I haven't played in ages, so I was thinking of doing daemons, since I can play that in fantasy too. But I'm told square bases are automatically illegal in 40k. Is that correct? If so, can someone point me at the rule?

No they are not illegal for 40k, the models must be mounted on the base they.are supplied with, deamons come with both, as such they may be mounted on both.

 mauleed wrote:
I haven't played in ages, so I was thinking of doing daemons, since I can play that in fantasy too. But I'm told square bases are automatically illegal in 40k. Is that correct? If so, can someone point me at the rule?

If so I have quite a few illegal Tyranids...

A lot of people don't like it because they're "supposed" to be mounted on round bases, but I'm sure most people will understand.

It's not against the rules, and it doesn't give you any kind of advantage anyway, so even if it were I imagine people wouldn't mind. xD

I wouldn't care if my opponent had square bases.

edit: as long as he were playing Daemons that is.

You could also use round bases in FB. They're 25mm wide, so once ranked they take the same amount of space.

It's actually a disadvantage for yourself to use the square bases. It's easier for your opponent to get into B2B with a square based models "points" than it would be a circle base. Granted, it's very very minimul but its there. Go for it.

Deep Strike, smaller grouping means more models under a blast maker.

It's the same issue with bikes - many of them still came with rectangle bases until very recently.

Yeah, there are a whole bunch of 40K minis that used to come with square bases. Bike and monstrous creature bases were square for a lot longer than the current round bases have been around...


The current rules require models to be on the base with which they are supplied. There is no requirement for that base to be round. If an opponent claims otherwise, just ask them to show you the rule.

The only difference between the old RW battleforce and the new one is that the new one comes with oval bases rather than rectangles.

This is a change that happened a month ago.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, there are a whole bunch of 40K minis that used to come with square bases. Bike and monstrous creature bases were square for a lot longer than the current round bases have been around...


The current rules require models to be on the base with which they are supplied. There is no requirement for that base to be round. If an opponent claims otherwise, just ask them to show you the rule.

lol

tell that to people who didnt like my OOP grey knights terminators...

they came with standard bases, but for obvious reasons I had to put them on larger ones.


just stirring the pot lol,

my 2 cents is I dont care what shape the base is, just that its as big, if nor bigger then what the standard is.

easysauce wrote:
lol

tell that to people who didnt like my OOP grey knights terminators...

they came with standard bases, but for obvious reasons I had to put them on larger ones.

You didn't 'have to'... There is no requirement in the rules to update your bases to whatever is currenty supplied with the current incarnation of the unit.

 6^ wrote:
I wouldn't care if my opponent had square bases.

edit: as long as he were playing Daemons that is.

Just curious I don't play deamons but a lot of my orks came with square bases, so would you have a problem with that?

 insaniak wrote:

easysauce wrote:
lol

tell that to people who didnt like my OOP grey knights terminators...

they came with standard bases, but for obvious reasons I had to put them on larger ones.

You didn't 'have to'... There is no requirement in the rules to update your bases to whatever is currenty supplied with the current incarnation of the unit.

my IG heavy weapons also came without bases, i have the old metal heavy weapons,
so i dont need to have huge heavy weapons bases for my IG heavy weapons i guess.


again, no rule saying I do, but no one would let that slide in a tourney,

friendly games, sure no problem,

just a time when RAI actually matter more then RAW,

but outside of a tourney Id let it slide as long as we both had fun

easysauce wrote:
my IG heavy weapons also came without bases, i have the old metal heavy weapons,
so i dont need to have huge heavy weapons bases for my IG heavy weapons i guess.

Guard Heavy Weapons are a bit of a different issue because the way that they function in the game has changed significantly since they started coming with the 60mm bases. While there is technically no need to rebase them, teams made up of two separate models cause issues in the current ruleset, so it is generally better in that case to rebase them. Otherwise you will need some sort of house rule to cover how they work.

And having said that, a lot of players do still play with individually based heavies with no dramas at all.

I've never had a problem with mine.

Also, holy crap, welcome back, never expected to see you post here again.

 mauleed wrote:
I haven't played in ages, so I was thinking of doing daemons, since I can play that in fantasy too. But I'm told square bases are automatically illegal in 40k. Is that correct? If so, can someone point me at the rule?

Hey, Ed!

There is no explicit rule, only an implicit indication*. The rulebook states that models are based on the bases they're supplied with. Because daemons are supplied with both round and square bases, many (most) players assume that either are perfectly acceptable. Many players falsely believe that square bases do not confer an advantage, or that they're actually disadvantageous in some way, so don't believe it makes a difference. They provide the following advantages:

1. Smaller DS formations, for reduced risk of Mishap.
2. Wider dispersal, for reduced number of blast marker/template hits.
3. 25mm & 40mm bases are ~40% wider at the widest, increasing distance covered for assaults, shooting, and holding objectives.

After playing with both round and square and starting to feel uncomfortable with the squares, I did a careful analysis and realized that the squares do confer the above advantages with no offsetting disadvantages. I then re-based all the daemons I had on squares and wanted to use in 40k onto round bases to avoid taking advantage. More details here:

(*That no Daemons are currently pictured on square bases in the rulebook.)

does anyone else remember reading somewhere a rule (or something) that stated that models are allowed to be placed on bases larger than what they came with, but are not allowed to go smaller? it would make sense because it would be easier to target bigger bases giving you no advantage. just wondering...

