Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Given that the rules for 40 explicitly don't care about which shape base they use, and up until fairly recently quite a few models came with square bases to begin with, I don't see any reason why people would need to waste time blu-tacking anything.

Whatever gets your goat man. Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game. Sure, the square ones allow easier unit formation in WHFB but thats about all.

IMO I hate the square bases. I just finished a box of chaos warriors and built them all on round bases. Now I will say I plan on using them for a non GW game, but the base doesnt matter there either.

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy. Now, most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models, etc., etc. but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses. . .let's say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have (yep you guessed it!) circle bases.

As I said, we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like, "He plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy. You don't expect him to get duplicates of everything?!" But it's not about duplicates of stuff; it's about if you want to use the same model for both games, don't glue the dude on to a base or, at the very least, glue him on to one type of base. Then, when you use it for the other game, blu tack the other base on to the bottom so it's the right base.

Anyway, rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Fixed it for you ^

Whew.

It would only bother me if I had to wait 5 minutes for him to organise every time they moved.

Why doesn't he just magnetize round bases on top of square ones?

So, to clarify, you're annoyed that he is mixing round and square bases in the one unit? Or that he is using square bases in 40K? Or both?

Why is this a problem?

Im more annoyed when nubs try to cheap by placing units on 20mm bases, when they are intended to be on 25mm according to rules, in order to squeeze more into their front line against yours...

True story, happened at a tournament in Sydney a couple of years back... nearly stomped his minis after I stomped them on the tabletop...

AvatarForm wrote:True story, happened at a tournament in Sydney a couple of years back... nearly stomped his minis after I stomped them on the tabletop...

Surely just mentioning it to a judge before the game would have been a more mature response?

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Thats the longest run on sentence i've ever read. Heh



anywho - I personally wouldn't care, its just bases so..... i'm not following what gives?
Bad day? =/

To be honest I don't see how the bases are causing you a problem.

I find it annoying as the person is just plain lazy, i mean jeesh - how long does it take to pin a models foot and drill in two bases?

insaniak wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:True story, happened at a tournament in Sydney a couple of years back... nearly stomped his minis after I stomped them on the tabletop...

Surely just mentioning it to a judge before the game would have been a more mature response?

Oh it was... but this kid was 'in' with their crowd.

Murray wrote:I find it annoying as the person is just plain lazy, i mean jeesh - how long does it take to pin a models foot and drill in two bases?

How long does it take to not do that, and just use the model on a single base?

Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K. It's only in recent years that daemons even came with round bases as an option.

insaniak wrote:

Murray wrote:I find it annoying as the person is just plain lazy, i mean jeesh - how long does it take to pin a models foot and drill in two bases?

How long does it take to not do that, and just use the model on a single base?

Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K. It's only in recent years that daemons even came with round bases as an option.

Actually, for my Spawn I inserted the circular base into the square base in order to use them for both my Word Bearers and Warriors of Chaos.

It was as simple as drawing an outline and cutting. Then gluing an appropriately size piece of card to the bottom of the square base to stop the round base falling through.

If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

I can continue now with ad hominem but you know this type of gamer.

I can't believe everyone isn't pissed off by this. I hate it. It's against the rules and they would damn well call you on breaking a rule during the game.

Yup, rules-wise it's completely legal in 40k. I have a 40k Daemon army on 25mm round bases, but I'm considering using them in WHFB. If I do, though, I'll be investing in some movement trays so that they have the correct frontage.

If your friend just put them on appropriately sized movement trays, surely it wouldn't matter?


Also, GRAMMAR! Jesus, that was a hard paragraph to read.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad4Minis wrote:Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game

And while I'm on a grammar roll, I believe you 'couldn't care less'.

If you could care less, then you do actually care about base size quite a lot.

ArbitorIan wrote:Yup, rules-wise it's completely legal in 40k.

To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

I don't see the problem. I would do the same if I played daemons. I don't get why they don't just mount them all on square bases as in WHFB the size does matter (using circle bases works but isn't as easy) and it doesn't really in 40k.

There are lots of ways of making it possible to switch between them but I don't see the point. A lot of them have problems (magnetized models fall over, drilling pin holes doesn't work on all models) whereas using square bases works just fine.

The rules say use the bases provided. Since they come with two types it's up to you which you use.

yes the OP annoys me with his post

Devastator wrote:yes the OP annoys me with his post

QFT

Ordo Dakka wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Yup, rules-wise it's completely legal in 40k.

To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

Then I believe you should post about it in YMDC, for you will quickly find that the only stipulation is that a model must be glued to the base that it comes with. Daemons have both round bases and square bases included with them, so you get to pick which one it is. Does it break the game to use two different types? No. It there impact on the game otherwise? Maybe. I've never thought about it that much, but it doesn't change what the rules say.

Devastator wrote:yes the OP annoys me with his post

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only run-on!

A different base means a different distance to cover when trying to assault. I would definitely play against someone using square bases, but it does irk me that they didn't take the time to work out a solution...

So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

Ordo Dakka wrote:A different base means a different distance to cover when trying to assault. I would definitely play against someone using square bases, but it does irk me that they didn't take the time to work out a solution...

That distance goes both ways, its not like he is gaining anything over you by using square bases. If your 6 1/4" away from him, hes 6 1/4" away from you. The fractions of an inch lost makes little difference in the end. Yeah, it might stop you from assaulting him one turn, but it could just as easily prevent him from assaulting you. Sure, mixing them looks kinda tacky (unless its a trophy model, then it belongs on a circle base no matter what) but it grants no tactical advantage whatsoever

insaniak wrote:
Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K.

That's not entirely true. A square base has a wider distance corner-to-corner which can be used in some situations to gain distance, most notably assaulting out of a transport. So a 25mm square base is actually 35.35mm corner to corner and if you deploy the square base so the corner is in the disembark zone, you gain about 10mm extra distance. 40mm squares get even larger differences. (square ogryns disembarking!)

While it has minimal impact on the Deamons codex because the way that codex plays, I am still skeptical of square bases in 40k, when anything that isn't round, people are pivoting for extended distances.

