Hello,

I've got a question regarding the "cultural standard" regarding the use of square bases for WH40K miniatures, for use in tournaments or "club games" both.

I'm in the process of painting my Ork/Ork army, which is heavily converted from various Citadel miniatures and a few others (every single miniature is a conversion, usually in a unique pose) with the use of rare earth magnets for both arms of 90% infantry figures (excluding Gretchin, who are too small). So that the same minis can be used for WH40K, WFB and Gorkamorka, most are designed to look non-SF and I have interchangeable options for fantasy weapon arms and futuristic arms.

Since I couldn't make the bases modular (posing the minis interestingly would be impossible and too fragile), I have to choose either round or square bases for all, and I chose the square ones so that they may rank easier in WFB movement trays, and stack more easily in the Trukks for WH40K/Gorkamorka (I scratch-built my Trukks from Dollorama toys and old GI Joe toys, so that they can hold at least 10 minis of 25mm bases). To maintain consistency all minis (except Gretchin) have square bases.

To cut to the question:

Though I plan mostly friendly games (as I don't like "unfriendly" gaming), could that choice of base size be an sufficient issue for my army to offer a case of being refused, from your experiment:

a) in GW tournaments?
b) in independent tournements?
c) in gaming clubs?

For info, I live in Canada (which means, of course, that I live in a wooden shack and I trade broken glass for furs with Indians for a living).


Merry Christmas and happy new year everyone!

yeah GW/official tournaments will be nazis about base use, square for fantasy, round for 40k, and god above help you if you've mixed any LOTR bitz in with your models.

From what I've seen, it's mostly the gamers themselves who tend to give others a hard time about this... so much so that people don't really attempt it at the tournament level, so I've never seen it get that far.

However, in the friendly environment you describe, I can tell you that people should be cool playing against this. We have a guy here with khorne daemons who has all circular bases, but has the movement trays with holes for them so that they rank up well. The only issue is some of the larger models that don't go in movement trays, but he's built bases with corners for them to sit in to make them square.

Unfortunately, I think you would have been better off going circular instead of square... since at least for the small circles, I believe (need to double check) that they can be inscribed in the square, and so you can make custom movement trays for them and have them rank up perfectly to face against square-based models.

Interestingly, the large circular bases I know for sure do not inscribe themsleves in the square... it seems to be the opposite. Meaning the large circular bases are humongous!! This did throw off the size of the bases for his larger models... but again, it was a friendly game.

But this will (imho) not work for any organized event or tourney... such is the culture of the games workshop games / events, and the gamers who attend them.

No idea about 'GW official' tournaments, but I've never run into a problem with square-based Daemons in indy 40k events.

There is a % standard of the model that has to be GW parts, so be careful and clear models with TOs before signing up for tournaments. I personally think that Orks should be the exception to that rule as some of the best Ork armies I have seen have been made with random bits and plasticard.

As for the square bases it is as Heinrich said, the organizers will probably not like it even though you can probably base just as many models with it. Given your opponent is using rounds and you count the points as "based".

Can't speak to tournaments (I only play with friends). But as a friendly gamer I wouldn't care in the slightest about square vs round bases as long as they were roughly the correct size.

You are clearly not modeling for advantage, so it wouldn't be a concern for me. In fact, I think it is an awesome (and frugal) idea! Please do post pics once you get the army going!

Square bases have the same advantages as oversized bases. The main advantage is gaining extra assault distance out of transports by putting the back corner of the base in your disembark area instead of the square edge.

Daemons, the one army legally allowed to use square really don't gain an advantage from it. Orks on the otherhand can highly abuse it.

*A 25mm square is 35mm corner to corner which can give an extra 10mm of assault distance out of a transport.
*A 40mm square is 56.5mm corner to corner which can give an extra 16.5mm of assault distance out of a transport.

Just like oversized bases, pretending it has no impact insults opponents. Being aware of the impact and explicitly not using it for an advantage by explaining how you measure from the square edge, not the corner to avoid extra distances puts opponents at ease and allows them to not have an issue with the bases.

To be honest, I think you've chosen the wrong side of the coin.

Round 25mm bases should rank up the same as square 25mm bases in a movement tray. Square bases, as mentioned, would give you a slight unfair advantage in 40k games.

Therefore, it makes more sense to mount everything on round bases for 40k and Gorkamorka, and then just use movement trays in WHFB.

You don't need 'special' movement trays with round slots, because a movement tray should fit the same number of 25mm based models, regardless of if they're square or round.

nkelsch wrote:Just like oversized bases, pretending it has no impact insults opponents. Being aware of the impact and explicitly not using it for an advantage by explaining how you measure from the square edge, not the corner to avoid extra distances puts opponents at ease and allows them to not have an issue with the bases.

Totally agree with this... as long as you're aware of the possible abuse and play intentionally not to abuse it, people will be able to have a good time playing you in friendlies.

Also agree with ArbitorIan from a practical standpoint, but it sounds like you're a real modeller and preferred the square bases, which is OK! And to boot, fantasy is better game, anyway... (warning: bias, it's the only GW game I play!)

nkelsch wrote:Square bases have the same advantages as oversized bases. The main advantage is gaining extra assault distance out of transports by putting the back corner of the base in your disembark area instead of the square edge.

Daemons, the one army legally allowed to use square really don't gain an advantage from it. Orks on the otherhand can highly abuse it.

*A 25mm square is 35mm corner to corner which can give an extra 10mm of assault distance out of a transport.
*A 40mm square is 56.5mm corner to corner which can give an extra 16.5mm of assault distance out of a transport.