That was last edition.

yukondal wrote:
does anyone else remember reading somewhere a rule (or something) that stated that models are allowed to be placed on bases larger than what they came with, but are not allowed to go smaller? it would make sense because it would be easier to target bigger bases giving you no advantage. just wondering...

As insaniak said, that was last edition.

Also larger bases can give you an advantage. It makes you able to spread out more and have less models caught under Blast, Large Blast Markers, and Templates.

If you really want to be sure (read: if you want to play turneys) just put them on a round base, and then magnetize the square bases to fit under the round base.

That doesn't really work.

The best way to do it is to just use the square bases. they are perfectly legal in 40k and the only legal base for Fantasy.

 mauleed wrote:
I haven't played in ages, so I was thinking of doing daemons, since I can play that in fantasy too. But I'm told square bases are automatically illegal in 40k. Is that correct? If so, can someone point me at the rule?

Actually, it's "more aesthetically pleasing" to use the round bases and then use movement trays with circles cut out of them for Fantasy. GW actually makes some of these movement trays for their Lord of the Rings "War of the Ring" game, and Gale Force 9 has some templates for them as well.

But either way you go, you'll be fine!

Mauleed Defense Force 4 lyfe!

But the rules don't work with those trays. Base to base contact is important and you can't get that with the round trays.

Technically you can't get it with GW's WHFB movement trays either...

I can understand why someone could have a problem with square bases in 40K (though I don't); it slightly affects how the model behaves. I don't get how anyone could have a problem with 25mm round bases instead of 25mm square bases in FB. Once ranked on a tray the unit occupies the exact same space.

 insaniak wrote:
Technically you can't get it with GW's WHFB movement trays either...

yes, but its much better than the round bases. you get the models in BtB with their own unit and you can get proper orientation at the very least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I can understand why someone could have a problem with square bases in 40K (though I don't); it slightly affects how the model behaves. I don't get how anyone could have a problem with 25mm round bases instead of 25mm square bases in FB. Once ranked on a tray the unit occupies the exact same space.

No, no they don't.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Technically you can't get it with GW's WHFB movement trays either...

yes, but its much better than the round bases. you get the models in BtB with their own unit and you can get proper orientation at the very least.

For the round ones, if they don't have it built in already you just mark the base increments along the front of the movement tray.

Once ranked on a tray the unit occupies the exact same space.

No, no they don't.

A 25mm round base and a 25mm square base have the exact same frontage when ranked up in a movement tray.

 insaniak wrote:
That was last edition.

The larger base rule was in 4th edition. And there were multiple advantages which could be garnered from it (like extended disembark distances under the 4th and 5th ed disembarkation rules), so back then people still put limits on it to avoid folks modeling for advantage with silly huge bases.

 Crimson wrote:
I can understand why someone could have a problem with square bases in 40K (though I don't); it slightly affects how the model behaves. I don't get how anyone could have a problem with 25mm round bases instead of 25mm square bases in FB. Once ranked on a tray the unit occupies the exact same space.

I concur, though I can't call the difference slight. A unit of ten 25mm infantry dispersed to maximum coherency (for example to threaten a larger area with potential assault, or to screen a wider area) covers 4 more inches of ground using square bases (turned corner to corner for coherency) than they do on round bases. Inches matter. Square bases should not be used in 40k. They have several mathematically demonstrable advantages, no corresponding disadvantages, and the case for arguing that GW actually intends them to be legal for use in 40k is extremely flimsy.

Neither 40k NOR WHFB specifies a base shape in their rules. They might mention a base size, but this is usually a measurement and NOT a shape (round v square).

 Formosa wrote:
No they are not illegal for 40k, the models must be mounted on the base they.are supplied with, deamons come with both, as such they may be mounted on both.

Technically the models should be mounted on both

Ha touche!

Sorry mannahin, while it may be true the base size makes a slight difference, the square ones are still legal. The main draw for me useing square bases is that it saves me having to buy 2 different armies to use, as at the moment I can buy one and place them on square bases to be used in both systems.

A) It's more than a slight difference, between increased disperson, and more compact DS formations (so reduced chance of mishap).

B) People saying the square bases are legal are, I think, making an assumption that's not really supported by the rules. Termagants and Necron Warriors, for example, come with both 25mm and a few 40mm round bases, for use with the swarm models which also come on their sprues. By the exact same logic you're using, it's perfectly legal to mount the Necron Warriors or Termagants on 40mm round bases, because they came in the box. Or mounting them on two bases, as pointed out above. I disagree. I think the intent (as demonstrated by the photos in the rulebooks and on the box) is clear as to which bases are intended for use in which system.

C) Round bases actually work better for dual-use in 40k and WHFB, as WHFB troops go on movement trays anyway, and there's no problem putting round bases on a square movement tray. They fit ifine. The only issue is stuff (like Bloodcrushers) which are on 50mm square in WHFB but 60mm round in 40k. For those you'd really want to make the bases swappable or dedicate them to one game.