Personally if I was going to do demons, I would make movement trays with round holes or use the LotR bases. Then in fantasy, everything is ranked up like square and in 40k they look 40kish. But I wouldn't hold it against someone who wanted to play fantasy and 40k to use square bases in 40k. "base that it wot came with" rule means they are legal with their square bases.

KingCracker wrote:So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

Probably won't make a difference, but it might. And it looks silly.

Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

-"Just tacking on another base" in any fashion would be a paint, and probably look ugly.
-the base type doesn't affect the game, very much at least, because they are roughly the same size.
-if your entire issue is "they should all have the same base!", my question in return would be: "why does that matter?"

I'd be more annoyed at the fact that he mixed bases than the fact that he uses Square bases. And only because it looks bad.

The 25mm square bases can be turned diagonally to eke out a fraction of an inch extra move or charge (once per game).

On the other hand, they're slightly more vulnerable to blast and template weapons.

On balance I'd say it was detrimental to the daemon player.

But you're still only moving your legal move range. Corner to corner or wherever you're moving and measuring from. If someone is eeking out extra inches for weird measuring then that's between the two of you to sort on on the table.

It's only a game and to try to say that 5mm is going to give you a huge advantage is just silly.

What's next? Insisting that cork cannot be used as rock on bases because you have nothing else to find fault and get angry about?

Play with what you've got. If they're painted, fine, at least you've made the effort, round base, square base, doesn't matter.

Nevermind waht i put a second agooo...

i was wrong ^^

WOW its gona blow your minds when i dig out my old GW hexagonal bases ......

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Elmodiddly wrote:But you're still only moving your legal move range. Corner to corner or wherever you're moving and measuring from. If someone is eeking out extra inches for weird measuring then that's between the two of you to sort on on the table.

When disembarking to measure to the BACK of the base, when you assault you measure to the FRONT of the base. the distance between the edges is added to the overall distance. Which means a round 25mm is 25mm and a square 25mm is 35mm. Now for the most part, Deamons are not disembarking out of transports, but if someone was using fantasy orks as trukk boyz, I would be concerned with square bases.

It's only a game and to try to say that 5mm is going to give you a huge advantage is just silly.

10mm actually, and a 40mm base gains 16.6mm and a 50mm gains 21mm.

And with pivoting in place based upon the mawloc base thread, you can pivot for 5mm on a 25mm, 8mm on a 40mm and 10mm on a 50mm.

If it is not a huge advantage then why can I move 6.5" for all my infantry? You cool with that? Can I add +1 to all my S&P rolls?

Opponents are usually in a better mood when you don't disrespect them by trivializing valid concerns they have on things impacting gameplay. It is easy enough to always measure as if the bases are round by doing flatedge to flatedge and never use corner to corner.

Mad4Minis wrote:Whatever gets your goat man. Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game. Sure, the square ones allow easier unit formation in WHFB but thats about all.

What annoys me is when people use the above phrase. It's COULDN'T! As in, you have reached a point where you are unable to care even 1 iota less.

OT: I really am not bothered. The 40k basing rules appear to be an unwritten rule of "don't take the piss". If you're going to put Gretchin on 60mm bases then people will get annoyed and veto it but simply mixing square and round is not something to get you knickers in a twist over. You could say you couldn't care less.

AvatarForm wrote:If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

That's just it, though... You're assuming that the player (a)is serious about having a good-looking force and (b)is going to agree with you that the square bases look bad.

Many players don't give a hoot what their army looks like... the miniatures are just markers to represent a bunch of stats. Many players don't have a problem with square bases, or a mix of square or round bases, because the base is just something to make the miniature stand up. And many players play their Daemons in both games, and don't want to take the time or effort (however much or little you may personally think it to be) or don't know how to make the bases interchangeable.

And that's entirely their right. It's their hobby too...

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

This, again, is expecting that your opponent is approaching the game from the same perspective as your own. Every player puts a different weighting on the different aspects of the 'GW hobby' ... If a player doesn't care as strongly about the modelling aspect of it as you do, that has no reflection whatsoever on whether or not they care about actually playing the game.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game

And while I'm on a grammar roll, I believe you 'couldn't care less'.

It's an Americanism... They say it backwards for some bizarre reason

Ordo Dakka wrote:To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

Nope, there is no rule stopping you from using square bases if they were supplied with the model.

nkelsch wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K.

That's not entirely true...

I said 'no real difference'... meaning it's not a particularly significant issue. Yes, it makes a small difference to movement and coherency if you get creative with model placement. But personally, I don't see it as that big of a deal. Particularly in a game that has never consistently and completely used round bases, up until the current edition freely allowed players to put models on larger bases if they wished, and has supplied the same models with a range of different size and shape bases over the time they've been available.

nkelsch wrote:When disembarking to measure to the BACK of the base, when you assault you measure to the FRONT of the base. the distance between the edges is added to the overall distance. Which means a round 25mm is 25mm and a square 25mm is 35mm. Now for the most part, Deamons are not disembarking out of transports, but if someone was using fantasy orks as trukk boyz, I would be concerned with square bases.

10mm actually, and a 40mm base gains 16.6mm and a 50mm gains 21mm.

And with pivoting in place based upon the mawloc base thread, you can pivot for 5mm on a 25mm, 8mm on a 40mm and 10mm on a 50mm.

If anyone starts to eek out extra inches because they're measuring diagonals I think that it is reasonable to assume that the game is over and it's time to pick another opponent. A square base is just a base and to measure front to back as always is fair. If in doubt discuss it with your opponent.

nkelsch wrote:If it is not a huge advantage then why can I move 6.5" for all my infantry? You cool with that? Can I add +1 to all my S&P rolls?

Now we are just being silly and turning a discussion into something else. It happens far too quickly on here when people stop discussing and starts being pedantic and sarcastic.

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

Personally, the only problem I would have with this is that a mix of round and square bases in a unit would look funny. Using square bases in a 40k battle just because it's easier? Makes sense to me.

whitedragon wrote:

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth).