Just like oversized bases, pretending it has no impact insults opponents. Being aware of the impact and explicitly not using it for an advantage by explaining how you measure from the square edge, not the corner to avoid extra distances puts opponents at ease and allows them to not have an issue with the bases.

nkelsch, thanks for pointing that out! For me personally that falls in the category of "meh, I'm not that hardcore about the rules", but its definitely good to know so people can, as you say, point it out and not abuse it. Cheers!

Honestly you'd be much better off going with round bases. Round bases can be inserted into square bases and movement trays with slots, making them 100% correct and legal for all games.

I'd base them for the game you play the most. And if you want to dabble in other games, that's fine. No one really plays Gorkamorka that I know of, so I figure anyone you play with would be so pleased to have a game that they'd not likely quibble over the bases.

I have to admit that square bases in 40K would distract me, but in the end, I wouldn't complain about it. If it was me, I'd try to figure out how to interchange the bases as needed though, as you pointed out, that's probably more trouble than it's worth.

Also worth mentioning - most 40K Orks have guns, so if you use your Fantasy Orcs in 40K, that would be noticed, too. Again, for friendly games, as long as your opponents agree, no problem. Against new opponents, you may get complaints if you try to use Fantasy Orcs in 40K.

He's already got them based, with removable arms...

My 40k-WFB Orc army is being slow built on round bases. Every model is highly converted. The reason for round bases was GF9 Makes a movement tray that has circles cut out for just that purpose. Its easy just to magnetize them into the cut out's, then use the same case whether its 40K / WFB as then i'm prepared for both. Vehicles is a whole different store then warmachines though...

Cybor's for boarboyz though!

While I wouldn't have a big problem with it, it does give you an advantage, both psychologically due to confusion and logistically. It's an area that if I were a TO, I would allow, but I totally understand other people being upset about it.

As stated, the best way to go is on rounds, because they can still go on movement trays and not be an issue.

I've seen the square bases allowed in 40k tournaments, but you need to be careful in using them so as not to gain extra distance.

Daemons are actually more of a problem, as the square bases make for smaller deep strike formations, reducing their chance of mishap.

I guess the 50 or so other threads about this went by the wayside, huh?

Yes, use the round bases for 40K, square for fantasy.

Tournament I'm running states you must use the round base provided for 40k. If you place a 40k base on top of a fantasy one the fantasy corners stick out which can gain you extra distance, (I saw a tournament game lost because of just such a discrepency).

It might not seem like much but for tournaments I have to say either magnetize the bases or get the movement trays for fantasy that use circle bases, forgot who makes em though.

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.

More recent arguments, with some more substantive data (as well as a bunch of junk, of course), in this recent thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/334338.page

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.

Larger bases = more spaced out = less hit by templates.

@ Brother Heinrich; GW gets its panties in a wad over Lord of the Rings bits because its not technically there intellectual property and it was part of the agreement for GW to even be able to make the Movie version of LotR Miniatures.

On Topic! I think you'd be better off basing the armies on rounds so it fits in the rules with everything except for fantasy and for fantasy you can use the War of the Ring movement trays and all is gravy. Most tournaments I've seen has 1 or 2 people playing a demon army the same way I described. If you go with a square base in 40k It's probably going to go down like this: Friendly games it will be perfectly fine, small tournaments it depends on who's running it, Indy tournies same, and GW big events it more than likely won't be ok. I think your better off on rounds. But if your set on squares you should be ok minus any larger or more "competitive" events.

In hindsight I think you should have used circular bases as you could have used war of the ring movement trays to rank up your models for fantasy.

It wasn't that long ago that all the larger 40K figures were mounted on square bases. I much prefer the round bases though as they match the smaller ones. If you're only playing 'friendly' games then you could simply not squeeze every advantage out of having the square bases.

AFAIK the round bases have the same diameter as the square ones, no?

If so, what would've been wrong with making some movement trays with slots for round bases to fit in but leave them ranked up as if on square?

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.

apart from all the problems presented above your post, 40k is designed to be played with round bases, combat, assalting, firing can all be positivly effected (for the player, not opponent) by using square bases.

seeing as you can get regiment trays online with circles cut out, use circle bases

Wow, that's a great link Mannahnin.

Two things I learned from it... in the poll, 75% said they'd be OK with it. And, apparently it's even legal by the letter of the rules.

Interesting to know!

Thanks for the replies. In fact, I really didn't think it would matter...
Personally, I would find arguments about "ork advantages" spurious compared to the gross advantage of cheap space marines with a 3+ armour save, since an Ork army is by no means a power-player army, but I understand this could raise quibbles, so I appreciate all remarks said.

I think I'll stick to playing friendly games, and next time I'll favour round bases. I should have asked before priming...

Anyway I'll post pictures when painting's done and I've got a better camera.

Edit: I made square bases instead of round because it's easier with plasticard; since ALL my minis are conversions to some degree (50%+ citadel, parts green stuff, parts star wars/heroclix/horrorclix/dollarstore/toys) I don't get bases with the bits I buy. Not a single one of my minis looks like anyone else's; it's an artistic thing, really, I never considered tactical implications, just that the base size was 25mm for all.

Would love to see some pics! Put 'em in the gallery

Mattlov wrote:
There really shouldn't be a problem with it, by anyone, for any reason.

Yeah...no.

Assuming you actually read the thread first, someone did already point out that you do gain an advantage depending on how you measure from the base. And not only that but I don't see how that makes you more vulnerable to templates, because you could potentially space your models out farther than you normally could. So you're wrong on both counts.

