL of the bases, so Daemons are safe from both accounts.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

cgage00 wrote:The rule for bases in 40K states equal or larger base then the model comes with.

That's actually something from the 4th edition. Now it has to be the base it comes with or you must get the opponent's permission. However most people wouldnt call BS on you unless you put your entire Hormagaunt brood on Trygon bases or put Canis on a dinner plate.

[

100% agree. You have to use logic in this one. But I am thinking about placing my Tyrant Guard on 60mm cause they dont fit on 40mm. Also with Square bases if you are making a lord character and to model it better you place it on the 40mm square base I have never heard of a person being upset by this. For normal infantry(space marines, orkz, gauntsd, IG, guardians) going bigger than 25mm bases is out of the question.

Also can I bite an ankle?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Modelling them on the bases supplied CANNOT be "modelling for advantage" - which also doesnt have a rule, there is just no rule allowing conversions.

Mikhaila - it is 100% legal. People questioning it doesnt mean they actually have an argument based in actual *rules*, same as someone arguing about a very clear rule doesnt mean the rules isnt clear.

While I agree with your general concept, I disagree strongly with you in this specific case. While I accept that it is legal to use the square bases in 40k, I maintain that you must make an inference/assumption to do so, and that basing new 40k models on squares is clearly not GW's intent. I articulated this argument in the previously-linked discussion in YMDC, and you overlooked or chose not to respond to my points.

I don't have the rules at hand, but does the rulebook say to use the bases provided, or the bases included?

You can argue that while GW "includes" square bases, they provide the round ones.

cgage00 wrote:
Also can I bite an ankle?

No, ankle biting should be left to the experts.

Polonius, if we're going to do this, we should probably move it back to the YMDC thread.

For the record, the phrasing is:
"Citadel minatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

Mannahnin wrote:Polonius, if we're going to do this, we should probably move it back to the YMDC thread.

For the record, the phrasing is:
"Citadel minatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

Never mind. That's less than illuminating.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I offered a reasonable solution. If certain people are that opposed to following unofficial rules for a game never intended for tournament play, so be it.

Oh, dear. I see I've been trying to argue with people who are still stuck in second edition. Excuse me, there's a brick wall I think I'd have better luck talking to.

Sorry, but I refuse to accept that 40k is strictly for "beer and pretzels" play, not when it requires the better part of a thousand bucks just to get started anymore. Maybe that's what was intended back in Rogue Trader days, when every game required a third player to act as a GM/referee because it was so unbalanced and armies cost about 1/3 what they do now, but frankly you'd have to be blind not to notice how much the game has changed since then, and how much it's been moving towards more competitive play.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's be honest, these rules plain suck.

No, they don't. They could be better, but they aren't so terrible that tournaments just don't work. If they were then people wouldn't be running them.

Well, that's not true. Even back in the day, when the rules really were utter gak, people were still running tournaments...albeit with a lot of custom rules to make it work, but still.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yes, there is leeway or else we'd never have arguments and if that offends anyone, please play Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh! or competitive Scrabble so you can rules lawyer all you like with definite answers available.

I'll do that, just as soon as you go back to Candy Land and jump rope.

No offense, of course.

cgage00 wrote:The rule for bases in 40K states equal or larger base then the model comes with.

Holy gak, I was just joking before, but now it seems like people really are stuck in the past. Help!

mikhaila wrote:I'm saying that resorting to: " Obviously I'm right, and if you disagree you have personal problems.", is BS.

Can we also lump "Well 40k is obviously not meant for tournament play so you're wrong." in with that as well? Because personally I'm tired of that little piece of bs more than anything.

Polonius wrote:You can argue that while GW "includes" square bases, they provide the round ones.

That's where I'm coming from. Both styles of base are included because the models can be used in either 40k or WHF, but I think the intent is clear and that they wish for you to use the "correct" base for the system you're buying the models for.

But no, obviously the daemons come with both, so that means you can mount them on square bases in 40k, and as we all know, if the rules don't say you can't then it means you can!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you are only allowed to glue it to "the" base, so you cant put both one on top of the other.

Okay, now where does it say that? The rulebook states "their bases", plural. It doesn't say you have to glue one model to just one base.

So there, I maintain that daemons, in order to be played correctly and by RAW, must be glued to both the round and square bases they come with.

Sidstyler wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I'm saying that resorting to: " Obviously I'm right, and if you disagree you have personal problems.", is BS.

Can we also lump "Well 40k is obviously not meant for tournament play so you're wrong." in with that as well? Because personally I'm tired of that little piece of bs more than anything.

Yep, I'm tired of that one too. Toss it out.

I know GW have said it at times, or rather, someone working at GW did, but with GW running their own TOS tournaments, supporting Indy tournaments, 'Ardboyz tournaments, and tournaments in their own stores, it seems a very moot point that the statement was ever made.

