1. I need to know if my Tactical Marines and Librarians from my Space Marines CAD can use the bases employed by their brothers from a Blood Angels AD.
It would feel really, really dumb that a Blood Angel Tactical Marine can use a 32mm base, but a Tactical Marine from another chapter cannot. However, this being Warhammer 40K we're talking about I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
2. And what about Librarians, they are basically Space Marines, they just like sticks and books.
3. What happens if I use my Blood Angels Tactical squad models as a squad from a Space Marines armylist, as I'm playing a custom chapter, hence being able to use whatever kind of Tactical Marines models I want? They are supplied with 32mm bases, which should be used according to the rulebook. I could even make the BA models look like a standard Tactical Squad.
By the rules, the models need to be on the Bases supplied for them.
So BATac Squads need 32mm bases, while "normal" Tactical Squads need 25mm bases. Same for Librarians on 25mm.
If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.
That's the rules.
If you wish to play differently to them, i'm sure it will not be a problem but let your opponent know
1. Please, use whatever you like!
2. Librarians are more powerful space marines that can cast psyhic spells.
3. You can use any type to tactical squad models you want. Just indicate which rulebook your custome chapter is based from.
wufai wrote: 1. Please, use whatever you like!
2. Librarians are more powerful space marines that can cast psyhic spells.
3. You can use any type to tactical squad models you want. Just indicate which rulebook your custome chapter is based from.
1. No. The rulebook does not say that.
2. They cannot be on 32mm bases, but what you said is correct.
3. Also correct. But they need 25mm bases if you want to follow the rules.
Assuming "Rules as Worded" is the only way to play is a fallacy according to the thing you linked.
So please follow the tenets of YMDC.
That said, the rules as worded do not state a model must come on the bases supplied for them.
"Models and Bases" on page 9:
"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. . . . 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."
No where in there does it say you must mount models on the base they are supplied with.
Sounds to me you have explicit permission to use the 32mm bases, RunicFN. Just because YMDC is full of anal-retentive Asperger's types I know someone will come along and argue "But Blood Angels tacticals are not similar to Space Marine tacticals because different codexes!!!!!" There's no way future iterations of tactical marines of all shapes and sizes don't come with 32mm bases now as feedback on them has been really good, and GW seems to be fond of them.
And 99% of people who actually bother to show up to hobby stores to play will offer a hearty "Those look nice!" if you use the larger base sizes and utilize them for Rule of Cool. So, I think you're safe.
As has been pointed out, GW doesn't strictly require this. They just require that the base be an "appropriate size". The most appropriate size just happens to normally be the base supplied with the model. Given recent releases, 32mm is perfectly appropriate for models in Power Armour. You could easily argue 40mm for Captains/Chapter Masters as the limited edition Wolf Lord guy in Deathstorm came with a 40mm base.
HOWEVER, most big tournaments seem to require you to base the models on the base the model came with.
So, while you don't have to use the supplied base, you might want to consider your main opponents and whether or not you participate in organized play when making basing decisions.
Kriswall wrote: You could easily argue 40mm for Captains/Chapter Masters as the limited edition Wolf Lord guy in Deathstorm came with a 40mm base.
1) The Space Wolves/Orks box was Stormclaw, not Deathstorm. Deathstorm is the Blood Angels/Tyranids one.
2) The Stormclaw box comes with ten 40mm bases. 5 for the terminators, 5 for the nobs. The captain goes on one of the myriad of 25mm bases supplied in the kit.
3) Deathstorm's limited edition Captain is a Terminator, and is on a 40mm base as a result.
Bases and cheating question then. For those of you saying I must use the based they came with, to include tournaments, I must go back to all 25mm bases for my mega nobs instead of the 40mm I increased them to when the new ones came out? Because thinking that way is full of fail. But hey, what ever you think the rules say, I'll use when I play you.
Someone already pasted the section of the rulebook that mentions base size, and it doesnt say "You have to use the base the model comes with"..I suggests it's best to, but you can use bases that similar models use as guidance... I'd say a Blood Angels tactical marine is similar enough to a regular space marine tactical marine model to use that base at guidance....
If someone calls you out for using the slightly bigger base when playing them id tell them they are a spud, pack up, and go home.
Actually the quote above is misleading. This is what the rulebook says:
"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.
Huh, so it apparently is my box that's missing what it's supposed to. Now that I think about it, I've ONLY got ten 40mm bases and I'd need at least another for the Warboss even if Krom wasn't also on one.
I am kind of perturbed right now to be honest with you.
@Ghaz: I just snipped out the "Some models aren't supplied with a base at all" part because it wasn't relevant to this discussion.
Ghaz wrote: Mega nobz have always been on 40mm bases AFAIK.
The original (2nd ed, metal) meganobs were on 25mm bases.
FratHammer wrote: Bases and cheating question then. For those of you saying I must use the based they came with, to include tournaments, I must go back to all 25mm bases for my mega nobs instead of the 40mm I increased them to when the new ones came out? .
Technically, yes, you have no permission to change the size of their bases just because new models come with a different size.
In practice, most tournaments will allow models that have been rebased to match the current release. Some just don't really care at all, so long as the base that is on the model looks appropriate... which is also the attitude I have mostly encountered amongst gamers outside tournies.
@Ghaz: I just snipped out the "Some models aren't supplied with a base at all" part because it wasn't relevant to this discussion.
It's relevant to the discussion, because it's the part that puts the 'put them on whatever seems appropriate' into context.
The rule you partially quoted isn't saying that players can just throw away their bases and use whatever they want. It's saying that if your models come with no bases, or with the wrong bases, then you should use whatever seems appropriate based on similar models. Otherwise, they're assuming you're using the bases that the model was supplied with.
The rule you partially quoted isn't saying that players can just throw away their bases and use whatever they want. It's saying that if your models come with no bases, or with the wrong bases, then you should use whatever seems appropriate based on similar models. Otherwise, they're assuming you're using the bases that the model was supplied with.
But that's not what it says, nor what it suggests. Some models not being supplied with a base is an example of why someone might choose alternate bases.
I don't know how you could look at the same words and come to such a wrong conclusion.
Tell you what. You guys find me a rule that says without any ambiguity you must use the base supplied in the GW kits, and I'll relent. But one doesn't exist, so I'm not going to.