Not only that, but even if you were right, it's still a moot point because if you just used the right base size to begin with there wouldn't be any argument at all. You wouldn't have to try and justify anything.

Honestly, I question how modular bases could be "impossible". Especially for Orks, since they have big feet and are actually easier to pin to a base than most models. Just how "interesting" are you making these poses, does every single model in the army have to be hopping around on one leg or flying?

Sid, there's no need to be so negative.

Square bases ARE more vulnerable to templates in general; you have the same coherency rules, but a square 25mm base covers a larger area. The only exception is big mosters/bloodcrushers, where the large square base is only 50mm, but the 40k equivalent is a 60mm round.

It's an easy and common mistake to make, and one I've only recently started kind-of crusading against.

The difference is that the larger a base is, the larger the overall footprint for a unit can be, which means that each blast covers a smaller chunk of it.

Hrm. Okay, thought about it some more, and yeah, if you go full coherency with the corners of 25mm squares pointed at each other, you can actually spread out more. Ugh.

I'd put them on circle bases and for fantasy make a custom tray with some plasticcard or try to fit on the GW ones

either way it wouldnt matter much

Mannahnin wrote:The only exception is big mosters/bloodcrushers, where the large square base is only 50mm, but the 40k equivalent is a 60mm round

Ah! This is what I was thinking of. I was confused when I saw this in-person, since for the smaller bases the circle fits inside the square, but for the largest size bases it's the opposite. Now it makes sense

Edit: Also, as far as rotating the bases to diamond-shape and going corner-to-corner for coherency... well, I just wouldn't play that person again. That'd be a sleazy tactic, and it doesn't seem to be what the OP had in mind doing at all. There are lots of ways to play with movement in 40k (starting a vehicle sideways, getting the free rotation, and moving forwards what amounts to extra distance from where you could've been on turn 1 otherwise is a common one) and this is one. Technically legal as well, since the bases come with the models... so what you're really complaining about is WAAC-type strategies, and again, that doesn't seem to be what the OP had in mind.

If he wasn't pulling shenanigans with them, I wouldn't have a problem playing against it. And if he was, I probably would end up not wanting to play him for other reasons that would become apparent during the game, as well.

I detailed my thoughts on the subject exhaustively in that other thread.

Not sure yet I'll rebase all those 80 Orks - a damn lot of work, especially since most of them are posed running and stand on a single foot... high risk of breaking. Still have to think it through...

ph34r wrote:Honestly you'd be much better off going with round bases. Round bases can be inserted into square bases and movement trays with slots, making them 100% correct and legal for all games.

I agree with this observation. They should consider this along with the special basing trays; Brilliant!

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

PS. All of the GW Noobs will follow the Brain washing rules, however, most are Veteran GW people pretty passive as long as they're GW Models. Although, Sanctioned events are a No-No and you are stuck with the required basing...

Excuse me, "brainwashing"? Those are the rules.

You know I wouldn't be so "negative" if you guys would stop presenting your opinions in the most douchey way possible...

Sidstyler wrote:Excuse me, "brainwashing"? Those are the rules.

You know I wouldn't be so "negative" if you guys would stop presenting your opinions in the most douchey way possible...

Lighten up Francis...

Douchey? Come on, who you crappin? How many times have you been assaulted at the door by a GW Noob? Especially, when it comes to the rules. OK, they are rules Lawyers and yes, they are the rules. But in the spirit of the Game, the Models should be playable.

Remember, Opinions are like Arseholes; we all have them and they all stink...

Should I be "Negative" to you for using the word Douchey? (SP) Excuse me?

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

My daemons have square bases and no one at my club has complained, in fact most of them comment that it's a good idea. There will always be some people who complain but most don't care.

But in the spirit of the Game, the Models should be playable.

The models are playable. The only reason there's a problem now is because the OP tried to design one army for use with three game systems, and his love for extensive converting made them unplayable in one game system, which I'm assuming he knew full well the limitations of when he set about his work to begin with.

I just don't see why he couldn't have done modular basing. He already went through the trouble of magnetizing every single model in the army, would it really have been that difficult?

Should I be "Negative" to you for using the word Douchey? (SP) Excuse me?

If you want, but do keep in mind you started it with "brainwashing rules". Speaking of which, is it "brainwashing" to insist that I dribble the ball when playing basketball, instead of just running around with it in my hands?

Oh boy...youth...



Yours Truly,

Dr. Douchey

lol, oh wow.

Oh, how I long for the day when I can post complete and utter bs, and still win every argument by throwing my venerable status around.

The only real problem with square bases in 40k is that it allows a single model to charge 2 models at once which is virtually impossible to do on a round base due to the shape of a sphere (Note this is just the initial charge of closest point to closest point)

Its a fairly minor detail, but thats about it

4M2A wrote:My daemons have square bases and no one at my club has complained, in fact most of them comment that it's a good idea. There will always be some people who complain but most don't care.

Well Square-based daemons are game legal because of the 'base they came with'... And they also don't disembark out of open-topped transports so they really don't gain any extra distance when assaulting. As long as you don't corner-to-corner for coherency, daemons are going to be pretty mucht he exact same play experience with square or round.

As long as you know how it impacts and don't exploit it, you should be fine regardless of your bases.

Personally I would mount my fantasy on round and use movement trays with holes if I had access to a 20mm round for gobbos. Ranking up my orks is like solving a puzzle because the multi-piece fantasy ork kit the arms go on all willy nilly then they never rank up. I think being able to rotate in place on a round base may help with this problem.