For what it's worth, the rule allowing you to use a larger base was last edition. This edition, anything other than the base with which the model is supplied technically requires opponent's permission.

In practice, at least from my experience, very few players actually care. Particularly veteran players, who are used to GW changing their bases every time you turn around.

It would be easier to mount them all on round bases and kit them out with movement trays for Fantasy...

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Chaos Daemons do come with square bases. Are they clearly meant for Fantasy? Yes.
Are they producing new sets with square and round bases? Yes.

But if you want to pull the strict "that's what they came with", then it's okay for Daemons. Heck, some of my Flesh Hounds ONLY came with square bases, yet they are usable for 40k.

There are movement trays for Fantasy that have round holes so you can use your 40k demons.
Show him them.

insaniak wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game

And while I'm on a grammar roll, I believe you 'couldn't care less'.

It's an Americanism... They say it backwards for some bizarre reason

Oh, it is not either! Just because someone in the U.S. uses incorrect grammar doesn't all of a sudden make the phrase an "Americanism." It's not like leaving out a frivolous "u" though, because when it comes to words like color and honor I couldn't care less.


As to the original post, I can understand the mixing of round bases and square bases in a unit might look kind of tacky, but other than that I see no problem. I don't have an issue with people using square bases in 40k. Now, if they start trying to turn bases and measure diagonally to get some extra bit of distance, that might be an issue, but as long as they measure flat edge to flat edge, it's not really a problem.

Just for giggles and way off topic I thought I'd just throw in that I believe 'I could care less' is a type of Americanism It's a sarcastic version, as pointed out by Steven Pinker in 'The Language Instinct'. Sorry, couldn't resist

Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

EmperorsChampion wrote:Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

And if the guy you are playing really needs that little bit of advantage that badly...he probably needs to find a hobby that he doesn't suck at.

puma713 wrote:

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy. Now, most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models, etc., etc. but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses. . .let's say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have (yep you guessed it!) circle bases.

As I said, we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like, "He plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy. You don't expect him to get duplicates of everything?!" But it's not about duplicates of stuff; it's about if you want to use the same model for both games, don't glue the dude on to a base or, at the very least, glue him on to one type of base. Then, when you use it for the other game, blu tack the other base on to the bottom so it's the right base.

Anyway, rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Fixed it for you ^

Whew.

Thanks, was about to rage post about people who can't type correctly.

I don't know why the bases are causing problems for you, technically square bases provide your opponents a small advantage if your using them in 40k. There is no problem.

Ordo Dakka wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Yup, rules-wise it's completely legal in 40k.

To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

Square bases are also provided with all Daemon models. That means they're legal. If you have a problem with it you can choose not to play against that person.

Otherwise, I guess you're just pounding sand.

Che-Vito wrote:

EmperorsChampion wrote:Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

And if the guy you are playing really needs that little bit of advantage that badly...he probably needs to find a hobby that he doesn't suck at.

Yes very much so, I honostly don't care about it at all, oh well...

Questions of grammar and laziness aside, the big issue for me would be how many models can get in base-to-base with the models in question. It seems in 40k having a square base would be a disadvantage.

But in fantasy, having a round base (as pointed out by another poster) reduces the frontage of the unit, which I'd have a problem with if I were facing off against them. I'd at least ask them to put the square based models around the edge or something.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

Athera wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

There- I put in bold the part you should have payed attention to. Can you find it?



If your'e using them for 40k their bases should be round. Get it right.

Thanks!

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Athera wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

There- I put in bold the part you should have payed attention to. Can you find it?



If your'e using them for 40k their bases should be round. Get it right.

Thanks!

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

Che-Vito wrote:

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

RAW is good but I'm a big fan of common sense.

Fact 1: The daemon box can be used for 40k or fantasy.

Fact 2: no other infantry in 40k come with square bases.

Fact 3: with the exception of goblin fanatics, no fantasy models come with round bases.

Logical conclusion: 40k daemons are meant to be on round bases; fantasy daemons on square.

P.S. I wouldn't really care except that it would look bad and a little lazy. It's not that hard to do it right.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

RAW is good but I'm a big fan of common sense.

Fact 1: The daemon box can be used for 40k or fantasy.

Fact 2: no other infantry in 40k come with square bases.

Fact 3: with the exception of goblin fanatics, no fantasy models come with round bases.

Logical conclusion: 40k daemons are meant to be on round bases; fantasy daemons on square.

P.S. I wouldn't really care except that it would look bad and a little lazy. It's not that hard to do it right.

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Out of interest, does the square bases effect the spacing of the models when deploying from deepstrike?

Personally i'd not be happy with the square bases, mainly because as the OP said, this guy had some of each in his army, Pick one or the other and stick to it.

I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

insaniak wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

That's just it, though... You're assuming that the player (a)is serious about having a good-looking force and (b)is going to agree with you that the square bases look bad.

Many players don't give a hoot what their army looks like... the miniatures are just markers to represent a bunch of stats. Many players don't have a problem with square bases, or a mix of square or round bases, because the base is just something to make the miniature stand up. And many players play their Daemons in both games, and don't want to take the time or effort (however much or little you may personally think it to be) or don't know how to make the bases interchangeable.

And that's entirely their right. It's their hobby too...

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

This, again, is expecting that your opponent is approaching the game from the same perspective as your own. Every player puts a different weighting on the different aspects of the 'GW hobby' ... If a player doesn't care as strongly about the modelling aspect of it as you do, that has no reflection whatsoever on whether or not they care about actually playing the game.

Exactly my point. If the opponent doesnt care, I do not have the time for them.

I obviously care more about the modelling and painting side of the hobby. I made implicit referrence to power-gamers and theory-gamers in my previous post. They are not worth a game against and most tournaments have rules which force these players to at least express some effort in order to compete.

Afterall, winning at all costs is not what a 'hobby' is about.

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

That's a fair point though I think scout bikers are the only models that currently use the long rounded base, Of course it's fair to assume they intend to eventually have all 40k cavalry and bikes on the new bases.

Actually the ork bikes now come with long rounded bases, as do the new seekers.