So 1, yes, mega nobs came with 25mm bases just like terminators, you may not have played till after that changed, but I can't help that. And so even though it would give me an advantage, along with older SM players, we are suppose to be using smaller bases even though the same models were later sold with larger bases?
Point is, this can't be right. If your model gets a new base size you have to use it. No picking the one that is more advantageous and using it. No keeping tiny bases to make sure you can get more into base to base.
SRSFACE wrote: I don't know how you could look at the same words and come to such a wrong conclusion.
.
I came to that conclusion by reading the whole rules entry, rather than chopping out the bit in the middle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FratHammer wrote: So 1, yes, mega nobs came with 25mm bases just like terminators, you may not have played till after that changed, but I can't help that. And so even though it would give me an advantage, along with older SM players, we are suppose to be using smaller bases even though the same models were later sold with larger bases?
That's the way it's been in every edition since GW added rules on bases, yes. Although (If I remember correctly) 4th edition did allow you to upgrade to a larger base if you wanted to. Commonly used to put characters on more impressive bases.
Point is, this can't be right. If your model gets a new base size you have to use it
SRSFACE wrote: I don't know how you could look at the same words and come to such a wrong conclusion.
Tell you what. You guys find me a rule that says without any ambiguity you must use the base supplied in the GW kits, and I'll relent. But one doesn't exist, so I'm not going to.
As has been said previously in this thread, there is no hard fast rule in the actual 40k rule set. The rules assume you are using the bases provides, but do provide exemptions for models with no bases and models that have been modeled with unusual bases. That second category basically covers all situations as you can always simply choose to model your dudes with unusual bases.
HOWEVER, if you want to play in tournament or otherwise organized play, basing your models on base sizes different from what they came with can cause problems and disqualify those models. It all depends on the rules of the event. "Must be based on the included base" seems to be a common requirement in these events.
If you only play with your friends, you could base them on Oreo cookies and then eat them as you wound models... so long as you both agree. This mainly only impacts organized play or games with strangers.
Kriswall wrote: That second category basically covers all situations as you can always simply choose to model your dudes with unusual bases. .
I think you have seriously misread what that passage is saying. It's not giving you permission to use odd sized bases. It's giving you permission to replace any odd sized bases that happen to be in your collection worth an appropriately sized base, using other similar models as a reference.
Kriswall wrote: That second category basically covers all situations as you can always simply choose to model your dudes with unusual bases. .
I think you have seriously misread what that passage is saying. It's not giving you permission to use odd sized bases. It's giving you permission to replace any odd sized bases that happen to be in your collection worth an appropriately sized base, using other similar models as a reference.
"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 reading an acknowledgement that players sometimes have models with unusually modelled bases. The correct course of action in these cases is to "feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size...".
We can't control which models aren't supplied with bases, but we can certainly control whether or not our models are on unusually modelled bases. That's all I was getting at. If I want to take my model my Space Marine Chapter Master on an "unusually modelled base", it seems that all I need to do is use an appropriate base size, using models of a similar type as guidance. To me, that would mean I could probably get away with 25mm (stock base), 32mm (Blood Angels in Power Armour) or 40mm (Krom Dragongaze) bases as being appropriate. 60mm or larger would be a hard sell as I can't think of any similar models using bases that large.
SRSFACE wrote: I don't know how you could look at the same words and come to such a wrong conclusion.
Tell you what. You guys find me a rule that says without any ambiguity you must use the base supplied in the GW kits, and I'll relent. But one doesn't exist, so I'm not going to.
SRSFACE wrote: I don't know how you could look at the same words and come to such a wrong conclusion.
Tell you what. You guys find me a rule that says without any ambiguity you must use the base supplied in the GW kits, and I'll relent. But one doesn't exist, so I'm not going to.
As has been said previously in this thread, there is no hard fast rule in the actual 40k rule set. The rules assume you are using the bases provides, but do provide exemptions for models with no bases and models that have been modeled with unusual bases. That second category basically covers all situations as you can always simply choose to model your dudes with unusual bases.
HOWEVER, if you want to play in tournament or otherwise organized play, basing your models on base sizes different from what they came with can cause problems and disqualify those models. It all depends on the rules of the event. "Must be based on the included base" seems to be a common requirement in these events.
If you only play with your friends, you could base them on Oreo cookies and then eat them as you wound models... so long as you both agree. This mainly only impacts organized play or games with strangers.
There are many ways in which i could argue to you why models must be based on their supplied bases.
One method: The rules you have quoted:
"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."
There is a clear suggestion that "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." This is fact. If you want to follow the rules (as per my previous post) then these rules assume "the base they are supplied with". You have no permission to assume otherwise.
If you want to prove "suggestion is not definite rules", then please get me some RaW on what "Deep Strike Reserves" are, because all i can find is:
When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).
"assume that" and "sometimes called" must both be "assertions", as many rules and Codices in existence refer to a term called "Deep Strike Reserve".
Second Method: Using RaW, what allowance (following the Rules) is there to field your models onto the gaming Table? (Please provide your own RaW if you disagree) I read my Codex:
ARMY LIST ENTRIES Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.
And the Rulebook:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes.
So i have a look in the "Defenders of Humanity section" of the Space Marine Codex, and i see miniatures based on 25mm bases (and others). These are the only miniatures (and options) that the models on the table, by RaW, can be represented as.
I would like to conclude that is is purely Rules as Written, because we are in YMDC forums. My HIWPI and personal view on this matter is indeed that you can model your miniatures on any bases you feel fit to use. As long as Tactical marines are not on 80mm oval bases, i'm sure 32mm for all of your Infantry should be absolutely fine !
Kriswall wrote: I'm reading an acknowledgement that players sometimes have models with unusually modelled bases. The correct course of action in these cases is to "feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size..."..
Yes, that was my point.
Your previous post seemed to be suggesting that the rule was giving permission to model stuff on unusual bases, which it isn't. It's just giving permission to replace those unusual bases with 'correct' bases.
Kriswall wrote: I'm reading an acknowledgement that players sometimes have models with unusually modelled bases. The correct course of action in these cases is to "feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size..."..
Yes, that was my point.