Kirasu wrote:The only real problem with square bases in 40k is that it allows a single model to charge 2 models at once which is virtually impossible to do on a round base due to the shape of a sphere (Note this is just the initial charge of closest point to closest point)

Its a fairly minor detail, but thats about it

The rules actually only allow a single model to contact one model. Base shape doesn't enter into it. You can only declare a charge against one unit, and the first model in an assaulting unit is only permitted to contact that assaulted unit. You need multiple models in the assaulting unit to contact multiple enemy units- see p.34.

nkelsch wrote:ll Square-based daemons are game legal because of the 'base they came with'... And they also don't disembark out of open-topped transports so they really don't gain any extra distance when assaulting. As long as you don't corner-to-corner for coherency, daemons are going to be pretty mucht he exact same play experience with square or round.

The first part is debatable. Pretty much everyone accepts that it's legal to use the square bases because of that rule, although the rule actually doesn't explicitly cover models which come with more than one. I believe the intention is for you to use the right base for the system you're playing, and the rule is phrased that way so as to allow people to use old models without being forced to rebase them, even though rebasing them is usually a good idea.

Any time they disembark from a transport you can gain distance, unless you specifically are careful not to. Open-topped has nothing to do with it. As pointed out above, you can also spread out more against blasts by orienting corner-to-corner for coherency. And cover more ground for holding multiple objectives, or being ready to move/assault in multiple directions. You can compensate by deliberately keeping your models oriented with the flat sides toward each other and the enemy, but it's kind of a PITA, and if you're not careful about it, may wind up gaining an advantage at some point during the game.

nkelsch wrote:As long as you know how it impacts and don't exploit it, you should be fine regardless of your bases.

Overall this is still largely true. If you're conscientious about it, you can largely avoid gaining advantages (with the exception of 50mm squares vs. 60mm rounds, which break Bloodcrushers a bit). Most casual, and even a lot of competitive, players don't care that much about it. I just learned the hard way with my own daemons, and I prefer to avoid the possibility of causing headaches for myself or my opponent at this point, so I don't field the square bases in 40k anymore.

Well, I've played in a few Indy GT, and LOTS of RTTs all over, and my square bases on my Daemons has never been a question. I'm a Fantasy player at heart (and for 16+ years), so there's no reason for me to convert my models over. I've never taken advantage of the fact that you can be a bit "janky" with movement using the square corners to gain some distance from time to time, but the larger bases also allow templates to hit you more often (as there's no parials). But, being a bit larger also means not as many models can get hit if you spread out your models to the max 2" seperation.

All in all, it's really how you play them with the square bases. If people or tournaments have a problem with it, just don't play with them. There's plenty of us who don't mind!

W/Daemons I don't have a problem and never would. With orks as long as your getting out of the tank the right way we can still be friends

And I'm a hardcore, crazy, powergaming, bastard....Ask anyone

Oh, and the above poster doesn't count towards this argument cause all he does in a game of 40k is yell blood for the blood god and run right at you. He couldn't cheat if he tried

As long as he places his daemons in a 6-surrounding-1 formation instead of an 8-surrounding-1 box, he's mostly okay. The only significant issue then is the blood crushers.

TDG- I'm not surprised no one's said anything. I suspect that most of them are simply clueless that there's any impact on play at all.

To clarify a few matters (as the OP); In regard as to why I went with square bases...

I'm new to the big GW wargames and always played games with friends, never in tournaments. I never imagined round bases'd be an issue - in fact IMHO square bases line up more easily and are much easier to do in plasticard.


I'm not a munchkin player by any lenght. I honestly don't care about competitiveness and will probably avoid tournaments, if only for the kind of arguments seen here. I've got enough controversy and confliicts at my job... (I'm in central government...)

Well, I've played in a few Indy GT, and LOTS of RTTs all over, and my square bases on my Daemons has never been a question. I'm a Fantasy player at heart (and for 16+ years), so there's no reason for me to convert my models over. I've never taken advantage of the fact that you can be a bit "janky" with movement using the square corners to gain some distance from time to time, but the larger bases also allow templates to hit you more often (as there's no parials). But, being a bit larger also means not as many models can get hit if you spread out your models to the max 2" seperation.

All in all, it's really how you play them with the square bases. If people or tournaments have a problem with it, just don't play with them. There's plenty of us who don't mind!

I am in agreement with you on this. I have my metal Daemon Princes on square bases. My metal Seekers and metal Fiends are on rectangular bases. That is what they came with and that is what I play. I've been playing this game for close to twenty three years and seen the disadvantage of using more often than not when using square bases, but I continue playing them because they fit the theme of my army. I have no problems playing against someone with square bases in casual play or in a tourney.

As requested, I've posted some pictures of my armies in progress (notably my Ork conversions), others are currently uploading.

After reviewing my plastic men, I finally won't bother to rebase them with round base - too much work, too high risk of breaking my delicate poses (you'll understand when you see, for exemple, the ork with a monowheel for legs, inspired by the Gorkamorma table of "Bad Dok Serjery"). Its missile launcher is a burnt-out chrismas tree light bulb...

Ork conversion gallery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-23691-12985_100%25%20Converted%20Ork%20Army%20Of%20Angelis%20%28wh40k%252Fgorkamorka%29.html

Other miniatures gallery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-search.jsp?u=23691

I'll remember next time to build a"multi-game army"!

Edit: links added

Crazy idea, but what about magnetic strips to base your bases? Put the squares on top of circles bases for picky tournaments. Just a thought. Very little input or time necessary to "fix," and no whiners.