Sirius42 wrote:Actually the ork bikes now come with long rounded bases, as do the new seekers.

Oh I wasn't aware. I'm glad though, I like the look of those bases.

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

Bikes have only had those bases in recent years. Previously, bikes in 40k had Cav bases (rectangular) for stability and combat purposes.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

You mean this model?

The one that is neither infantry or nor only on a square base? Even if for some reason it did only come with a square base it was a 50mm square base which is not used for infantry. Even in the bloodcrushers box set entry it says they come with both for use with fantasy or 40k. Looks like GW jipped you a base.

Jeez, my whole point since the beginning has been about infantry but you're not paying attention. It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"
It's okay reading is hard.

Regarding an opponent using mixed bases, well It wouldn't bother me.

I'd never do it myself mind, in fact if I wanted to have Daemons in 40K and Fantasy I'd have two armies.. but hey thats just me.

Yeah, GW see's me coming a mile away.

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe everyone isn't pissed off by this. I hate it. It's against the rules and they would damn well call you on breaking a rule during the game.

Could you site the rule he's breaking?


As someone said, its finally time that deamons even came with round bases. For years it was square and nothing else. I'll have all mine on round and if/when i PLAY fantasy with them they'll just line up on a movement tray. I wont care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.

Not always, thats a realtively new thing. In fact they didnt come with any bases for the longest while.

Anacrucis wrote:Questions of grammar and laziness aside, the big issue for me would be how many models can get in base-to-base with the models in question. It seems in 40k having a square base would be a disadvantage.

That was an issue in 3rd edition, but with the current assault rules allowing models to fight at full effect whether in base contact or within 2", a particular base allowing one extra model into base contact is a negligible disadvantage.

AvatarForm wrote:Exactly my point. If the opponent doesnt care, I do not have the time for them.

I obviously care more about the modelling and painting side of the hobby. I made implicit referrence to power-gamers and theory-gamers in my previous post. They are not worth a game against and most tournaments have rules which force these players to at least express some effort in order to compete.

Afterall, winning at all costs is not what a 'hobby' is about.

'WAAC player' and 'Player who doesn't particularly care about the modelling aspect of the hobby' are not automatically the same thing.

And, again, not putting the work into modelling isn't always down to not caring about it. I've come across quite a few players over the years who didn't put any effort into modelling because they thought they sucked at it, and decided it wasn't worth trying. And some just don't enjoy it, even if they do care about it.

And, as mentioned earlier, some players just won't have considered that swappable bases are an option. I would be curious as to how many people complaining about opponents with square-based models actually talked to them about the reasons for their models being so based, as opposed to just complaining about it ruining their game.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"

And now I'm hungry. Thanks a lot, dude.

As has been mentioned, GW actually doesn't really care. There isn't a rule on it (the only rule about bases is that it must be on the correct SIZE base, not shape)

I ordered some chaos space marines for some bitz for my beastmen, and I got 6 square bases and 4 circle bases.

Blame GW, not me.

Obligatory "OMG It's 3rd Edition and there are SQUARE BASES and ROUND BASES fighting" picture.

I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone mentioned the Avatar now comes on a round base - any idea what size?

BloodQuest wrote:I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.

I believe you're the one twisting the 'clear intent' of the rules. I think that the clear intent of the rule is that if you base your models on what comes in the box, you're following the rules so are fine. If they wanted to establish standard bases, they could, and did in fantasy so obviously have no problem making such a rule, so I think to any reasonable person it's obvious that the rule is intended to avoid requiring people to rebase.

Trying to take a rule that clearly, simply, and unambiguously says 'this is fine' and trying to argue that the intent of the rule is 'this is not fine' makes no sense at all. You're not the innocent victim of someone twisting the rules, you're obsessing over something most people don't care about and acting like a control freak over something that doesn't even make a significant gaming difference.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

You mean this model?

The one that is neither infantry or nor only on a square base? Even if for some reason it did only come with a square base it was a 50mm square base which is not used for infantry. Even in the bloodcrushers box set entry it says they come with both for use with fantasy or 40k. Looks like GW jipped you a base.

Jeez, my whole point since the beginning has been about infantry but you're not paying attention. It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"
It's okay reading is hard.

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

BloodQuest wrote:

Someone mentioned the Avatar now comes on a round base - any idea what size?

Terminator base. What's that, 40mm?

BloodQuest wrote:I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.

Intent means nothing. In RAW, its says use the bases provided. With both round AND square provided, they did. YOU didnt like the result, and are looking for intent.

Bookwrack wrote:Given that the rules for 40 explicitly don't care about which shape base they use, and up until fairly recently quite a few models came with square bases to begin with, I don't see any reason why people would need to waste time blu-tacking anything.

+1.

If 40k rules specified a specific base shape and size, then it would be important.
As it is, such is not an issue - only certain people have an issue with it.

Don't have a problem with it.

Don't even care if he uses non-GW daemon models, tbh (and don't play in a GW - I'd rather play in lesser hives of scum and villainy.)

I stated that I had a preference for one shape, but that it was RAW vs. RAI that was an issue for me.

So, the rules say you should use the base supplied. I have to confess, I've never even noticed it, but I can see why such a rule would be in place.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:you're obsessing over something most people don't care about and acting like a control freak over something that doesn't even make a significant gaming difference.

First off, this wasn't something I'd ever even thought about before this thread came up. I'd agree that any tactical advantage of using a square base (in 40K) is marginal.

The aesthetics are the reason for my preferring sticking with one form.

carmachu wrote:YOU didnt like the result, and are looking for intent.

Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Even the previously rectangular bike bases have been replaced with what amounts to a stretched circular base.

So, I wouldn't for a moment expect someone that played the same models in both game systems to jury rig some bizarre multi-format base. It would seem prefectly reasonable to me, however, for them to use one shape or the other consistently.

BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally, from BloodCrushers' description: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

Che-Vito wrote:

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

I don't know about 40k (I don't own the codex) but in fantasy they are monstrous cavalry. And from a common sense standpoint it's a warrior riding an animal- therefore cavalry.
But this is all a moot point since Games Workshop's website states regarding the Bloodcrushers box set:

Games Workshop wrote: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

(Emphasis mine.)