Trust me, I've played both systems quite a lot and put some thought into this.

I'm sure you have Mann, but your still wrong, both are legal, I understand your logic and its sound, but your ( and my) opinions dont matter, its legal and thats all there is to it.

One massive point I agree on though is that round works better in fantasy to a certain extent

Formosa, can I put my terminators on 25mm base (they come with one for the teleport homer); or can I put a biovore on 25mm base and a spore mine on 40mm base? Afterall, they come in the box.

Perfect example, old terminators came with tiny bases, these are still legal, but most rebase them on the bigger ones, old bikes had no bases at all, this is still legal, old biovore had no base, according to crimson new one does ( dont know as only have old ones) both are legal for play, old attack bike too, space hulk terminators I see with no bases at all or with the big bases.

You are trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

I must put the models on the base they are supplied with.

Daemons come with both square and round bases. Therefore, I get to choose which base I use.

That's the way I understood it as well. I can't find a rule or FAQ anywhere that says round for 40k only and square for FB only. Just says you use what comes in the box with no further instructions.

Grey Templar wrote:I must put the models on the base they are supplied with.

Daemons come with both square and round bases. Therefore, I get to choose which base I use.

CrashCanuck wrote:
Technically the models should be mounted on both

@Grey Templar
The Canuck is right. Technically if they must go on the bases they are supplied with, they must go on both bases. You said so yourself, lol.

And actually, I think that what will really happen is ol' Ed will read through the responses in this thread, remember why he stopped playing wargames in the first place, and not even bother. Makes me remember the good ol' days when BigChris and I were the self-proclaimed Mauleed Fan Club.

Not really, you can't put a model on 2 bases. Thus you get to choose between the bases you are given.

 whitedragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I must put the models on the base they are supplied with.

Daemons come with both square and round bases. Therefore, I get to choose which base I use.

CrashCanuck wrote:
Technically the models should be mounted on both

@Grey Templar
The Canuck is right. Technically if they must go on the bases they are supplied with, they must go on both bases. You said so yourself, lol.

And actually, I think that what will really happen is ol' Ed will read through the responses in this thread, remember why he stopped playing wargames in the first place, and not even bother. Makes me remember the good ol' days when BigChris and I were the self-proclaimed Mauleed Fan Club.

You mean the MDF? Those were the days.

Well, we are probably expected to somehow conclude that for example in Vostroyan squad box it is the heavy weapon team that goes on 60mm base and the sergeant goes on 25mm base instead of other way around. I'd not find it far fetched that GW similarly trusts us to conclude that 40K models go on the round bases.

As I said earlier this is not a big deal, and would be totally fine with square bases if someone had and old army that was based on such or had an existing fantasy army and wanted to try 40K. However, if we are talking about new models intended to be used in 40K, putting them intentionally on square bases would be less fine.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not really, you can't put a model on 2 bases. Thus you get to choose between the bases you are given.

Sweet. All my gants are going to be on 40mm bases from now on.

Gants don't come with 40mm bases.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Gants don't come with 40mm bases.

Tyranid Termagant Brood

Termagants are fast, agile and cunning creatures. In planetary invasions, Termagants scuttle forward on four legs whilst unleashing torrents of fire from the anti-personnel bio-weaponry clutched in their clawed forelimbs.

This box set contains 12 multi-part plastic Termagants and one Ripper Swarm. This 175-piece set includes: three different head designs, two different body designs, fleshborers, spinefists, devourers, adrenal glands and toxin sacs. Also included are 12 25mm round bases and one 40mm round base.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Gants don't come with 40mm bases.

They do. One might conclude that they're for ripper swarms from the same box, but hey, any base supplied with!

Either gants, gaunts, or stealers do - I have a plethora of 40s for the ripper swarms.

Ninjaed.

Fine, you can get 1 Gant per box on a 40mm base.

The difference is that daemons are meant to be on either the square or round bases. The Gants are never intended to be on a 40mm base.

What about Battleforces? Which base goes with which guy????

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fine, you can get 1 Gant per box on a 40mm base.

The difference is that daemons are meant to be on either the square or round bases. The Gants are never intended to be on a 40mm base.

I'm sure you can cite that. And I'll have all of them on 40s actually, because it is a base provided with the models.

From Bloodcrushers:

The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50 x 75mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

It is almost like the two different sets of bases are for two separate game systems.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fine, you can get 1 Gant per box on a 40mm base.

Maybe my 10 gaunt's on 40mm bases are all from different boxes! Then what? And how do you know?

Alright, now you guys are just being dumb.

1 is MFA, the other is following the rules.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Alright, now you guys are just being dumb.

When in doubt, attack the poster and not the post? Good job!

What part of our argument is cognitively impaired?

You know what I mean.

But fine, mount your Gants on 40mm bases. Watch your Tervigons become harder to use.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You know what I mean.

But fine, mount your Gants on 40mm bases. Watch your Tervigons become harder to use.

What about my ork bikers from the battleforce? They can go on 25mm, right? Came with them.
Same with Scarabs from the Battleforce, 25mm all the way!