The stigma of square bases all stem from mainly Daemons and how GW doesnt like multi-game-system armies. I'm guessing it's mainly one of the reasons why they left out the old rule of "the base they came with or larger" from 4th edition, As a player can collect one army of Daemons and effectively play both games now with the Codex: Chaos Daemons, as opposed to before, where you had to have some CSM in your army to make Daemons even viable.

GW and anything sanctioned by them will most definately NOT allow you to use round bases, apparently for any reason. There's no way to make money if they sold you one army and you can play both systems.

As for the general public, most shouldnt have a problem with it. Those that do point out the advantages of the square bases should note that the advantages are miniscule in size and shouldnt impact the game much more than about 1 casualty. Anyone claiming to be "playing by the rules" and using the rulebook can be soundly put down by simply asking them to quote where in the book did it say they must use round bases (since if you used fantasy orcs as the basis for the conversions, most likely they actually came with square bases).

It doesn't need to specify round bases. It's the Warhammer 40k rulebook, and all 40k models come with round bases, so...it's just kind of assumed that you'll be putting them on round bases.

Those that do point out the advantages of the square bases should note that the advantages are miniscule in size and shouldnt impact the game much more than about 1 casualty.

Is it a huge impact on the game? No. But it's worth pointing out that there is an impact and that it does matter to people, and making blanket statements like "No one should ever have a problem with this for any reason" is wrong.

Evidently you are nitpicky enough to care. However dont put words into my mouth. I said "most" shouldnt have a problem with it, not "No one should have no problem". In anything there will always be a small, miniscule amount of people complaining about every little detail just for the sake of complaining or drawing attention. A fraction of an inch is no different from human error misjudging the length of an inch by eyeing it. I personally only ever place my models 1 inchs away from eachother. That way I'm not even touching the 2 inch barrier, and certainly never incuring any extra distance for different base sizes (I have alot of weird bases in my army, namely a dread still on the old square bases and two Daemon Princes on 40mms).

As for playing by the rules, do note that if you go by assumptions, you are playing them as RAI, no longer RAW. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, for it is a lie.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was only a few models. The whole army is pushing it a bit, and I might be secretly annoyed, but I'd still play you. If the TO lets you into the event with them, there wouldn't be much gained by being pissy about it.

Indeed, I may have played against a certain Moderator who had their Summoned Lesser Daemons on square bases at the 40k 'Ard Boyz a while back.

Sidstyler wrote:It doesn't need to specify round bases. It's the Warhammer 40k rulebook, and all 40k models come with round bases, so...it's just kind of assumed that you'll be putting them on round bases.

It doesn't need to specify because why exactly? It actually *does* need to specify otherwise it's not a rule. 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.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Evidently you are nitpicky enough to care.

Evidently, I'd surprise a lot of you if you ever had the opportunity to play a game with me. I'm the type of guy who probably wouldn't have said a word to you if your entire 40k army was mounted on square bases, other than out of initial curiosity as to why you would do that in the first place (though I think the myriad of WHF Orc bits would have been a strong hint). I wouldn't immediately start throwing accusations of cheating or modeling for advantage around like you seem to think...unless I actually caught him doing that crap in-game.

Sometimes when arguing online I like to play Devil's Advocate, and sometimes I just like to argue if it tickles me. I admit I'm kind of a troll like that (but obviously a good troll never comes out and calls themselves one ). The fact that someone said very matter-of-factly "No one should have a problem with this, for any reason" was enough to get me to bite and stay on this thread for this long. Yes, it's really that little extra bit, the crap someone tacks on to the end of a post as an afterthought which most people would just look over...

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:However dont put words into my mouth. I said "most" shouldnt have a problem with it, not "No one should have no problem".

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.

I apologize if you thought I was talking about you, it was Mattlov who made the "offending" remark. I agree that it's a small point of contention and that most people likely wouldn't have a problem with it, but like I said, the fact that someone actually came out and told me that I "shouldn't have a problem with it for any reason" is enough to make me have a problem with it.

I don't care if someone wants to mount their army on the wrong bases, but if someone wants to be a dick about it, then I'll be a dick too and I suddenly I will have a problem with it. I don't like when people have the attitude that they can do whatever the hell they want and just "Why so serious?" everyone to get their way.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:A fraction of an inch is no different from human error misjudging the length of an inch by eyeing it.

Well, then people probably would think I was a dick then, because I almost never eyeball anything, even if it's an inch. The only time I will ever do that is if I'm firing a railgun, because I know the length of the table and the only way I'll ever be out of range is if I'm not actually on it. Other than that I prefer actually measuring. Maybe it's just because of my job, but I learned the hard way that you can't eyeball anything.

It's not that hard to measure though, ever since I bought the GF9 T.A.C. template with a 6" side, 2" side, and 1" side to help keep everything coherent. That thing is a must-have in my opinion.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:As for playing by the rules, do note that if you go by assumptions, you are playing them as RAI, no longer RAW. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, for it is a lie

Indeed. I never claimed to be a RAW player, because there are times when it's clear what GW intended but RAW makes it unplayable, like DE flickerfields for example. In order to enjoy this game at all you have to allow a little bit of rule interpretation, because playing strictly by RAW breaks the game...