Your previous post seemed to be suggesting that the rule was giving permission to model stuff on unusual bases, which it isn't. It's just giving permission to replace those unusual bases with 'correct' bases.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah, it's kind of worded strangely. It seems to assume an implied permission to mount models on unusually modeled bases. I also realize that implied permissions are worth almost nothing in a permissive rule set.
If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.
RAW, thats not true. The BRB says to use the models base that was supplied. Just because you are using those models to represent something else does not mean you don't use the base supplied with the model.
So isniak. At a tournament, how will a judge or your opponent know you're cheating if you only use metal mega nobs, current boring terminators, and metal Flashgitz, basing them on 25mm bases to model for advantage vs someone who legitimately bought them early into their production? Answer they can't. You saying all my old blood angel models that now come on 32mm bases get to stay on 25mm long after new players believe 32mm was always their correct base size? No. You use the base your unit is suppose to use. Your unit uses a new one, you use the new one. Anything else is modeling for advantage.
It is my understanding that you have three restrictions:
1) (and the most common one) Use whatever base size supplied with the model - provided you use it for the faction it was bought for
If you are using models from one faction or model range for "counts as" then:
2) You use the base size that the model you are trying to represent comes with
If your model does not come with a base:
3) Use the base size that is most appropriate for its size.
Exceptions to these rules: -The base size for models you are using was updated since you have bought the unit
So if you are using your Blood Angels Tactical models supplied with 32mm bases, then you are only permitted to use them for Blood Angels faction CADs/formations. You are not permitted to use them "counts as" Space Marine Tacticals.
For example of 2), I am going to use Dark Elf Cold Ones for Khorne Flesh Hounds (because who doesn't like velociraptors) . Because they are supplied on those square Warhammer cavalry bases, I must reference what base size actual Flesh Hounds are mounted on and use the same. No exception there.
Example of 3): Old Khorne Lord on Juggernaught model from 2nd (or 3rd I can't remember) edition. It didn't come with a base, so I mounted mine on a 40mm because it was most appropriate: smallest base size that fit the footprint of the model.
Exception explanation: If you bought a Khorne Herald before the new release of the Khorne Daemonkin boxes, you are permitted to use the base it was supplied with; 25 mm. If you bought one after their new release, you must use the base size supplied; 32 mm. You are not required to backtrack and replace all Khorne Herald models on 32 mm, you simply have to use them for all new Khorne Heralds.
*All this is based off the rules quoted on the first page of this thread in the "model & basing" section:
"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."
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.
Can I now put Nemesor Zandrek (supplied with 28mm base) on a 40mm base, since that's what the new clampack Overlord comes with? They are "similar type" since both are technically overlords.
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.
Can I now put Nemesor Zandrek (supplied with 28mm base) on a 40mm base, since that's what the new clampack Overlord comes with? They are "similar type" since both are technically overlords.
No. The part you put in bold is about if the model does not come with a base. See my point number 3. I used the 40mm base for my juggerlord because that's what other models on juggernaughts use. I used those other models as guidance for determining which base to use for my juggerlord.
FratHammer wrote: So isniak. At a tournament, how will a judge or your opponent know you're cheating if you only use metal mega nobs, current boring terminators, and metal Flashgitz, basing them on 25mm bases to model for advantage vs someone who legitimately bought them early into their production?
As I said before, most tournaments don't actually care, so long as the bases you are using look appropriate on the model.
However, even if they are being finicky about bases, I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Whether someone bought the old metal nobs back int he 90s, or found them on eBay yesterday, they still came with 25mm bases, so those bases are legal on those models unless the event you are entering has their own rule requiring you to upgrade to the current bases.
You saying all my old blood angel models that now come on 32mm bases get to stay on 25mm long after new players believe 32mm was always their correct base size?
Yes. Because, again, the rules only assume that your models are on the base they were supplied with, not whatever base those models are currently supplied with.
You use the base your unit is suppose to use.
Which is the one that they came with when you bought them.
Anything else is modeling for advantage.
It's not quite that simple.
Using a smaller base isn't always an advantage. It makes your unit more succeptible to blasts and templates, and it reduces your range in different directions to your movement, just for starters.
And, really, the difference between the 25mm and 32mm base is fairly small. The actual impact it has on the game, advantage or disadvantage, is really quite small. You're making it into a much bigger issue that it generally is on the actual table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
House Griffith wrote: Can I now put Nemesor Zandrek (supplied with 28mm base) on a 40mm base, since that's what the new clampack Overlord comes with?
If you buy him and he comes without a base, or has some weird base that clearly doesn't belong on him, yes.
If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.
RAW, thats not true. The BRB says to use the models base that was supplied. Just because you are using those models to represent something else does not mean you don't use the base supplied with the model.
Technically, by RaW that is true, if you refer to my rules quote above. Using Blood Angel models as "proxy" Ultramarines, you are not following the rules (the exact rules). I'd point out there is no way i'd make this comment in a game, but it was in reference to THIS THREAD.
By "pure RaW" (again emphasising that i doubt anyone follows this) conversions, Kit bashes, and "proxying" are not allowed. I'd be the first to argue for a cool conversion/proxy should be allowed, even if the base size is completely different.
As Insaniak says, you gain some advantages but loose others, so the end result is usually not an issue...
the Khorne daemonkin box supplies 32 mil bases for all the CSMs including the berzerkers.
It stands to reason that all space marine models in PA will be on 32 mil. Whether or not I rebase my 7K points (over 120 grey hunters) of space wolves is another matter entirely. At the end of the day, its between you and your opponent anyway, including at tournaments.
Kriswall wrote: you could base them on Oreo cookies and then eat them as you wound models...
Do i need 25 or 32 mm cookies?
I think the better question is whether or not you use Double Stuffed Oreos. The extra filling would give you a taller model and better LOS options. Could definitely be considered modeling for advantage. We should probably hash this out over the next 20 pages or so.
If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.
RAW, thats not true. The BRB says to use the models base that was supplied. Just because you are using those models to represent something else does not mean you don't use the base supplied with the model.
Technically, by RaW that is true, if you refer to my rules quote above. Using Blood Angel models as "proxy" Ultramarines, you are not following the rules (the exact rules). I'd point out there is no way i'd make this comment in a game, but it was in reference to THIS THREAD.