Like I said before, It looks like GW jipped you on a base.


But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

AvatarForm wrote:

Bikes have only had those bases in recent years. Previously, bikes in 40k had Cav bases (rectangular) for stability and combat purposes.

Yes. And Demons have been on square bases going back to Rogue Trader. But that's not good enough either by your logic. So get to popping those bases off your bikes, because you're now doing it wrong.

Warhammer - It's THAT serious.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

I don't know about 40k (I don't own the codex) but in fantasy they are monstrous cavalry. And from a common sense standpoint it's a warrior riding an animal- therefore cavalry.
But this is all a moot point since Games Workshop's website states regarding the Bloodcrushers box set:

Games Workshop wrote: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

(Emphasis mine.)

Wait... so you belittled him, were overall rude, and then it turns out that you didn't even have the codex to confirm the incorrect theory you had about 40k? Amazing. Also, that the set contains three square and three round bases doesn't tell me which ones I'm supposed to use. Suppose I'm starting Daemons. I'm a new player. I purchase and assemble my stuff, but then I have these two bases, which one do I use? Well, of my two friends that play, one has an old-school SM bike army that has rectangular bases, and then the other has an Eldar army, which has mostly round bases except for that big Avatar guy. I guess I'll just use the square bases. It probably doesn't matter much anyway and they look really cool when they're all lined up in a row.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
Like I said before, It looks like GW jipped you on a base.

But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

Adepticon, this very year. I saw at least one all-daemon army I can think of that was on square bases for 40k.
'Ard Boyz, Springfield, IL Regionals, two years ago (I believe). I didn't play, but I want to say there was also a daemon army there that had the same bases, and that one is GW sponsored.

Oh, and here is a thread from a few months ago posted in YMDC about square bases: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/310937.page

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Yes its incredibly annoying. If I were you I'd never play miniatures again. In fact, this may be an inidicator that the difficulties of life may be a bit much for you. I'd suggest you hide in your room for a really, really long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Murray wrote:I find it annoying as the person is just plain lazy, i mean jeesh - how long does it take to pin a models foot and drill in two bases?

How long does it take to not do that, and just use the model on a single base?

Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K. It's only in recent years that daemons even came with round bases as an option.

Actually, for my Spawn I inserted the circular base into the square base in order to use them for both my Word Bearers and Warriors of Chaos.

It was as simple as drawing an outline and cutting. Then gluing an appropriately size piece of card to the bottom of the square base to stop the round base falling through.

If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

I can continue now with ad hominem but you know this type of gamer.

Actually, to keep the squads separate I use square bases for some squads and round for other squads. As they are painted similarly it helps keep the formations distinct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

Exactly. Its a nice indicator of who you don't want to play against though. If they get worked up over this, its an excellent indicator that the fun factor would be statistically nonexistent.

Do the War of the Rings movement trays work to convert 25mm circles to 25mm squares?

I probably wouldn't even notice if my opponent had funny bases mixed in. If I did my reaction would probably amount to making a bad joke about how or her units were "Squares", in the 1940s slang sense of the word.

My buddy plays with the old Ogrin characters and they came on square bases. It doesn't bother me.

If a guy has a demon army for Warhammer and 40k, I wouldn't care if he had some on square and some on round bases. Remember that a 25mm round base has an area of 0.76 square inches while a 1" square base has an area of (well) 1 square inch. The squar base will be easier to hit with a template.

However, before he brings them to a tournament, I'd check with the TO first.

KingCracker wrote:So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

The corners might stick out beyond the footprint of the circle?
Thereby gaining a massive millimetre advantage.

Life is too short to lose sleep over this.
Isn't that kinda oxymoronic?

Meh I have a fully painted, based, and very nice look daemon army... On square bases.

I have never had anyone say anything other than nice looking army in my games.

I do carry the round bases in a baggie tho, just in case I need to put one down where the unit was for any reason.

I am so surprised by this thread. People are quoting as fact yet later own up to not having the codex, (which is very noble, I must admit), people inferring that if 2 bases are provided you MUST use the round one. etc, etc. What utter nonsense.

There is no basis in fact that anything has to go on any specific type of base other than it has to have a base. Page 3, current rules; "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

It even goes one step further "Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this."

Which means you use whatever GW gives you to use, any type that is given and as a bonus gift they say you can use anythng else you want as long as the opponent does not mind. Even in tournaments there is nothing to say which bases you need to use.

So, there's a storm in a teacup from people, not necessarily OP, who have decided to have mood swings over rules in own head. (RIOH) If anyone can make a pop up for that, similar to LOS or RAW I'd be grateful, it might come in useful.

I swear, this is the strangest place at times.

BloodQuest wrote:
Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Even the previously rectangular bike bases have been replaced with what amounts to a stretched circular base.

Previously they didnt come with ANY base. I have bikes still from that time.

So, I wouldn't for a moment expect someone that played the same models in both game systems to jury rig some bizarre multi-format base. It would seem prefectly reasonable to me, however, for them to use one shape or the other consistently.

BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.

Really? People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

carmachu wrote:

BloodQuest wrote:


BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.

Really? People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

Carmachu don't be a square, man!

So I hear you have a problem with polygons...

BloodQuest wrote:Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Where are you getting 'randomly' from? Clearly, by putting two bases in the package, they intended to give the purchaser a choice about which base to use based on their preference. Some people might like the look of round, some might like square, some might want round to look more similar to other 40k models, some might want square to work with fantasy. By crafting a rule that says 'use whatever base comes with it' and putting two bases in the package, they foolishly assumed that this would allow the model buyer to make the choice without condemnation. They didn't count on the power of Angry Base Controller Man, though, who's ire rises when someone else makes a legal choice of base that he personally wouldn't make.

The people in your gaming store clearly need to get their hands on some old bikes, drednoughts, sentinals, and war walkers with square bases and build lists with as many as possible just to drive you into a frenzy so you'll get over this base-based anger.