When it comes to bases though, you seriously can't expect me to believe that there's any actual confusion as to what's "proper". Daemons are the only models anymore that come with both, and it's pretty obvious to everyone who's been into the hobby for more than a day as to why: because they were designed for both systems. They even have both 40k and WHF logos on the boxes. Ask a fething redshirt and he'll tell you the same thing. The rulebook may not come out and say "round base = 40k", but Daemons are the only instance in which that would actually be a point of confusion, and a quick flip through the rulebook will show you that almost every single 40k model is mounted on round bases, so common sense and reasoning would tell you which base is the "right" one. Especially if you have both 40k and WHF rulebooks and you can see which models are mounted on which side by side.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:It doesn't need to specify because why exactly?

Because I imagine GW doesn't think it's playerbase is that damn stupid. Maybe they're wrong.

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.

Now which one goes on top and which one goes on the bottom, that's the real debate here...

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.

Mikhaila - no, it really isnt. Changing working rules because you dont like them is equally "bad" regardless of the working rules you are changing.

Banning ork nob bikers because you dont like them is the "same" as banning square based daemons, as both involve changing working rules of the game for personal preference.

You might not like that they are equivalent, but that doesnt alter that they are.

To the OP: you really shouldnt take this thread as meaning you should avoid tournaments; when all is said and done the "rule of cool" tends to win out over BRB rules. If your army looks fabulous. with some awesome looking conversions it is less likely you will have opponents taking issue with it.


Mann - I've posted on this over in YMDC

Polonius wrote:

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.

He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

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.

More power to you.

Thanks for your trouble everyone. No offence meant. Of course, I supposed some people care more than others about rules, and I realise 75% wouldn't mind fighting square bases. My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

What surprised me was mostly what you might call the "competitive attitude" I would have to expect at tournaments. I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

It's just the prospect that facing perhaps 25% of opponents who'd raise heated arguments about the way my orks were modelling, every time, would have me packing and leave. I respect the notion of competitiveness in tournaments, of course, but I confess that in regards to a game of customised miniatures (instead of standardised chess pieces), the clash between conversions and rules-austerity fosters a breeding cround controversy. My real-life job (related to politics) has far enough arguments for me to want controversy in my hobbies, where I seek escapism...

I'll check out the references hinted about the Casual Gaming Mafia, and casual gamers, thanks, but I'll avoid the tournaments and organised events until further notice for the moment. A few angry arguments would be enough for me to quit the hobby entirely, and I've worked too much since a year or two at modelling my plasticmen to quit just now.

No offence meant, of course.

I've been going to tournaments regularly for about seven years, and I think I've had maybe one argument that could be called "heated." I think most of the competitive gamers here will relate similar experiences.

It sounds less like you're concern is conflict, but simply competitive gaming in general. That's fine, it's a big hobby and there is plenty of stuff you can do that doesn't involved meeting win conditions.

I can't speak for all competitive gamers, but if you and I were to play in a tournament, I'd be polite, I'd allow your bases, I'd try to be friendly and encouraging, but I most certainly would try to table you with a relatively fine tuned army built out of a powerful codex (IG). If that's not what you're into, than tournaments probably aren't for you.

I'm not saying I would table you. I've suffered minor losses to guys that were playing their 3rd game after a decade before. I've also tabled GT winners. Any given sunday, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

There is a bit of a point though, but if he's basing his opinion of tournaments solely on this thread on Dakka, that's not entirely fair. I could point you to a dozen positive threads about tournament experiences.

The problem with threads like thiis is that the OP gets his answer in four words "ask the tournament organizer." Everything else is a tangent.

Even assuming a complete answer, here's what I would write to the OP's original post (and if anybody disagrees, feel free to post)

"As always, ask a tournament organizer about any questions you have about legality of models or rules. The rules as written do mandate that models use the bases provided, so using square bases for orks would violate that rule. In addition, there is a small but measurable advantage to using 25mm square bases for disembarking from vehicles and minimizing blasts and templates. The majority of players and TOs would likely allow it, as there are ways to minimize those advantages, especially from a player new to tournaments that is likely not modelling for advantage. 40k is a game with strong local cultures, and it's important to be aware that something that isn't a big deal in one group could be a problem in another. Advance communication and being aware of potential problems will reduce friction. In addition, most tournament organiziers do understand the "rule of cool:" a well modeled and neat looking army is more likely to be allowed when non-standard than a half painted mess."

As above, plus loads.

The main thing is you can be competitive, i.e. wanting to win, WITHOUT being "win at all costs"

The vast, VAST majority of tourney gamers I have seen and played with have generally been better opponents than some casual gamers - mainly because they have a greater rules knowledge and tend to avoid the misunderstandings that can occur when someone who plays part 3rd part 4th and part 5th ed rocks up to a gaming store.

As said above - if you are thinking about attending a tournament have a chat with the TO about what THEY think about the models. Once you have got their approval, or not, what your opponents think is not relevant any longer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mikhaila - no, it really isnt. Changing working rules because you dont like them is equally "bad" regardless of the working rules you are changing.

Banning ork nob bikers because you dont like them is the "same" as banning square based daemons, as both involve changing working rules of the game for personal preference.

You might not like that they are equivalent, but that doesnt alter that they are.

I actually don't care. I've already stated I don't ban them at my tournaments.

You just don't want to accept that other people disagree with you, and that their may be more than one point of veiw on the subject. You've tried to link it to irrational behavior, personal problems, and some imagined dislike of nob bikers.

Probably easiest to drop the subject, and you can just make sure to never bring demons on square bases to one of my irational, nob banning tournamens filled with personal problems. You obviously wouldn't have any fun.

filbert wrote:He has a bit of a point though, don't you think (albeit subject to over-exaggeration). It's not the first time I have seen threads both in the tourney forum and the YMDC forum descend into squabbling over what appears to be fairly minor points. What else is someone who is entirely new to the competitive gaming scene supposed to take from that other than there appears to be a high proportion of arguments occurring? That's the opinion I get after reading this thread and others like it and I am in the same boat as the OP; I have never been to a toruney before so my direct exposure to them comes from Dakka threads.