By "pure RaW" (again emphasising that i doubt anyone follows this) conversions, Kit bashes, and "proxying" are not allowed. I'd be the first to argue for a cool conversion/proxy should be allowed, even if the base size is completely different.
As Insaniak says, you gain some advantages but loose others, so the end result is usually not an issue...
Not seeing anything to refute my point.
You are either not allowed to use your BAtac marine models as UM tac marine or you ARE allowed to use BAtac marine models as UM tac marines. In the 1st case the question of weather or not you'd have to change the base is moot. In the second, there is nothing to say you don't use the base the model came with.
I love how relaxed Games Workshop are about bases vs. the passionate discourse on show here. I'll always take the 'if you wish' part of a rule and run with it.
Isnak I think the problem is you and I read "...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." Differently. I day the appropriate size is the current size of the models base, you believe the portion of the rule that says "we assume..." To mean, you're suppose to. We will not agree, ever. I see it as clear cut. "Similar models type as guidance" to me says, if the exact model you're using gets a base change size then it is the "similar model" where you are reading something else entirely out of those words I suppose. I'm not saying every BA player has to run out and but new bases right now. But over time I'll expect the effort to be made.
And yeah, to cheese against blast templates larger bases are better I suppose, in that one instance, but being an orc player, larger bases are a disadvantage to its as we need to be within 2"of a model in b2b to get out attacks. Larger bases lose us attacks. I will not gain a numerical advantage against my opponent because I purchased my models before an update to its base size and I feel people who do are cheating. It's in the rules as I read them. I get that you don't, but an assumption, as asserted by gw and people using that portion of their text as the basis for their argument only makes 2 things.
FratHammer wrote: Isnak I think the problem is you and I read "...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." Differently.
Indeed. And that difference seems to stem from the fact they you're taking it out of context as a blanket permission to always choose to replace a model's base with something else.
That statement starts with the words 'In these cases...'
In which cases? To find out, we look at the preceding sentences -
"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on
unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all."
So, the statement about players 'always feeling free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size' isn't talking about models that have been re-released with a different base. It's talking about models that didn't come with a base, or that you have in your collection with, for whatever reason, a base other than that which was supplied with the model.
... you believe the portion of the rule that says "we assume..." To mean, you're suppose to.
Sort of. I believe that the portion of the rule that says 'The rules in this book assume...' to mean that the rules are written in a way that doesn't take into account anything outside that assumption.
Or, in other words, they wrote the rules under the assumption that you would just assemble your models straight out of the box. If you chose to throw away those model's bases and use different ones, then that may lead to oddness, because the rules don't take the possibility of your having done that into account, beyond giving you the option to re-base them onto 'correct' bases by comparing them to other similar models.
Of course, where that gets silly anyway is that as well as having, over the years, released the same models (or replacements for previous incarnations of the same units) with different sized bases, GW have at times had the same model available at the same time with more than one base size (Hey, Eldar Jetbikes, I'm looking at you!). If your belief that players have to use the 'current' base is an actual thing, where does that leave players who buy those models?
What it really comes back to is that GW don't really have any sort of logical consistency with bases. They don't actually consider what impact the choice of base will have on the game when they write the rules, they just use whatever sized base looks appropriate for the model. And so they have no qualms with just changing the size base supplied with a model as they see fit.
As a result, most players have developed a similarly relaxed attitude towards basing. Regardless of what the rulebook may say on the issue, anyone who has been playing for any length of time should be fully aware that GW don't consider base size to really matter, and should also be familiar enough with the way the game plays to realise that in most cases it really has a negligible effect on the game.
"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on
unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all."
un·u·su·al/ˌənˈyo͞oZH(əw)əl/
adjective
not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
com·mon/ˈkämən/
adjective
1.occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
2.showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.
3.shared by, coming from, or done by more than one.
4.(in Latin and certain other languages) of or denoting a gender of nouns that are conventionally regarded as masculine or feminine, contrasting with neuter.
5.(of a syllable) able to be either short or long.
6.(of a crime) of relatively minor importance.
noun
1.a piece of open land for public use, especially in a village or town.
2.(in the Christian Church) a form of service used for each of a group of occasions.
My question to you, is at what point then does your old base become unusual? Since, as you believe, it is considered always common, which at some point it will not be. Which is why I said replacing it over time is cool, but to outright never change them makes you a cheater.
FratHammer wrote: "Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on
unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all."
My question to you, is at what point then does your old base become unusual? Since, as you believe, it is considered always common, which at some point it will not be. Which is why I said replacing it over time is cool, but to outright never change them makes you a cheater.
Huh? So you're saying that I am a cheater for using the 25mm base that was supplied with my models instead of replacing all of them with 32mm? Care to explain?
1. Model all your miniatures on square bases.
2. Realise these bases are unusual.
3. Take them back off the square bases.
4. Find a new base of an appropriate size.
5. Both 25mm and 32mm are appropriate for Power Armour miniatures as models of that type appear on both currently.
6. Choose which one you want to use.
7. Bring photographic evidence of the miniatures on the square bases they once sat on, incase your oppenent questions you.
FratHammer wrote: "Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on
unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all."
un·u·su·al/ˌənˈyo͞oZH(əw)əl/
adjective
not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
com·mon/ˈkämən/
adjective
1.occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
2.showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.
3.shared by, coming from, or done by more than one.
4.(in Latin and certain other languages) of or denoting a gender of nouns that are conventionally regarded as masculine or feminine, contrasting with neuter.
5.(of a syllable) able to be either short or long.
6.(of a crime) of relatively minor importance.
noun
1.a piece of open land for public use, especially in a village or town.
2.(in the Christian Church) a form of service used for each of a group of occasions.
My question to you, is at what point then does your old base become unusual? Since, as you believe, it is considered always common, which at some point it will not be. Which is why I said replacing it over time is cool, but to outright never change them makes you a cheater.
So, I purchase a model kit. I assemble said model kit EXACTLY as per the instructions. I play a game. No problem. Games Workshop, at some point in the future, discontinues the kit I purchased and sells a new one. I'm a cheater if I don't purchase new bases to convert my existing models? I'm curious. At what point do I become a cheater? Is it when the pre-orders for the new kit go up? Is it on release date? Is it two weeks afterwards? Seriously. I want to know. What is the statute of limitations in your mind on base size related cheating vis a vis new product releases?