Grey Templar, the square bases offer a slight advantage in 40K, so it is really the exact same thing as mounting gaunts on 40mm bases with exact same amount of rules support.

Sure, whatevs. just don't expect any sportsmanship points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Grey Templar, the square bases offer a slight advantage in 40K, so it is really the exact same thing as mounting gaunts on 40mm bases with exact same amount of rules support.

The advantage is so miniscule its practically non-existant. Compared to a 40mm vs 25mm. changing the shape is not comperable to changing the size.

I am not going to begrudge that to someone that also wants to play Fantasy with the same models(a superior game whats more)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, whatevs. just don't expect any sportsmanship points.

So it's cool for you to base on square bases, but not for us to do the exact same thing with different sized bases. Good to know you'll dock me for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The advantage is so miniscule its practically non-existant.

That's factually incorrect, as Mannahnin pointed out earlier.

If you want to use your daemons in both games, then you should use round bases. Square bases in 40K offer and advantage, round bases in Fantasy do not.

 Crimson wrote:
If you want to use your daemons in both games, then you should use round bases. Square bases in 40K offer and advantage, round bases in Fantasy do not.

No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

The model needs to be exactly where it is.


Round bases don't work in Fantasy, page 5 says a model/units facing is determined by the corners of the unit/model.

If you are on a round base those don't exist, so you must(by inference) use square bases.

Duh. You use the corners of the movement tray.

 pretre wrote:
So it's cool for you to base on square bases, but not for us to do the exact same thing with different sized bases. Good to know you'll dock me for that.

I find it difficult to believe that you seriously don't see the difference between using one of the two optional bases supplied for the model, and using a base for a different model that just happens to come in the same box.


Ultimately, yes, we know that 40K is currently designed with round bases. But it's not that long ago that daemons only came with squares. So did monstrous creatures, swarms and dreadnoughts, and the pill-shaped bike and cavalry bases are an even more recent development again.

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

I already addressed that...

 insaniak wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that you seriously don't see the difference between using one of the two optional bases supplied for the model, and using a base for a different model that just happens to come in the same box.

As you should. I was being a bit absurd in an effort to show him where the absurdity of his point was (that because it comes with it, it's all good).

Ultimately, yes, we know that 40K is currently designed with round bases. But it's not that long ago that daemons only came with squares. So did monstrous creatures, swarms and dreadnoughts, and the pill-shaped bike and cavalry bases are an even more recent development again.

Yep, I even have some of the hex shaped dome bases for my jetbikes that I ended up swapping out. Those were weird.

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.

Oh man, that would have been awesome. They could have put it into the appendix that already had rules for every single unit in the damn game. 25/40/60/B/V/Oval. Done.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but they're a royal pain in the butt that makes the game unplayable.

You can't tell exactly where the base ends and the next begins, which is VERY important in fantasy.

I already addressed that...

And I say bull, until I see it myself I say it won't work. I'm happy to be wrong, but I need to see it.

 pretre wrote:

It would be really simple for GW to stipulate round bases in the current rules, and even to stipulate specific base sizes for each model. They don't.

Oh man, that would have been awesome. They could have put it into the appendix that already had rules for every single unit in the damn game. 25/40/60/B/V/Oval. Done.

If they don't do it anymore for Fantasy, a game that's very reliant on models being on the correct base yet they alter what base models are on frequently, why would they do it for 40K?

 Platuan4th wrote:
If they don't do it anymore for Fantasy, a game that's very reliant on models being on the correct base yet they alter what base models are on frequently, why would they do it for 40K?

Oh they wouldn't. It would just be awesome if they did.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I say bull, until I see it myself I say it won't work. I'm happy to be wrong, but I need to see it.

How is having 25mm increments on the tray any different to marking out 25mm increments with a row of 25mm bases?

Because I don't want to inturrupt a game to make sure they are actually the proper increments. I have no idea if someone has made them just a wee bit smaller.

Do you break out the calipers and check that they haven't shaved down the edges of their bases as well?

No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

I've magnetized my bases for daemons, so if I want squared or rounded ones, I just change it. But I wouldn't care if someone want to play with rectangle bases.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

Do you realize that the round bases are still 25mm wide?

Just a quick check on the markings to see if they match up with the bases should be sufficient.

 Crimson wrote:
Duh. You use the corners of the movement tray.

That's not how fantasy works. And you need to know the exact edge of the unit, not the tray.

You really can't use round bases in fantasy unless your opponent is very forgiving (willing to pretend) or you don't mind a distinct disadvantge in charging.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but I will trust the actual GW bases rather than trust someone who has incentive to cheat.

Do you realize that the round bases are still 25mm wide?

Just a quick check on the markings to see if they match up with the bases should be sufficient.

Yes, but you need corners to play fantasy. Round bases don't have corners, thus they don't work.

If only there were some clever way of determining 25mm increments without having a straight base edge...

I still have my bikes on square bases, never had a problem. My second edition metal dreadnought didnt come with a base at all, does that mean I need one? (its on one, just creating discussion)

For reference, the circles-into-squares movement trays are generally not a good solution, as they add additional width to the unit (the bases aren't actually touching each other when ranked up, as each hole is wholly surrounded by wood/plastic).