I'd buy tickets to that dance.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

If GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k, why did they write the rule on basing to explicitly allow square bases in 40k? How did you manage to determine GW's intent without any statement by them of this intent and actions that clearly indicate that they have the opposite intent?

I don't think I'd regard a tournament as 'hardcore' if they make their rules the exact opposite of what GW wrote in the book, and clearly the exact opposite of what GW intends. It's just some kind of 'heavy house rules because we can' event.

daedalus wrote:
Wait... so you belittled him, were overall rude, If someone is a smarta$$ to me I will respond in kind and then it turns out that you didn't even have the codex Do you own every codex? to confirm the incorrect theory you had about 40k? I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry . Amazing. Also, that the set contains three square and three round bases doesn't tell me which ones I'm supposed to use. Suppose I'm starting Daemons. I'm a new player. I purchase and assemble my stuff, but then I have these two bases, which one do I use? Well, of my two friends that play, one has an old-school SM bike army that has rectangular bases, and then the other has an Eldar army, which has mostly round bases except for that big Avatar guy. My avatar came with a round base I guess I'll just use the square bases. It probably doesn't matter much anyway and they look really cool when they're all lined up in a row. That's called a mistake.

You don't have to be very observant or intelligent to notice that in fantasy troops fight in ranks requiring square bases and all other 40k armies only come with round bases. Who buys a 40k army without ever having seen an army-or more likely two- on the table top? With the game the way it is it's unlikely that army is a daemon army (It'd probably be a SM) so it would be on round bases. I would contend that the new players friend would inform him that 40k armies are on round bases. The way I see it your scenario is so unlikely that its possibility approaches negligibility.

Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

No clue, some people are irked visually.

Just like I am, with this thread.

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious winners should play 40K.

carmachu wrote:Previously they didnt come with ANY base. I have bikes still from that time.

As do I, but I had to stick a little brass rod prop in the sodding things to keep them from falling over.

carmachu wrote:People like you really tempt me to build a marine army on nothing but square bases to see what would happen.

People like me? Apparently daring to put forward a perfectly reasonable argument in a "Discussions" topic makes me what? Oh, yes, a control freak. I'll amend my rank immediately.

And go ahead. Really. You can mount your minis on Coconut Macaroons for all I care.

Someone raised a question. I gave my view in a reasoned manner. If you really can't see the point I was trying to make then I'm not going to spend the rest of my life restating it endlessly.

is the issue that he uses mixed bases or that he doesn't have the models attached to a base and uses sticki-tack so he can swip-swap them?

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

This man is a genius, I hope to model all of my mannerisms after this idol of greatness!

Aren't the square bases smaller than the round bases anyway?

As in, they will fit *inside* a round base, so there wouldn't be any trouble with gaining extra movement, and its a difference of millimitres, so the extra distance required for charging should be minimal (They'd also be slightly more bunched up for template/blast weapons.)

I fail to see why its such a big problem.

del'Vhar wrote:Aren't the square bases smaller than the round bases anyway?

A 25mm square base is the same width, but larger diagonally, than a 25mm round base.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

And even then, it's 'bigger' by a few millimeters, nothing ridiculously significant. I'm willing to bet that the bayonets on my Guardsmen cause me more problems with putting units in place than that. Besides....who has a sharp enough eye to notice that the tape measure is 1 millimeter away, and you therefore can't charge? I know I wouldn't.

BloodQuest wrote:People like me? Apparently daring to put forward a perfectly reasonable argument in a "Discussions" topic makes me what? Oh, yes, a control freak. I'll amend my rank immediately.

Arguing that the "intent" of the rules is the direct opposite of what the rules say is not really what most would call 'perfectly reasonable'.

In summary then:

Me: I noticed that [some of] your [whatever] are on square bases - any reason for that?

Reasonable Answers:

- I mostly play fantasy, so I decided to stick with the square bases.
- I had a brain fart and glued them to the square bases before I realised that round bases were more appropriate.
- I use varying shape bases to differentiate units.
- I actually think the square bases look cooler? I hope that's okay?
- Back in the day these only came with square bases.

Not a reasonable answer:
I realised that by putting them on square bases I could gain nearly a quarter of an inch of extra space between models so that even a large blast can't get more than one guy. I'm so intent on winning that I use rules as written to justify it. If you challenge me on it, I'll accuse you of being an angry control freak.

Quarter of an inch?

Wha?

The models still have to be in coherency, there is no way to make a large blast marker only hit one guy that I can think of...

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

Okay, congratulations you got me on the bloodcrusher thing. I don't own a daemon codex, the only guy around here that plays a daemon army in 40k doesn't use them, and from looking at the model I would have never guessed it was an infantry model. So kudos you got me on a technicality.
My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

You're arguing that the intent of the rule is the exact opposite of what is stated, you're refuted by the rulebook. If GW intended for players to be required to put 40k models on round bases, they wouldn't have written the rule that says to base models on the base they come with, they would have specified a base like they do in fantasy.

"Oh, whoa, I want to be a control freak and make some guy rebase models for no reason other than I can, If I declare that the intent of a rule is the exact opposite of what it says I can say he's breaking the intended rules!"

Models spaced like so:

X---X
--X--
X---X

2 inches corner to corner(square bases) Large Blast Marker doesn't touch outer models.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

You're arguing that the intent of the rule is the exact opposite of what is stated, you're refuted by the rulebook. If GW intended for players to be required to put 40k models on round bases, they wouldn't have written the rule that says to base models on the base they come with, they would have specified a base like they do in fantasy.

"Oh, whoa, I want to be a control freak and make some guy rebase models for no reason other than I can, If I declare that the intent of a rule is the exact opposite of what it says I can say he's breaking the intended rules!"

No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I'm trying to remember whether or not my Greater Daemon of Slaanesh model on its medium square base would be old enough to buy liquor, or just buy cigarettes if it had been born the day I bought it.