40k IS being used as a tournament rules set, reguardless of whether it was written for one-off games, or a series of games in a tournament. If the goal is to tweak rules a bit, or rules interpretations, so that tournaments run smoothly, then the arguement of "It's not made for tournaments" is null and void.

Most hobby games usually are not made with the intent of tournament play. They're made with the intent to sell junk by forcing you to get the more expensive stuff through competition. Tournaments, however, is the natural evolution of these games, as anything with even a mild intent of competitiveness will have. However all points stated here should generally have tournaments in mind, as this is the Tournament Discussion board.

As for the whole "came with the base" thing, someone quoted from the book that the models are provided with bases and should be glued to them. Nowhere does it mention exactly what kind of bases are needed, so in this special case, your argument for "But no, obviously the daemons come with both, so that means you can mount them on square bases in 40k, and as we all know, if the rules don't say you can't then it means you can!" also applies to the round bases, as it doesnt say you cant use them, and you do, which is not allowed. In the reverse, it also never states that you could stick them on round bases, so you cant if it's provided with alternatives.

I am fully aware that the spirit of the game is to use round bases for 40K and such, but it's a good amount of savings to use one army for two (or more) systems. If GW made their products a little more affordable then *maybe* people wont be looking for excuses to cheap out and the views would be a lot different.

Also, Sid, resorting to slander isnt exactly helping your case. If you want to claim to be venerable then act "venerable"

Cool it, guys. Seriously, if you want to debate the legality of different bases, take it to YMDC. If you want to talk tournaments, keep it polite!

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Also, Sid, resorting to slander isnt exactly helping your case. If you want to claim to be venerable then act "venerable"

What? I think you misunderstood, I wasn't saying I was the old one. Not yet anyway.

Eeeewwww... you got YMDC all over our tourney forum

Definitely agree that this is a grey area, with those espousing such. Won't add more than that!

Another instance where "rule of cool" applies... if someone is obviously doing this to gain an in-game advantage... well, that's what TOs are for! The next time, I imagine it wouldn't be welcome in the same tourney... and so irl this is not going to be much of an issue for tournies.

Man - sorry, I thought I'd covered your argument in the other thread.

My argument is that the rules say it is "usually" supplied with a base - well, when you ha ve 20 bases for 10 models you have got "a" base for every model - which ever one you put next to it. So the rules still cover this situation, and placing the model on a square base IS within the rules to do.

TOs have the right to change the rules for any reason they wish, but this is on the same level as banning armies you dont like.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Man - sorry, I thought I'd covered your argument in the other thread.

My argument is that the rules say it is "usually" supplied with a base - well, when you ha ve 20 bases for 10 models you have got "a" base for every model - which ever one you put next to it. So the rules still cover this situation, and placing the model on a square base IS within the rules to do.

TOs have the right to change the rules for any reason they wish, but this is on the same level as banning armies you dont like.

Exaggerated BS. Not on the same level. Please take this to YMDC. Argue rules and throw mud in that area.

Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME! I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

Though I appreciate the hints and all, I have a hard time believing whole days could be spent arguing on this, let alone invoking moderation, for such issue: what would it be if it was something really significant, like the fact that I (I barely dare say it) scratch built at my vehicles? I'd probably get massacred just getting within 100 metres of a tournament.

Allow me, without sarcasm, to thank you all, anyhow, for giving me a peek of what I could have experienced "live" after driving several hours to go at an organised event. I loathe arguments wholeheartedly, so I'll stick to friendly games. As I see that some players consider the game's detailed mechanics as austerily as chess, and that I strongly
dislike abstract games for this very reason, this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice. I was in the wrong, and I've learned a lesson here to avoid angry disputes and greater disappointment in the future.

Thanks again, sincerely, for showing to me that more "monodominant" (to paraphrase the WH40K Inquisition) aspect of organised play. I'll stay on the kids', artists' and modellers' side of the debate.

Didn't most people say they wouldn't care?

silence indigo wrote:Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME! I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

Though I appreciate the hints and all, I have a hard time believing whole days could be spent arguing on this, let alone invoking moderation, for such issue: what would it be if it was something really significant, like the fact that I (I barely dare say it) scratch built at my vehicles? I'd probably get massacred just getting within 100 metres of a tournament.

Allow me, without sarcasm, to thank you all, anyhow, for giving me a peek of what I could have experienced "live" after driving several hours to go at an organised event. I loathe arguments wholeheartedly, so I'll stick to friendly games. As I see that some players consider the game's detailed mechanics as austerily as chess, and that I strongly
dislike abstract games for this very reason, this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice. I was in the wrong, and I've learned a lesson here to avoid angry disputes and greater disappointment in the future.

Thanks again, sincerely, for showing to me that more "monodominant" (to paraphrase the WH40K Inquisition) aspect of organised play. I'll stay on the kids', artists' and modellers' side of the debate.

Wow. I mean... wow.