I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

That's what I would be doing. I don't like the circle-cut trays for exactly the reason Janthkin mentioned.

I’m not buying two separate armies just to have them based differently. If the TO says that my square bases are not legal at his tournament, that’s fine, I'll drop out. So far there have been no issues.

Folks in general are very tolerant of old models on old bases.

What I oppose in these discussions is the mistaken idea that the squares are interchangeable with circles, and that there's no impact on the game. Neither of those is true. There are several mathematically, objectively verifiable advantages to fielding models on squares in 40k instead of their intended rounds. I finally got up the motivation to re-base my Daemonettes after the bases made the difference in who won a tournament. IMO using the squares is functionally modeling for advantage. While I recognize that most players seem to do it out of ignorance of the advantages and a mistaken idea that it's the best option for interchangeability between systems, rather than intentionally trying to garner an unintended advantage, I know from experience and from doing some simple math and measurements that the advantages are there.

Folks who argue that the squares are incontrovertably, explicitly legal for 40k are misrepresenting the rules as presented, particularly by ignoring the context presented by the actual model kits and the pictures in the rulebook.

 pretre wrote:
I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

Exactly. That's what folks do.

In WHFB, you play with your guys on movement trays, except for lone monsters. On a movement tray, it doesn’t matter what shape the base is. A 25mm round fits in the space of a 25mm square.

In WHFB, you don’t need to precisely measure the frontage of your guys to figure out base contact. You just do simple arithmetic. I have a formation eight wide of guys on 25mm bases. You have a formation 5 wide on 20mm bases. 5x20=100. 100mm covers my middle four models, and makes corner to corner contact with the two models on either side, so your 5 are in contact with my 6. It’s really that simple. If terrain or other units prevent us from maximizing frontage the way we’re supposed to, it’s equally easy to tell at a glance how much offset the guys are and if I lose a model in contact.

There seriously is only an issue with models that are on 50mm squares in WHFB as opposed to 40mm or 60mm rounds in 40k. But those are few enough in number that it's not much work to make those swappable. Or that big a deal to just dedicate them to one game.

most people will let you play. imo you don't really want to play the people who you won't let you play.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Folks in general are very tolerant of old models on old bases.

What I oppose in these discussions is the mistaken idea that the squares are interchangeable with circles, and that there's no impact on the game. Neither of those is true. There are several mathematically, objectively verifiable advantages to fielding models on squares in 40k instead of their intended rounds. I finally got up the motivation to re-base my Daemonettes after the bases made the difference in who won a tournament. IMO using the squares is functionally modeling for advantage. While I recognize that most players seem to do it out of ignorance of the advantages and a mistaken idea that it's the best option for interchangeability between systems, rather than intentionally trying to garner an unintended advantage, I know from experience and from doing some simple math and measurements that the advantages are there.

Folks who argue that the squares are incontrovertably, explicitly legal for 40k are misrepresenting the rules as presented, particularly by ignoring the context presented by the actual model kits and the pictures in the rulebook.

 pretre wrote:
I thought we were talking about just ranking up 25mm round in a square base and having 25mm increments inscribed in the sides of the base for reference.

Exactly. That's what folks do.

In WHFB, you play with your guys on movement trays, except for lone monsters. On a movement tray, it doesn’t matter what shape the base is. A 25mm round fits in the space of a 25mm square.

In WHFB, you don’t need to precisely measure the frontage of your guys to figure out base contact. You just do simple arithmetic. I have a formation eight wide of guys on 25mm bases. You have a formation 5 wide on 20mm bases. 5x20=100. 100mm covers my middle four models, and makes corner to corner contact with the two models on either side, so your 5 are in contact with my 6. It’s really that simple. If terrain or other units prevent us from maximizing frontage the way we’re supposed to, it’s equally easy to tell at a glance how much offset the guys are and if I lose a model in contact.

There seriously is only an issue with models that are on 50mm squares in WHFB as opposed to 40mm or 60mm rounds in 40k. But those are few enough in number that it's not much work to make those swappable. Or that big a deal to just dedicate them to one game.

It doesn't always work that way.

You can get a position to where you cannot get the theoretical maximum of models in base contact, especially if other models and terrain are in inconvenient places.

Therefore, the exact position of the model is crucial.

If you say so. My several hundred games of experience have never shown such an issue. The widths of the bases are known, so once you establish where the edges of the units are, everything else is just math.

most people will let you play. imo you don't really want to play the people who you won't let you play.

feth, man. There ARE NO PEOPLE WHO WON'T LET YOU PLAY. Everyone is tolerant and accepting of old models on squares.

What I'm pointing out is that we, as guys who own these models, should be cognizant of the advantage we are (likely inadvertently) taking, and take steps to avoid gaining an unfair advantage. Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

This is just as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. All of my horrors are on square bases. I tried removing one and it destroyed the model, so I said "Looks like my horrors are gonna play on squares." (I bought these used, so I had no choice)

When I would deep strike in, I would use the 8 around 1 formation mainly out of convenience (it is just easier to line the squares up neatly). At one point, I was really close to mishapping and I tried placing them corner to edge (of the original deepstriker). My friend called me out on it and said you need to place them like you were before. I agreed that was the fairest way and took the mishap. After that game, we placed a circle model down and counted how many fit around it. The answer was 6. So, from that point on, when using squares, we just went with no more than 6 can be around the initial deepstriker.