I'd hope someone new to the game could bear in mind that internet forums are partially FOR niggling over little details and hashing out fine points. It's a decent pastime online, when we're NOT at the table. Actual at-the-table playtime is too precious for most of us to quibble over the little things during a real game.

If we encounter someone playing a rule significantly wrong, we might spent a minute or two talking about it at the table, but we're not going to launch into a tirade or waste even 10 minutes debating it. We'll either cede the point, roll a 4+, come up with some other mutually-agreeable compromise for the moment, or call a referee over for a quick ruling, so we can get on with the game! Tournament gamers want to get their game on; not spend time quibbling when we could actually be moving our army men around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

silence indigo wrote:Thanks for your trouble everyone. No offence meant. Of course, I supposed some people care more than others about rules, and I realise 75% wouldn't mind fighting square bases. My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

Okay, cool. IME, I've had games where I used my square-based daemons and noticed that I could gain an advantage if I wasn't careful. In one case the difference between having another objective and winning (and winning the tournament) vs. not having that objective and having a draw (and not winning the tournament) occurred in the final round. That kind of thing sucks, and at the end of three games I could easily have pivoted the model through inattention, not noticing what I had done, and inadvertently cheated my opponent.

You're right that it's a few centimeters of difference; but in a game where a half an inch or an inch frequently is the difference between getting an assault or an objective or not, those little differences can indeed matter. I know that most people who base on squares for cross-usages in 40k or fantasy do it without ever realizing that it could be a problem. I did. That's part of why I bother discussing it online, because I think it would help them to know, so they can make an informed choice, hopefully before investing a ton of time & effort modeling an army on squares.

silence indigo wrote:What surprised me was mostly what you might call the "competitive attitude" I would have to expect at tournaments. I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

Well, that's the thing about "friendly"/"casual" games. People bring different expectations to them sometimes. Tournament games are actually a bit more predictable, in that you KNOW that there's going to be at least a minimum baseline interest in winning. I rarely encounter "win at all costs" people at tournaments; mostly "try to win but have a good time and be a good sport doing it" people. Over eleven years and quite literally hundreds of competitive league and tournament games, I'd have to say I could count games which involved "bickering" about the rules on one hand. And have fingers left over. I've actually seen more bickering in casual games, because the people aren't on a clock and can afford to waste time hashing out how a rule's supposed to work. In a tournament game you've got a time limit, and no one wants to waste a bunch of time on a rules discussion.

silence indigo wrote:It's just the prospect that facing perhaps 25% of opponents who'd raise heated arguments about the way my orks were modelling, every time, would have me packing and leave.

That's what we're trying to tell you. I have never heard of a single person who would raise a heated argument about it. So you're leaping to an unfounded conclusion based on misunderstanding the discussion. In actual practice, most of us if we saw it in a real live game would compliment the person on their conversions and not even bring up the bases issue. Everyone who goes to tournaments knows and appreciates how much work and creativity goes into building a heavily-converted army, and no one wants to be confrontational or nasty or rain on someone's parade.

A couple of other people who have armies like this have reported that they've been using them for years with no complaints at all. The minority of us who are even aware of the difference would probably just keep an eye on your movement during the game to try to make sure you weren't using the bases in such a way as to gain advantage. And if we saw you doing it, we'd be very polite and restrained in asking you not to.

Mikhaila - you seem to think I was stating YOU would ban them. I was just stating that changing the rules in order to prohibit something otherwise perfectly legal is a personal preference thing - something I look to avoid in tourneys.

Personally i STILL hate falcons, but i wouldnt ban them!

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was just stating that changing the rules in order to prohibit something otherwise perfectly legal is a personal preference thing - something I look to avoid in tourneys.

As has been stated ad nauseum, in situations like this (where what is "perfectly legal" is not clear, unlike your repeated assertion otherwise) TOs will have to make rulings. If a TOs rulings don't match up with what your interpretation of the RAW is, you still have to accept their ruling.

Luckily, TOs like mikhaila, MVBrandt, and others frequent the interwebs and are usually very clear ahead of time on what their rulings will be in cases like this. Which (in this case) seems to be allowing it. So there's no issue... other than using exaggerated terms and putting everyone's backs up (who may even agree with you otherwise).

Nos, you're not winning this one. You were kind of nasty and cast personal aspersions, and Mikhaila was polite in the way he called you on it. Just cede the point and move on.

silence indigo wrote: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.

No, none of the crap Jervis espouses is "mainstream practice". That's what he wants you to think, though.

The best thing you can do is just ignore any of the crap that guy casts down at us from the Ivory Tower. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and he's really done more harm than good for the hobby, as far as I'm concerned.

Polonius wrote:
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.

Honestly I've never really seen the appeal in "telling a story" with my 40k army. It's not that I'm not that creative (which is what I'm sure a lot of you "artists" will imply), I'd just rather play an actual RPG designed for that kind of thing if that's what I were going to do...like D&D. I've been itching to play a good game of D&D for a while now, but don't really have anyone to play with. :(

Anyway, I can see why some people would want to roleplay, like most people I like the background for 40k (I think it's fun in how absurd and over-the-top it is) and I can see the appeal in it, it's just that I don't think 40k was really written with it in mind.

silence indigo wrote:My jaw dropped at the argument that I could position the bases diagonally for an advantage in movement; I had never consiered that and would consider that very poor sport were I to do such a thing.