In that entire time, I have never had anyone complain about my models being on square bases.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

Elmodiddly wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

You are arguing that GW said you are supposed to use the base(s) provided. I am not arguing that. I am taking the next logical step and explaining why GW provides two different kinds of bases.
In regard to your post: putting a model on a square base when it should be round does not qualify as a "scenic base" any more than a really nice car qualifies as a truck.

Devastator wrote:yes the OP annoys me with his post

+1 And no I dont see the problem

Do my jetbikes HEX bases bother you?

This is an annoying thread.

Athera wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious whiners should play 40K.

Corrected your typo?

I've got some daemons I use in 40k, and have just purchased some of these:
http://www.gf9.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=103

So I can play fantasy. Simple really

1: Both bases are supplied so you can use the models for 40K and FB
2: The use of square bases in 40K is legal.

That is it as far as I can see.
Have I missed something?

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). I like blues more. By the strictest rules of logic, the term OR can actually be used to imply that both conditions might be true in order to validate the statement proposed. What you're thinking of is exclusive or, or XOR. Even in my last sentence, the term I am thinking of is referred to by both expressions, thus making both sides of the or true. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square. Perhaps they give the option of the round bases for 40k only, and the square bases are for either? Maybe the round bases aren't for basing at all. Maybe they're shields? Maybe hats. Maybe delicious delicious candy. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

You are arguing that GW said you are supposed to use the base(s) provided. I am not arguing that. I am taking the next logical step and explaining why GW provides two different kinds of bases.
In regard to your post: putting a model on a square base when it should be round does not qualify as a "scenic base" any more than a really nice car qualifies as a truck.

Oh yeah, well you're breaking TMIR! GW clearly intended for that rule to mean that I win the game on a 1+ and got to smash your models with a hammer when they were removed as casualties. They also intended that we need to wear capes and masks and stand on our heads while we play. Srsly, a redshirt told me.

The fact remains that even if they didn't now, AT ONE TIME, SM bikes came on rectangular bases, Avatar came on a square base, daemons only came with one base and it was square, not to mention any others that have been pointed out. I'm never told by the rules or the diagram in the box which base to use, so either is appropriate. End of story. Square bases are not unreasonable. I'll happily play against a square base daemon army. I'd happily play against a square base CSM army.

This thread is silly and has more than run it's course.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

Okay, congratulations you got me on the bloodcrusher thing. I don't own a daemon codex, the only guy around here that plays a daemon army in 40k doesn't use them, and from looking at the model I would have never guessed it was an infantry model. So kudos you got me on a technicality.
My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

And has yet to be proved either.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

The website has text written by someone in marketing, it's not part of the rules. Trying to argue that a rule means the opposite of what it says because a marketing guy thought '40k or fantasy' looked better on the page than '40k and/or fantasy' is what is preposterous. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument when the absolute best you can come up with is 'well, the marketing text says OR, not AND/OR, and clearly marketing is never sloppy with language!'

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on? It's not false characterization if it's true, whether you said it or just implied it.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

No, this is a case of someone claiming that RAI is the opposite of RAW for no good reason. Text descriptions written by the marketing department are not rules, they're marketing materials. The rule is clear, and the obvious intent of the rule is that 'if you base a model on what it came with, you're fine, control-freaks have no basis to tell you to rebase'.

daedalus wrote:

Oh yeah, well you're breaking TMIR! GW clearly intended for that rule to mean that I win the game on a 1+ and got to smash your models with a hammer when they were removed as casualties. They also intended that we need to wear capes and masks and stand on our heads while we play. Srsly, a redshirt told me.

The fact remains that even if they didn't now, AT ONE TIME, SM bikes came on rectangular bases, Avatar came on a square base, daemons only came with one base and it was square, not to mention any others that have been pointed out. That's not really relevant to my argument. I never argued that you should use a base other than what was included in the box/ blister or that you should rebase older models. I'm never told by the rules or the diagram in the box which base to use, so either is appropriate. Here is where I disagree, but... End of story. Square bases are not unreasonable. I'll happily play against a square base daemon army. I'd happily play against a square base CSM army. ...I wouldn't either although as everyone else likes to point out the CSM player would be breaking the rules since his models came with a round base.

This thread is silly and has more than run it's course. Well you're free to stop posting.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

The website has text written by someone in marketing, it's not part of the rules. Trying to argue that a rule means the opposite of what it says because a marketing guy thought '40k or fantasy' looked better on the page than '40k and/or fantasy' is what is preposterous. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument when the absolute best you can come up with is 'well, the marketing text says OR, not AND/OR, and clearly marketing is never sloppy with language!'

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on? It's not false characterization if it's true, whether you said it or just implied it. My car should get 22 mpg, I should get off work when I'm scheduled,and I should drive the speed limit. Does it bother me if these things don't happen? Not really.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

No, this is a case of someone claiming that RAI is the opposite of RAW for no good reason. Text descriptions written by the marketing department are not rules, they're marketing materials. The rule is clear, and the obvious intent of the rule is that 'if you base a model on what it came with, you're fine, control-freaks have no basis to tell you to rebase'.

You two need to calm down. I am neither a control freak nor would I refuse to play someone who played 40k with square bases. It's as if you are making the assumption that just because I have a different opinion I must be the most unreasonable person ever. If some daemon player only had square bases and only played 40k I would think it was strange but I wouldn't refuse to play him.
My argument was that the GW website has oversight and they would not put that statement in for no reason. But, fine let's discard that point And I'll just argue common sense.Let me go back to basics and see if I can post something we should be able to agree on: It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases.

I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:You two need to calm down.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the guy who keeps ranting and arguing against people who use bases he dislikes is the one who needs to calm down. It's alright, the corners of the bases won't cut you!

It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases. I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

No, because you haven't defined what 'normal' means in the context, and it's obvious that you're going to use some unusual defintion of 'normal' to continue your argument that the ROI is the opposite of the RAW. You've already done that kind of thing in this thread, like in the exchange below, where you try to deny that you want people to rebase their models on what you say they should be on.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models

ME: So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on?

My car should get 22 mpg, I should get off work when I'm scheduled,and I should drive the speed limit. Does it bother me if these things don't happen? Not really.