Just because square bases have the potential to cheat, does not mean you have to.

 Green is Best! wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whether by re-basing or just being really careful not to DS in 8-around-1 formations or to disperse in corner-to-corner coherency.

This is just as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. All of my horrors are on square bases. I tried removing one and it destroyed the model, so I said "Looks like my horrors are gonna play on squares." (I bought these used, so I had no choice)

When I would deep strike in, I would use the 8 around 1 formation mainly out of convenience (it is just easier to line the squares up neatly). At one point, I was really close to mishapping and I tried placing them corner to edge (of the original deepstriker). My friend called me out on it and said you need to place them like you were before. I agreed that was the fairest way and took the mishap. After that game, we placed a circle model down and counted how many fit around it. The answer was 6. So, from that point on, when using squares, we just went with no more than 6 can be around the initial deepstriker.

There are no disadvantages to being on squares. Deliberately placing six around one instead of eight around one is one of the things I've been talking about (and in the last couple of threads on this); unless you consciously choose to place the models in a way which deliberately doesn't take advantage of the square shape. And when I was using them, that was a PitA, so I finally rebased them when a corner wound up holding a game (and tournament)-winning objective despite my not trying to maximize their abuse.

And there's no way it has to destroy your model (fragile though old metal horrors can be) to re-base it. I did have to cut my last batch of re-based models out of their old bases using clippers, but it wasn't exactly difficult.

I tend to agree with Manny. It might be harder to see the advantages with the infantry. For cavalry there's a significant difference in actual base size.

I based my cavalry to be usable in both games. (See below picture.) I put rare earth magnets on the bottom of my round infantry bases and then use a metal sheet in the bottom of a movement tray, so that they can't move around or tip over.

For MCs, I put them on the square base, with magnets on the bottom. I can then stick the square to a round base when playing 40k. The square base hangs over the lips a tiny bit at the corners, but it's very easy to see who is in base contact with the round base when playing 40k.

(Also, I'm not fabulous at taking pictures. Ignore the glare and poor lighting.)

 orkcommander wrote:

 6^ wrote:
I wouldn't care if my opponent had square bases.

edit: as long as he were playing Daemons that is.

Just curious I don't play deamons but a lot of my orks came with square bases, so would you have a problem with that?

yes, sorry. But it wouldn't be anything personal.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I tend to agree with Manny. It might be harder to see the advantages with the infantry. For cavalry there's a significant difference in actual base size.

I based my cavalry to be usable in both games. (See below picture.) I put rare earth magnets on the bottom of my round infantry bases and then use a metal sheet in the bottom of a movement tray, so that they can't move around or tip over.

For MCs, I put them on the square base, with magnets on the bottom. I can then stick the square to a round base when playing 40k. The square base hangs over the lips a tiny bit at the corners, but it's very easy to see who is in base contact with the round base when playing 40k.

(Also, I'm not fabulous at taking pictures. Ignore the glare and poor lighting.)

Do the seekers come with the oval bases now.?? I really don't know as I havn't gotten any.

Camarodragon wrote:


Do the seekers come with the oval bases now.?? I really don't know as I havn't gotten any.

Yeah, "oval." They're more like rectangles with rounded corners. But they are about 1-2" longer than the square fantasy bases, so using the square bases definitely changes the footprint dramatically. The picture I posted utilises both the bases that were included in the box.

 Goat wrote:
It's actually a disadvantage for yourself to use the square bases. It's easier for your opponent to get into B2B with a square based models "points" than it would be a circle base. Granted, it's very very minimul but its there. Go for it.

For Seekers (or any model that uses the same base), the rectangular base is smaller than, and will fit entirely within, the rounded base.

Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

 pretre wrote:

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

Again, the movement tray doesn't have the same dimensions. Its wider than the unit(it has to be)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Movement tray?

Again, the movement tray doesn't have the same dimensions. Its wider than the unit(it has to be)

edit: misunderstood point.

And if only there were a way to know increments of 25mm on the tray... Like inscribing lines.

That's an excellent idea. It's amazing that it hadn't been suggested before.

 insaniak wrote:
That's an excellent idea. It's amazing that it hadn't been suggested before.

I thought it had been suggested before. Must not have been important enough. That or the poster was somebody nobody pays attention to .

The square bases are technically legal.

as for GW or "common sense" issues, I think no one really felt players should care THAT much over which base the player chooses to use as long as it is not modelling for advantage (i.e. using a terminator base for a regular troop.)

6th edition states that models must be on the "apporpriate" size base for that model, so take that as you will

its in the first few pages, dont have BRB right in front of me, but its first 10 pgs or so, one of the grey highlighted boxes

Square bases would be appropriate, of course this is a subjective measure.

easysauce wrote:
6th edition states that models must be on the "apporpriate" size base for that model, so take that as you will

its in the first few pages, dont have BRB right in front of me, but its first 10 pgs or so, one of the grey highlighted boxes

Define appropriate sized.