I'd ease up a bit, if I were you. First off, I think the most hard nosed thing said in this thread was that large bases might give you an advantage, and you shouldn't pretend they don't. Very few if anybody said they wouldn't play, or would assume you were cheating.

Second, scratch building is part of the tournament scene. Just don't model for advantage. from your statements, it sounds like you're not exactly going to be on the top tables at tournaments, so there's less concern.

Third, narrative games aren't the mainstream. Casual, friendly, games are closer to the mainstream than tournaments, and narrative games are a subset of them, not competitive gaming. But no, shockingly, at tournaments, people aren't interested in telling stories. They're playing to win.

Fourth, you seem to have either developed a serious misreading of tournament gamers based on this thread, or you're projecting experiences from elsewhere. Either way, even at tournaments most players are there to have fun. Yeah, we all want to win, but most know they're not going to.

Finally, you should check out the Casual Gaming Mafia. I don't know where they meet, but they're a great resource for learning all about how tournament players are soulless bastards who hate fun, cheat constantly, and are wrecking the hobby.

silence indigo wrote:Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME! I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

What you should have taken away from it was "Call the TO in charge of the tournament and ask if it's ok". If they say no, well, don't go. If they yes, square bases are fine, then no one in the tournament can complain about it.

Each tournament is it's own little subset of the gaming community. There may be differences in rules. You ask the TO running it for the rules. Asking the Interwebs isn't going to get you a good answer all the time.

silence indigo wrote:Being the original poster, I did learn one precious thing from this three-page long tirade: TO AVOID ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE TIME!

That's really sad. I'm surprised and disappointed that this is what you took away from this discussion. The word "tirade" seems particularly strange. As Monster Rain pointed out, most people said they don't really care. Tournaments are actually a lot of fun, and most people playing in them are pretty relaxed and enjoyable to spend time with.

silence indigo wrote:I'm sorry but the prospect of arguing about something as trivial as the 0,2mm trim difference between a round and a square 25mm base.

As Polonius said, some folks do notice what may seem like a small difference to you. Given that you don't play the game competitively, why would you be shocked to learn something new about the competitive side of the game? And why would you get upset about it?

I know you've invested a lot of time and effort in your army, and I totally respect that. It's largely BECAUSE of the time and work that people invest that I bother raising the point. I've personally based my own daemons on squares in the past and noticed the difference was enough to matter; at least to me. I'm honestly trying to help.

And it's kind of silly to go on about people arguing over a "trivial" issue; part of the POINT of forums like this is so we can talk about and hash out the little issues in the game; stuff we'd probably never want to waste real gaming + beer-drinking time at the table on.

silence indigo wrote:Though I appreciate the hints and all, I have a hard time believing whole days could be spent arguing on this, let alone invoking moderation, for such issue: what would it be if it was something really significant, like the fact that I (I barely dare say it) scratch built at my vehicles? I'd probably get massacred just getting within 100 metres of a tournament.

No need to be so dramatic. I also don't believe anyone could spend "whole days" arguing about it. I don't imagine anyone ever has. Several people posted on a thread, over the course of a few days, but we hardly spent those days perched at our keyboards, ripping each other apart. A few minutes were spent on the discussion, really.

silence indigo wrote:Allow me, without sarcasm, to thank you all, anyhow, for giving me a peek of what I could have experienced "live" after driving several hours to go at an organised event. I loathe arguments wholeheartedly, so I'll stick to friendly games. As I see that some players consider the game's detailed mechanics as austerily as chess, and that I strongly
dislike abstract games for this very reason, this exchange has allowed me to see how naive I was to think that scratch-building and "narrative games", as advocated by Jervis Johnson's various editorials, was mainstream practice. I was in the wrong, and I've learned a lesson here to avoid angry disputes and greater disappointment in the future.

I'm sincerely sorry to have given you such a bad impression. I hope you'll learn, at some point, that the way people talk about things online and the way they spend their time online is not generally representative of of the way we talk or spend our time in real life. I hope you haven't also sworn off ever attending a live sporting event because of reading a message forum where fans of rival sports teams were debating the merits of their teams! In my experience those guys are often a lot more rude and nasty than anything that was posted here.

BTW, as Polonius noted, casual and narrative gaming IS mainstream practice. That's the way most people play. But in a tournament, not surprisingly, the focus is a little different.

Shockingly, perhaps, most of us tournament players do enjoy casual and narrative games, and are big fans of creative conversions. We see a lot of armies, and appreciate good painting and modeling as much as anyone. We just happen to also notice if someone's modeled something in a way which gives them an advantage in the game. In most cases this is not a big deal, even to us. You can usually tell if someone's modeled something for the sake of coolness or to take unreasonable advantage. But obviously the best of all possible worlds is when someone converts something to look cool without damaging the "game" aspect of the game at the same time, even in a minor way. You asked the question, so you knew/suspected there might be an issue. i'm just sorry that you got so upset learning you were right.