FratHammer wrote: My question to you, is at what point then does your old base become unusual? .
It doesn't. It will always be the base that was supplied with the model.
Branding someone a 'cheater' for using the model as it was supplied is absurd, and not supported by the actual rules. There simply is not, and has never been at any point in 40K's history, any requirement to rebase old models onto 'current' bases.
Except, if we're using your logic, you're misinterpreting the rule. It says "comes" with, not came with. What a given unit is currently supplied with is not what it came with in many cases. Tenses matter.
I'm insulted a MOD is accusing me of snipping rules just to fit my argument, even after I've explained I left out what I did.
So I'll reiterate my original argument in regards to the thread: Rules for basing are worded intentionally ambiguous. You wanna put your marines on 32mm bases, go for it. Chances are if you're really wanting to go get extra bases to put your guys on, it's to make them more scenic and look cooler rather than to try to gain some middling advantage, and I'll always play the guy who's into the modeling, cool side of the aspect over a dude who just wants to win.
Any argument "But this is for tournaments we're talking about!" is utterly pointless because each and every tournament sets their own rules, which you should always take up with them.
SRSFACE wrote: I'm insulted a MOD is accusing me of snipping rules just to fit my argument, even after I've explained I left out what I did.
The problem is, the part you snipped out was the part that made the rule mean something completely different to what you were trying to say it means.
You can't just take the last part of a rule out of context and expect it to mean anything.
This, however:
You wanna put your marines on 32mm bases, go for it. Chances are if you're really wanting to go get extra bases to put your guys on, it's to make them more scenic and look cooler rather than to try to gain some middling advantage, and I'll always play the guy who's into the modeling, cool side of the aspect over a dude who just wants to win.
As I have said a couple times, take your time updating your bases. They cost a couple dollars and time, so I don't expect you to do it immediately. At the point when people start asking you why your model is on a 25mm instead of a 32mm or a 40mm as in the case of terminators and mega nobs. I feel at that point you're holding onto the past for to long. No one, I think it's going to argue it needs to be immediate (even though I corrected mine immediately) but, for example, if you run 10 mega nobs in a BW (which is not tactical) with old bases, if it was blown up, maybe, just maybe, you could fit them all inside the area it once took up. Now? With the larger bases its impossible. If that event ever comes up and you sigh in relief that your bases are smaller, you're a bloody cheater.
If that unit of 10 assault terminators charge and you think, man if I had larger bases it would have prevented me from getting within 2"of my nearest cc model, good thing I use my out of date tiny bases, you're a cheater.
If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater.
Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater.
If you're a casual, fun guy/gal who loves this game and is strapped for cash or love the old looks? You're not a cheater.
Keep in mind, I'd never call someone out on it. I'd never complain. Not even at a tournament. I would assume the breast in my opponents intentions. If inside though, you feel like you've gotten away with something... Well, you know what you're doing, and you know what you are.
Again for those who asked, it's not a time thing, it's an as soon as you feel lucky you bought it before the new set thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.
Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.
If you buy a blister pack of old metal Terminators today (assuming you can find a store that still has them), they will still come with the same 25mm bases that they would have if you bought them 20 years ago.
And I notice you didn't address my question about the same model coming with different sized bases simultaneously. The Eldar jetbike for a time came with either a small flight base or a large flight base, depending on whether you bought is as a single bike or as a squadron.
So is someone using the small bases in that situation cheating? How exactly does this fit into your black and white view of the basing rules?
FratHammer wrote: As I have said a couple times, take your time updating your bases. They cost a couple dollars and time, so I don't expect you to do it immediately. At the point when people start asking you why your model is on a 25mm instead of a 32mm or a 40mm as in the case of terminators and mega nobs. I feel at that point you're holding onto the past for to long. No one, I think it's going to argue it needs to be immediate (even though I corrected mine immediately) but, for example, if you run 10 mega nobs in a BW (which is not tactical) with old bases, if it was blown up, maybe, just maybe, you could fit them all inside the area it once took up. Now? With the larger bases its impossible. If that event ever comes up and you sigh in relief that your bases are smaller, you're a bloody cheater.
If that unit of 10 assault terminators charge and you think, man if I had larger bases it would have prevented me from getting within 2"of my nearest cc model, good thing I use my out of date tiny bases, you're a cheater.
If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater.
Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater.
If you're a casual, fun guy/gal who loves this game and is strapped for cash or love the old looks? You're not a cheater.
Keep in mind, I'd never call someone out on it. I'd never complain. Not even at a tournament. I would assume the breast in my opponents intentions. If inside though, you feel like you've gotten away with something... Well, you know what you're doing, and you know what you are.
Again for those who asked, it's not a time thing, it's an as soon as you feel lucky you bought it before the new set thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.
I don't normally say this due to different people having different interpretations on thing and my opinion that everyone's thoughts matter but...
You are wrong. Not only are you wrong rules wise, but you are wrong on a social level. I personally would never play with anyone that calls me a cheater for doing things so simple as not shelling out money for something I already paid for and I would be very vocal against you in any situation.
Your definition of cheating is insulting, and I implore you to provide any form of evidence to support your assertions of cheating and demonstrate them to me. That or use logic and convince me of your opinion, as I would love to hear it.
But I will not submit to your opinion on the matter just because.
FratHammer wrote: As I have said a couple times, take your time updating your bases. They cost a couple dollars and time, so I don't expect you to do it immediately. At the point when people start asking you why your model is on a 25mm instead of a 32mm or a 40mm as in the case of terminators and mega nobs. I feel at that point you're holding onto the past for to long. No one, I think it's going to argue it needs to be immediate (even though I corrected mine immediately) but, for example, if you run 10 mega nobs in a BW (which is not tactical) with old bases, if it was blown up, maybe, just maybe, you could fit them all inside the area it once took up. Now? With the larger bases its impossible. If that event ever comes up and you sigh in relief that your bases are smaller, you're a bloody cheater.
If that unit of 10 assault terminators charge and you think, man if I had larger bases it would have prevented me from getting within 2"of my nearest cc model, good thing I use my out of date tiny bases, you're a cheater.