The reason that most people are getting into chaos daemons is to cross play them. It's completely useless to have them unless that's possible.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:The reason that most people are getting into chaos daemons is to cross play them. It's completely useless to have them unless that's possible.

...Or they could like the fluff. Or they could like the play style. Or they could think the models look kick-ass. Not all people want to play Fantasy, and not everyone wants to play 40k. Why is it 'useless' to play daemons just because you prefer one system over the over? There are tons of perfectly good reasons to play daemons, and have no intention of playing the other system at all.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:You two need to calm down.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the guy who keeps ranting and arguing against people who use bases he dislikes is the one who needs to calm down. It's alright, the corners of the bases won't cut you! I don't know- I don't remember doing any ranting though certainly arguing; you seem pretty worked up about it...

It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases. I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

No, because you haven't defined what 'normal' means in the context, and it's obvious that you're going to use some unusual defintion of 'normal' to continue your argument that the ROI is the opposite of the RAW. You've already done that kind of thing in this thread, like in the exchange below, where you try to deny that you want people to rebase their models on what you say they should be on.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models

ME: So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not such a prick that I expect everyone to tear up their army for the sake of compliance with every other army in 40k.

As to the definition of normal: when you go to your LGS and see people playing 40k, in what shape is the base of the majority of models on the table?

I couldn't help to notice my post was completely ignored, and that the "using the base supplied" argument was still being used.

I bought directly from GW, not Wayland Games, directly from GW.

I was supplied with 6 square bases, and 4 round bases for a box of chaos space marines.

Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

Karon wrote:Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

Obviously. hence why it was ignored.

Karon wrote:Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

I assumed your question was rhetorical.

GW customer service are usually pretty helpful - I'm sure they'd bung you some bases if you give them a call.

Alternatively, if you PM me with an address, I'd be happy to send you some additional round bases, gratis. Not because I'm really an okay guy, but because I'm so obsessive about this that I'm now on a mission to FORCIBLY re-base everyone's minis. Ideally, of course, I'd like to come over and watch to make sure you really do it!

Sorry, but because I don't play fantasy I don't have any square infantry bases...

Not @karon: can we all please get a sense of humour and proportion back now, please?

Not, of course, that I've changed my opinion in the slightest...

If you need to argue over this, you have bigger issues.
Simple checklist:
Does it have one base?
Yes(DONE!) No(Go to next question)
Does it have a square and circular base?
Yes(Go to next question) No(What game are you playing, man?)
Do you intend to use it only for fantasy/40k?
Yes(Then use the appropriate base!) No(Go to next question)
Are you that nit-picky if the base is sharp on edges and sure you'll hurt yourself?
Yes(Get into a hobby like pottery/Stop being so nit-picky) No(Use the coolest base)

Look guys I may have came on somewhat harsh about this whole thing. I mean I will still play against the guy its just one of those things that just gets my goat when I see it, and I am almost certain that everybody has at least one little thing that can irritate them. Me I just don't like it when people form a unit of bloodletters etc that have both types of bases.

Anyway if anybody who does this got offended well I'm sorry but I can't help it I don't like to see it when units have different shapes of bases in them at the very least lets say I dislike it because its messy and in fantasy it can make counting ranks a bit more difficult.

Don't lose sleep over it - we all have our pet peeves.

Besides, that's part of what Dakka's for - when we're not fighting WITH our toys, we can fight OVER them.

Thanks man I was starting to feel like I was sounding like a over competitive

Everyone is entitled to get annoyed at something at some time or other but there are more important things to get annoyed about such as, oooh, I don't know, beerguts, those crappy little smart cars and body odours.

Elmodiddly wrote: those crappy little smart cars

And Nissan Cubes- those things are hideous!

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:And Nissan Cubes- those things are hideous!

I hate those too, but then again, they are SQUARE...

Sorry, guys, I just can't help myself...

Simple answer- No.

Doesn't bother me. I do like the larger round bases from an aesthetic point of view though, for years and years GW only did large square bases which is why some of my older greater daemons and the like are on square bases.

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Really don't know why you would care. It isn't really confusing and it doesn't really give them any advantage. On top of that it lets them play more games and save money.

Frazzled wrote:

Athera wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious whiners should play 40K.

Corrected your typo?

Well. It is what we've been seeing in this thread.

Thanks for the assist.

...Or they could like the fluff. Or they could like the play style. Or they could think the models look kick-ass. Not all people want to play Fantasy, and not everyone wants to play 40k. Why is it 'useless' to play daemons just because you prefer one system over the over? There are tons of perfectly good reasons to play daemons, and have no intention of playing the other system at all.
--------

I reread what I posted and I realize I didn't say what I meant. I meant that people should be able to cross-play them if they want to without worrying about the base changes, and if they aren't able to then it seems useless. Very few people would build two armies of the same thing if they wanted to use them for both games.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:
I reread what I posted and I realize I didn't say what I meant. I meant that people should be able to cross-play them if they want to without worrying about the base changes, and if they aren't able to then it seems useless. Very few people would build two armies of the same thing if they wanted to use them for both games.

Ahh, ok then. That makes much more sense then, and I'm totally in agreement with you there.

What absolutly amazes me is how big a freakin' deal this is.

And I'm surprised the rectangle bases that are supplied with the Bikes have yet to be questioned....

Well lately my Tau battlesuits on flying bases have not been questioned as technically it came with the suit lol. (I never got the black bases sadly)

Sure you could say I am cheating (which by a technicality I am not) but in all honesty if someone is sad enough to cheat over 3mm they really should not be allowed to play games with tape measures.

Why is this such an important deal anyway the rules clearly state you use the base it comes with and it came with 2 bases. My god there is a few MM difference on the corners, call the coast guard ¬,¬

Mordoskul wrote:What absolutly amazes me is how big a freakin' deal this is.

apparently it's not since no one posted for 2 weeks prior to your post.

akira5665 wrote:And I'm surprised the rectangle bases that are supplied with the Bikes have yet to be questioned....

It was discussed ad nauseum. Read the thread.

C'mon guys please let this thread die.