Models and Base Sizes
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in
his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't
supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness,
relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to
mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using
models of a similar type as guidance.

I'm assuming you are referring to page 3, where it says the rules assume you are basing the models on the base they come with. It then states that if the model is not supplied with a base, you can mount the model on a base of appropriate size, using similarly sized models as guidance.

As I stated earlier, I have a number of old Tyranids (I'm also getting some more) that are on square bases. In regards to Daemons while there are some problems with square bases in 40K...I haven't played the new codex yet and when your entire army has to DS that gives me more models to hit with blast markers and templates.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Where is the confusion?

With square bases, when Deep Striking you can pack 8 around the centre model, as opposed to 6 with rounds.

For squad coherency, because the bases are wider across the corners than the faces, you can align the models corner to corner to increase their spread.

He wasn't saying that they could be packed in tighter and spread out at the same time. Different situations.

Exactly.

On the turn you deep strike, square bases allow you to place 8 models around and in base contact with 1, thus creating a substantially smaller unit footprint and reducing the odds of mishap correspondingly.

Now, if the squares are the same width as the rounds (like 25mm or 40mm) you can compensate for this by deliberately placing the squares in basically the same formation as if they were rounds (6 around 1), and for the first seven models or so that is around the same size. But in subsequent concentric circles it gets a bit trickier to maintain the pattern, and the ability to tuck one square into the right-angle corner of two other squares winds up shrinking the overall formation, by eliminating some empty space from inside the group.

You can compensate that way with 25 and 40mm squares vs. round, although it’s imperfect. But when it comes to cavalry models and Bloodcrushers, OTOH, you can’t compensate. No matter how you position them, the 50x25mm rectangular cav bases are substantially shorter (same width, but close to an inch less length) than the newer rounded-end cavalry/bike bases. Likewise a 50mm square (which Juggers get for WHFB) is always going to take up less space on the table than a 60mm round. So even if you place your models in a 6 around 1 formation with these bases, it’s still going to be a smaller formation and reduced chance of mishap. With these two types of bases the difference in unit footprint is especially noticeable.

----------------------

The second advantage is dispersion, and obviously for that we’re talking about normal moves, or a Run after a Deep Strike. With a HtH army, especially, it’s often important to be able to spread your units to cover a large amount of real estate, thus allowing your units to threaten a larger area of the table with possible assault, and block off larger areas of the table from being moved into safely (or at all, like when blocking Flyers or enemy Deep Strikers or the like) by your opponent’s units. In late turns covering a wider area allows you to reach and contest or hold more objectives. And at any point during the game, wider dispersion allows you to reduce the number of hits you suffer from templates and blasts.

Now, a 25mm round base is just a tiny bit less than an inch (1 inch= 2.54cm) wide, and a 25mm square base is the same width measured side to side, but using simple geometry (or just a ruler) we can see that the square is about 1.4” (36mm) measured corner to corner. So if I arrange three models on round bases in a row at max coherency, the total width of the formation is just under 7”, with just under 5” between the inside edges of the two outside models. A 5” large blast centered on the middle model hits all three on a hit. Whereas if I take three models on 25mm squares, orient them with the corners pointing toward one another, and spread out at max coherency, the total width of the formation is ~8.2”, with ~5.4” between the inside edges of the two outside models. A large blast centered on the middle model hits only one model; you can hit two if it’s off center. Just with three models we can see the math, although obviously for blocking and table-threat-width purposes, the more models there are in the unit, the greater the advantage gets. A 10 model unit on 25mm circles covers a maximum line around ~28” long. On squares they can be spread to 32”. Even Bloodcrushers gain a little bit of distance this way, despite the 50mm squares being narrower across the sides than the 60mm rounds. From corner to corner a 50mm square is ~70mm. Cavalry models, OTOH, don’t get increased dispersion from using the old rectangular bases, because the newer pill-shaped are so much longer. They can get wider dispersal with the rounded bases.

Now, this is not to say that daemon players using square bases normally maximize their advantage by turning corner to corner, but some may, and more reasonably, unless you’re spending the whole game keeping your guys perfectly square to one another in a perfect grid, you’re always gaining at least a little bit of increased dispersion and board coverage. Even if you kept your guys in a perfect grid, if your opponent happens to move any unit so that it’s approaching your formation from a 45” degree angle, you’ve gained a little bit of charge range from the corners on the base if you’re trying to reach them. Now depending on your formation that distance may only be a fraction of an inch, but those small distances can be (and certainly are, in many games) the difference between a failed charge and a successful, or between being within 3” of an objective to win the game or being just out.

After doing the math and seeing it actually come up and be a game-deciding factor in games I played, I finally decided that best practices definitely called for using the round bases intended for use in 40k. It avoids garnering any inadvertent or deliberate advantages, and doesn’t require me to make a special effort NOT to gain an advantage.

At this point it’s become a minor crusade of mine to spread awareness when the subject comes up, and encourage folks to use the round bases for 40k*. Especially because many folks mistakenly choose to use the squares (as I did) due to the misapprehension that they’re the better choice for cross-system interchangeability, when in fact, due to the use of movement trays in WHFB, it’s the opposite.