If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater.
Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater.
If you're a casual, fun guy/gal who loves this game and is strapped for cash or love the old looks? You're not a cheater.
Keep in mind, I'd never call someone out on it. I'd never complain. Not even at a tournament. I would assume the breast in my opponents intentions. If inside though, you feel like you've gotten away with something... Well, you know what you're doing, and you know what you are.
Again for those who asked, it's not a time thing, it's an as soon as you feel lucky you bought it before the new set thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.
So, to clarify, I'm not a cheater on Monday, but then on Tuesday when I realize that smaller bases can occassionally be useful in game, I become a cheater? Just trying to understand your thought process.
Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made. I get that you see a difference in words. I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating. I get it. But we are reading the same words and understanding the wording differently.
To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?
And Kris, you know now that you have an advantage when you use smaller bases than your model is suppose to use. If you go to eBay and buy a bunch of older boxes of a unit to field all your termies/mega nobs or BAs with small bases to then utilize that advantage in friendly play or tournament play, you're a cheater. What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?
Laziness= not cheating
Costs to much to update= not cheating
Not enough time= not cheating
Don't want to= not cheating
Modeling for advantage, or purposely swapping bases for a quantifiable advantage that you know you're receiving due to outdated models, bases, gw screwups = cheating.
To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model? Problem solved. Which one should you have used? The one you didn't want to so you weren't gaining an advantage against your opponent just because the game company was sloppy.
FratHammer wrote: Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made.
The base that comes out of the box with the model is the base it is supplied with.
I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating.
Your guess would be wrong. I disagree with you because I think you're reading it incorrectly, not because your interpretation would inconvenience me. Even if the rules did require re-basing to the current standard, I wouldn't bother doing it for most of my models.
What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?
The part where, again, you're claiming that people are cheating by following the rules...
To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model?
The jetbike was just an example... I have no idea whether they still sell them with both bases, to be honest. That's not the point, though. The point is that a rule that requires you to use the 'current' base would be nonsensical when the model is sold simultaneously with more than one sized base.
FratHammer wrote: Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made. I get that you see a difference in words. I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating. I get it. But we are reading the same words and understanding the wording differently.
To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?
And Kris, you know now that you have an advantage when you use smaller bases than your model is suppose to use. If you go to eBay and buy a bunch of older boxes of a unit to field all your termies/mega nobs or BAs with small bases to then utilize that advantage in friendly play or tournament play, you're a cheater. What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?
Laziness= not cheating
Costs to much to update= not cheating
Not enough time= not cheating
Don't want to= not cheating
Modeling for advantage, or purposely swapping bases for a quantifiable advantage that you know you're receiving due to outdated models, bases, gw screwups = cheating.
To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model? Problem solved. Which one should you have used? The one you didn't want to so you weren't gaining an advantage against your opponent just because the game company was sloppy.
You're in the minority, buddy. I think you're trying to "legislate intent". Modelling for advantage is generally seen as having an intent component, but doesn't need to. For me it means "modeled/assembled in such a way as to be both non standard and advantage gaining in game". People can accidentally and unknowingly model for advantage. When Little Timmy puts his Terminators on 25mm bases because his dog ate the 40mm and his mom won't drive him to the store... he's modeling for advantage. Accidentally and unknowingly maybe, but modeling for advantage all the same.
Assembling a model on the base it is released with will never be modeling for advantage as it will always be the standard base for that specific model. While we're definitely getting into the realm of overall community HIWPI, I believe that the "must be based on the base it came with" requirement refers to the base a specific model came with and not the base that the current unit comes with.
Until such time as base size is listed in a unit's army list entry, the most reasonable thing to do is to simply use the bases supplied with the models when you purchased them. The second most reasonable thing to do is to base them on an "appropriate" sized base, using similar models as a guideline. The first reasonable thing to do seems to mirror GW's stance. The second reasonable thing to do seems to mirror GW's stance when thing number one isn't true.
"When Little Timmy puts his Terminators on 25mm bases because his dog ate the 40mm and his mom won't drive him to the store... he's modeling for advantage."-kris
Here I'd both agree he's accidentally modeled for advantage but he's clearly not cheating. Just so we're clear.
"must be based on the base it came with" -Kris
This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there.
Isnak-this is where we disagree too. I read "are" and understand it as are. You read "are" and understand it as packaged with years ago.
"The second most reasonable thing to do is to base them on an "appropriate" sized base, using similar models as a guideline."-Kris
So all terminators and mega nobs can use 25mm bases. Because they are an appropriate size to you, yes? Even if they've, as I said, gone out of their way to make sure all the models they have are on smaller bases to gain an advantage?
"Sometimes a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases." I quoted the dictionary earlier on what common and unusual mean. I believe this is talking about older base size. Because how else did you buy a model from gw, and build it as per the box, then end up with an unusually modeled base? Only 1 way that could happen, if your base became uncommon due to all current purchases being of a different size base. Eventually your base would be uncommon.
"I disagree with you because I think you're reading it incorrectly, not because your interpretation would inconvenience me. Even if the rules did require re-basing to the current standard, I wouldn't bother doing it for most of my models."-isnak
Again we read the word "are" differently, I can't help that.
You wouldn't bother to even if the rules require, probably falls under one of the things I mentioned as NOT cheating. Like laziness, or time issues or not caring enough.
"The part where, again, you're claiming that people are cheating by following the rules..."-isnak
I am trying to see what I feel is plainly written. If they are with me, they will fix their bases, if they don't, they aren't cheating. You can only cheat if you agree with me and don't fix your bases specifically to gain advantage.
Again, I don't believe in speaking about RAI. I believe in quoting RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps I couldn't use multi quote on multiple pages easily from my phone or I would have
FratHammer wrote: To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?
You most certainly did no such thing. You put a bunch of hypothetical situations up and called everyone that does those things a cheater- which is a gross misunderstanding of the intent of the majority of players and is a pretty good way to offend people. Good for you.
I'm not bothered by your difference in opinion- I'm bothered by you coming into a discussion and start labeling people as cheaters.
I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...
FratHammer wrote: I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...
It just sounds like you're using the intent of the player to determine whether or not he's cheating. It's far easier to determine whether or not a player is cheating by looking at his actions and comparing them to the rules. Intent tends to be a little... unknowable.