Well, then what's the problem? Clearly that wasn't the intent and you can say as much. If you aren't actually placing them diagonally and measuring to the corners in-game then there's really nothing people can call you out on is there?

silence indigo wrote:I had stopped playing "friendly games" with an opponent in my small town, after 3 games, because I wasn't confortable with his "winning at all costs" approach, and even then he didn't bicker about the rules.

...so...what was he doing that made you want to stop playing him then?

silence indigo wrote:I'll check out the references hinted about the Casual Gaming Mafia, and casual gamers, thanks, but I'll avoid the tournaments and organised events until further notice for the moment. A few angry arguments would be enough for me to quit the hobby entirely, and I've worked too much since a year or two at modelling my plasticmen to quit just now.

The CGM is a joke, mostly kept up (and started by?) H.B.M.C., which mocks the attitude prevalent amongst some self-proclaimed casual gamers. It's true some people can get too competitive, but it's nothing compared to how nasty "hardcore" casual types can be. We're talking about people who seriously believe that if you play a game to win (which we all do, the goal of any competitive game like 40k is to win) you're the scum of the earth.

And if a couple of arguments is all it takes for you to quit the hobby altogether, then all I can say is you must not be all that invested in it to begin with. It's like a tournament player giving up entirely because a couple of fluff nazis criticized his paintjob for not being 100% accurate. "You know Librarians are supposed to be blue...yours is wrong."

nosferatu1001 wrote:The main thing is you can be competitive, i.e. wanting to win, WITHOUT being "win at all costs"

Exactly. WAAC, in my opinion anyway, refers more to people who will literally do anything to win. Cheating, modeling for advantage, browbeating and being a douche in general, etc. These people are usually easy to identify and aren't representative of competitive gaming as a whole.

RiTides - well, it is legal and it is clear - it is within the rules to use square bases for daemons. As a number of people have agreed on. People can argue with something that is clear, and that still doesn't make it an unclear rule.

Mann - not interested in "winning", just putting across the viewpoint that needlessly changing working rules isnt really necessary. Aware TOs can change rules on a whim, it's just a slippery slope to do so.

The "point" is that changing the rules to disallow daemons on square bases is equivalent, in terms of changing working rules, to disallowing armies that contain "X" otherwise legal unit.

A) No one here agrees with you that the two are equivalent.
B) You never needed to make comments attacking the person or character of TOs or people who disagree with you about basing.

A) Objectively they are. They are both functional rules, that work without the requiremetn for external "tinkering" to make them work in 40k, so to change them has to be a personal preference and changing one is equivalent to changing the other.

Any argument about the balance effects / power levels of doing so becomes subjective, not objective.

B) CHanging something because of a personal preference, and pointing out that this is the case, shouldnt be insulting anynoe.

The problem is, nos, that the way you're making your point is rather outlandish and you're sticking to it no matter what.

A better comparison would be not allowing modelling for an advantage, since that is also completely legal within the rules but also within a TO's discretion to disallow in certain cases. Outlawing the use of square bases (which, by the way, none of the TO's in this thread have said they do) would be more similar to outlawing using OOP ork trukks only because they are tiny, than it would be to saying you cannot use a certain unit. No one said daemon units couldn't be fielded, they said they were debating whether they would allow them to be modelled with square bases.

For example- at the fantasy 'Ard Boyz first round that I went to, there was an empire player who had stacked several GW watchtowers on top of one another. In the rules, it said you could have a certain number of models fire from each floor- but made no mention of how many floors were allowed. He wanted to claim something like 6 floors, but the TO ruled that he could only have 3. By the letter of the rules, what he wanted to do was legal, but the TO had to make a ruling about his modelling for an advantage in this case. I believe these kinds of examples are much more similar to what we're talking about here with square bases vs. round bases being used for daemons- not whether or not the daemons themselves can be used.

As to "B" above- it's the language you use more than anything else. Of course you can make a point, but the way you do it is going to have more of an effect than anything you actually say- because it appears most people in this thread actually agree with you on this ruling, just not the way you're expressing it, which is very polarizing due to the language you're using about people who do not agree with you.

I get the idea. Tournaments have fun potential. Maybe, sometime...

nosferatu1001 wrote:A) Objectively they are. They are both functional rules, that work without the requiremetn for external "tinkering" to make them work in 40k, so to change them has to be a personal preference and changing one is equivalent to changing the other.

Any argument about the balance effects / power levels of doing so becomes subjective, not objective.

B) CHanging something because of a personal preference, and pointing out that this is the case, shouldnt be insulting anynoe.

Oblivious Troll is Oblivious.

At this point it's pretty obvious to the rest of us, and oblivious to you, that some people disagree with your views. This does not make us irrational, or guilty of breaking rules, or of have personal issues. Most people would at this point take a hint, and cease trying to lable people that disagree with you in this way.

Luckily, I can just use the handy Ignore Function, and be thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.

Mannahnin wrote:Nos, you're not winning this one. You were kind of nasty and cast personal aspersions, and Mikhaila was polite in the way he called you on it. Just cede the point and move on.

In all honesty they were both being rude by the end of the conversation.

silence indigo wrote:I get the idea. Tournaments have fun potential. Maybe, sometime...

Cool! Thanks for hearing us out. I'm sorry if some of us came across a bit too strongly. We love our gaming, obviously.

And with that, it appears that the thread has lived out its useful life.