(*Which on reflection I do think is definitely GW's intent. The basing rules are just written the way they are to be open to people with older models and not force them to re-base.)

 mauleed wrote:
Round bases don't work in fantasy because you need to know the left and right corners for measuring charge ranges to anything that isn't directly in front of the unit.

Except that, of course, the inside edges of the tray will be exactly the width you need. If you've got (e.g.) a tray for 5 wide 25mm infantry, the inside space within the rims is going to be exactly 125mm wide, and you can just measure from the inside corners. All trays of course add the width of the rims to the width of the unit, but of course we've known that for years, and that's why we make critical measurements from/to the inside dimensions of the tray/base edges if we're playing strictly and not just measuring to/from the trays.

Couldn't you just make a ferrous metal movement tray for fantasy, mark it with the appropriate sized squares, and then put magnets on the bottom of the round bases?

That way, you wouldn't have the movement tray edges confusing the issue, nor would you have any confusion about where each individual square base corner ended up (which, I would like to point out, can happen even if you just use regular square bases, unless you have them perfectly neatened up every time).

The models would just need to be plonked down on the metal tray in such a way that you could clearly see which model went on which square, but wouldn't even need to be perfectly ranked up or anything (which is nice for Bloodletters, who are a pain to rank up anyway with those big poky swords).

Heck, I cut movement trays out of sheets of tin for this purpose myself, but I never played with round bases and thought about marking them this way before this thread. It just made my models easier to deploy and move around.

If you were REALLY worried about perfection, you could put magnets under square bases, and then glue them down to a tray first, actually showing precisely where each base was, and then another magnet on each round base, to stick them down to the underlying bases.

I've known plenty of people who do/have done exactly what you're suggesting. You just need to be a bit careful with the sheet metal, and possibly file it a bit, so it's not too sharp.

And just to reinforce a point: What may be technically legal under one rule may still be disallowed by a tourney director as modelling for advantage.

If you are going to play in a tournement, talk to the director. Explain why you are using different bases, and mention that you will not be abusing the differences to skate the rules and it should be ok. If you are abusing the size/ shape of the bases then expect to get called on it.

My old tourney rule sheet included a line about modelling for advantage that was very vague simply to stop people who were trying to cheat. If a person had a unit on unusual bases but was trying their best to play fair...that was no problem. But people learned quickly that a unit could have a TD "mishap" if they had stretched the rules.

TDs are trying to run a good, fun and fair event. People who are trying to get around the system unfairly will NOT like the result.

I would say you can model your daemons on square bases. All you need to tell them is that you also want to play Fantasy, so you wouldn't have to buy identical sets to have them mounted on circular bases. I can only imagine a WAAC TFG having a problem with it, since your army can play two games thats cool.

Tournament wise, you should clear it up with the TO, like the last person said it could be considered MFA by some.

Ace, are you trying to troll? It's been explained how using round bases is actually BETTER for cross-system functionality.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Likewise a 50mm square (which Juggers get for WHFB)

Juggers are mounted on 50x75 now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Ace, are you trying to troll? It's been explained how using round bases is actually BETTER for cross-system functionality.

Only for infantry and Monstrous Infantry. Once you get to Monsters, Cav, Mounstrous Cav, Chariots and anything that uses a base size and shape that doesn't exist in 40K, basing on Rectangular is better from cross-system.

For uniformity basing across the army, you're incorrect.

Thanks for the update!

Hmm. It's clearly trickier now with the wider variety of bases they've started to employ in WHFB.

I still think the better approach with the larger models is to dedicate the models to one system or make the models swappable. For the models which go on 25mm or 40mm bases, round is definitely the better choice, as movement trays allow them to be used fine in WHFB without swapping.

No problem. It was one of those stealth changes. I believe the boxes with the new bases started showing in November when the WoC Jugger Knights were released, but it may have been when the WD update was released and the Herald on Jugger was swapped to Finecast.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Exactly.

On the turn you deep strike, square bases allow you to place 8 models around and in base contact with 1, thus creating a substantially smaller unit footprint and reducing the odds of mishap correspondingly.

This goes both ways.

If you have to place 8 around the original model, you have a large, uniform footprint.

However, if you only place 6 around the original model, you can place the other 2 on the next outer ring wherever you want, thus potentially avoiding the mishap. This becomes boot if you have like a 20 man unit.

Again, I think the situation where this becomes an issue are pretty few and far between. When in doubt, I usually try to give the advantage to my opponent so as to avoid issues of fairness.

In my personal experience using the squares, I found that it inadvertently became an issue enough times that I started getting really annoyed at having to fudge things so I didn't gain an inappropriate advantage.

So rebasing to rounds, to me, was the best solution because it avoided any actual or appearance of impropriety, and saved me the effort and annoyance of compensating for the squares.

Does model height matter as much in FB?

More than it used to. WHFB LOS rules used to be more abstract, or at least were interpreted to be in competitive settings. In 8th they went to a much more true-LOS version.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Ace, are you trying to troll? It's been explained how using round bases is actually BETTER for cross-system functionality.

Well.....I wasn't actually going for the troll. I agree wtih your stance on the bases though.

Okay, cool. My apologies for the trolling question; I could have kept that more friendly and polite.