And I think your interpretation of the 'supplied with' wording is off. To illustrate the point, I have a theoretical question for you. I walk into my friendly local gaming store and decide to buy some Terminators. Low and behold! They have both the currently produced models and blisters of the old 2nd Edition (forgive me if I'm getting the edition wrong) Termies that came with 25mm bases. Given that both are for sale today, wouldn't you agree that the one package IS (present tense) being supplied with 25mm bases and per the rule book, the assumption is that I'll use those 25mm bases when putting the models together? Am I to be penalized or labelled a cheater because I bought the same package yesterday? ...last week? ...last year? ...a decade ago?
Your accusations of cheating seem arbitrarily based on some idea of what base size is appropriate. If you're able to find old school Termies, they will STILL be supplied with 25mm bases today. As such, the rules seem to assume you'll be basing them on the bases they're being supplied with. New Termies will of course come on 40mm bases... but we aren't talking about those models. We're talking other models. Hard to find today, sure, but still supplied with 25mm bases.
And, in case you think they're no longer available... 10 seconds worth of searching....
HawaiiMatt wrote: So I can use my fantasy daemons in 40K without rebasing right? They come with square bases after all.
Do the assembly instructions that come with Daemons provide any guidance as to when to use the square bases and when to use the round bases? If not, I would assume you can use either. If so, you have your answer.
HawaiiMatt wrote: So I can use my fantasy daemons in 40K without rebasing right? They come with square bases after all.
Yes. There is nothing in the 40K rules that specifically requires round bases.
There was a time when Daemons only came with square bases. Even when they did start including both in the boxes, a lot of people stuck with the squares either to match their existing collection, or so that the models could do double duty in 40K and WHFB.
FratHammer wrote: I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...
First off stop saying "buddy" as you're clearly using it ironically.
Second I stand corrected, as you were in the discussion previously- but your posts lacked the venom of the last few so they didn't immediately jump to mind.
Third I don't understand how I'm confusing you- I'm asking for reasons why you assume someone is cheating by using the old bases. Which I suppose you thought you did, but you're pretty much just assuming things about a player and not providing anything other than: "Well it seems like it to me".
Fourth, don't treat me like an idiot. I know how to use a forum. Don't be condescending.
In an effort to avoid just attacking each other, I'll simply back out and let Kriswall handle the discussion, as he seems to be confused about your assumptions of players intent as I am.
I really try to stay away from these types of arguments but I have to say as a BA player, I will most certainly NOT be rebasing 11,000 points of BA squads to make anyone else happy. I built them as I got to them, and still have about a 6 foot tall stack of boxes to get through.
GW changed the size of the bases because, you know, GW does pantsonhead things like that on a whim. If someone called me a cheater because I refused to put the 5 tactical squads that I purchased 2 years ago and am just now getting around to putting together, on 32mm bases ... f them.
It would totally change to look of half of my army and my CDO would freak out about it. The nice thing about this is the rules are written that I do NOT have to change my bases, and I honestly can not see anyone that I play saying a word about it.
PS: My CDO is an OCD, just in alphabetical order .... the way it should be!
This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there.
Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.
FratHammer wrote: Isnak-this is where we disagree too. I read "are" and understand it as are. You read "are" and understand it as packaged with years ago.
No, I read 'are' as 'are'. As in, when you open the packet, the bases that are in there are the bases that are in there.
If you're going to object to the length of time that they've been in the packet, you're going to run into all sorts of issues, since none of GW's models have a packed date on the box. How old is too old? And how do you tell?
So all terminators and mega nobs can use 25mm bases.
No. All terminators and mega nobs that were sold with 25mm bases can use 25mm bases.
Other terminators who came without a base, or that you have received with bases other than those that they were sold with, could also use 25mm bases, if you consider 25mm-based models to be similar enough to use as a base guideling.
Terminators and mega nobs that have 40mm bases in the box should be fielded on 40mm bases.
All of which creates a situation where most players realise that stressing over base sizes is a little bit pointless, and so they just don't worry about it so long as the base that is on the model looks appropriate.
I have Ork nobs in Boy mobs mounted on 30mm bases, and warbikes on 60mm rounds. Very few people have even noticed that they're on non-standard bases unless I point it out, and those that have couldn't care less.
Because how else did you buy a model from gw, and build it as per the box, then end up with an unusually modeled base?
The rule in question makes no reference to that model in question being new in box.
IMO, that part of the rule is to cover models you have bought second-hand, or models that you had put onto different bases in rpevious editions when it was allowed. 4th edition, for example, allowed you to use a bigger base if you wanted to, so a lot of players put character models onto a larger base than their troops, to make them stand out.
You can only cheat if you agree with me and don't fix your bases specifically to gain advantage.
Again, I don't believe in speaking about RAI. I believe in quoting RAW.
So you don't believe in discussing RAI, but believe that the player's intent governs whether or not they are cheating?
Frankly, I disagree. Either using smaller bases is cheating, or it isn't. Whether the player is using smaller bases because he couldn't be bothered changing them, or is using them specifically because they think that they're an advantage, makes no difference - in either case they receive whatever benefits that base provides.
Although we do appear to be still ignoring the fact that using a smaller base doesn't only provide benefits... There are downsides to the smaller base as well.
Also remember that the Rule is 'hack and slash' from previous editions, it could be vestigial throw back.
Was there not a time when bikes came with clearly incorrect bases?
JinxDragon wrote: Was there not a time when bikes came with clearly incorrect bases?
Not sure what you're referring to here.
There was a time when they sometimes didn't come with bases at all. As with the Eldar jetbike, there was also a time when whether or not they came with bases depended on which box you bought.
Correction then, as they would still be the bases supplied in the kit and therefore technically the base being discussed by the Rules. I was meaning more situations where you get square bases, even though rounded edges are clearly the 'default' for bases in 40k. Let us not also discard the fact Game Workshop is still a manufacturer as well, it would be an impossibility to state that every box has come with the correct base designed for that Model because that level of quality control is the holy grail of manufactures.
"It just sounds like you're using the intent of the player to determine whether or not he's cheating. It's far easier to determine whether or not a player is cheating by looking at his actions and comparing them to the rules. Intent tends to be a little... unknowable." -Kris
Yes, cheating is all about intent.
Cheat
verb
Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination
That is what you get when you go to google and type: definition of cheat. Sounds like it requires intent to me. Intent is unknowable, hence why I have said multiple times, I will never call anyone out for this. You will either be knowingly cheating, or blissfully in ignorance gaining an unfair advantage and never realizing it.
"And I think your interpretation of the 'supplied with' wording is off." -kris
As I believe yours is off.
"To illustrate the point, I have a theoretical question for you. I walk into my friendly local gaming store and decide to buy some Terminators. Low and behold! They have both the currently produced models and blisters of the old 2nd Edition (forgive me if I'm getting the edition wrong) Termies that came with 25mm bases. " -kris
Easy to fact check...3rd till Assault on Black Reach came with plastic models on 25mm bases. 5th ed. Yet the reason you feel it's been longer is because most of us rebased our terminators to not gain an advantage, because that is what models are now supplied with.
"Given that both are for sale today, wouldn't you agree that the one package IS (present tense) being supplied with 25mm bases and per the rule book, the assumption is that I'll use those 25mm bases when putting the models together? Am I to be penalized or labelled a cheater because I bought the same package yesterday? ...last week? ...last year? ...a decade ago?" -Kris
Not a problem. You buy it, you base it, you love it and run it. The moment you realize that Terminators statlines are what they are knowing their bases being larger would make it more difficult for all of them to get into close combat, then you run out and either a) model all your models that came on 40mm bases on 25mm knowing no one would know for sure you had done that, to gain an advantage, or buy all of them off ebay for the same reason. You've cheated.
"Your accusations of cheating seem arbitrarily based on some idea of what base size is appropriate. If you're able to find old school Termies, they will STILL be supplied with 25mm bases today. " -kris
They are not still supplied with those bases. They were supplied with those bases. Both verbs are a version of "to be" only one of them is past tense and one of them is present tense. I do understand this is difficult, especially being here in Arizona where they just cut another 15% from our education budget.
"As such, the rules seem to assume you'll be basing them on the bases they're being supplied with. New Termies will of course come on 40mm bases... but we aren't talking about those models. We're talking other models. Hard to find today, sure, but still supplied with 25mm bases.
And, in case you think they're no longer available... 10 seconds worth of searching....
Buying off eBay is no different from buying from a 3rd party gaming store insomuch as you're not buying straight from the manufacturer." -Kris
Okay. I have stated when and how misusing this is wrong and when and how it is not.
OIIIIIIOI wrote: really try to stay away from these types of arguments but I have to say as a BA player, I will most certainly NOT be rebasing 11,000 points of BA squads to make anyone else happy. I built them as I got to them, and still have about a 6 foot tall stack of boxes to get through.
GW changed the size of the bases because, you know, GW does pantsonhead things like that on a whim. If someone called me a cheater because I refused to put the 5 tactical squads that I purchased 2 years ago and am just now getting around to putting together, on 32mm bases ... f them.
It would totally change to look of half of my army and my CDO would freak out about it. The nice thing about this is the rules are written that I do NOT have to change my bases, and I honestly can not see anyone that I play saying a word about it.
PS: My CDO is an OCD, just in alphabetical order .... the way it should be!
Sounds like you don't have OCD to me. If you did I would think if you ever bought another blood angel you'd have to rebase your whole army. Maybe you will just buy old ones though.
Am I the only one that noticed the BA codex got better? I don't feel i'm alone in this. Did you also notice when I explained numerically how smaller bases are better in Close Combat? Did you also notice Blood Angels are in fact a Close Combat army? Odd that you would knowingly give yourself a numerical advantage against someone playing the exact same army with the exact same rules, heck even the exact same list and tactics. You just happen to gain more attacks because more of your models fit within 2" of a model in base to base with a model in close combat.
If it is laziness, or blah blah...just quote me from any of my above posts, not cheating. You don't update your bases to gain a numerical advantage, cheating.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.
No. Would you please help me understand your meaning behind this question?
"No, I read 'are' as 'are'. As in, when you open the packet, the bases that are in there are the bases that are in there." -isnak
I've defined the word "are" above. You are using the past tense "was" of "to be" I am using the present tense "are"
I do understand that those bases are in the box, but they "were" supplied with the model. They are no longer supplied with that model. Now a new base "is" supplied with that model. An example of our conundrum: Isnak-"I just bought this new car." Frathammer-"Dude, that car is a '77 Volkswagen Transporter. That's old as heck man."
Just because the milk is new to you, does not in fact mean it didn't spoil.
"If you're going to object to the length of time that they've been in the packet, you're going to run into all sorts of issues, since none of GW's models have a packed date on the box. How old is too old? And how do you tell?" -isnak
The moment players start claiming things that just happened must have happened in the 90s because the game has moved on...(I'm talking about kris)
"No. All terminators and mega nobs that were sold with 25mm bases can use 25mm bases." -isnak
This is regardless of it creating a numerical advantage to players. I get that in the case of blast templates larger bases lower wounds, but we are talking about close combat units who will gain a numerical advantage in close combat...especially since the point of this thread is to help people come to their conclusion about 32mm bases for BAs which come in larger units than 10 which means an increasingly larger advantage against the same exact army because you swapped your bases or bought old models.
"Terminators and mega nobs that have 40mm bases in the box should be fielded on 40mm bases." -isnak
I agree. So should all others.
"I have Ork nobs in Boy mobs mounted on 30mm bases, and warbikes on 60mm rounds. Very few people have even noticed that they're on non-standard bases unless I point it out, and those that have couldn't care less." -isnak
I think where everyone is confused is that when I keep mentioning that cheating can only be done on purpose, you feel personally attacked...I think nobs on a slightly larger base in a unit is kinda not cool, but I would never have a problem with rule of cool, it also helps identify him for noobs. (numerical advantage here being that when attacked by barrage weapons less models will be under the blast/large blast due to his size yet since everyone else is on 25mm no attacks are lost from his base size being in the mob)
"IMO, that part of the rule is to cover models you have bought second-hand, or models that you had put onto different bases in rpevious editions when it was allowed. 4th edition, for example, allowed you to use a bigger base if you wanted to, so a lot of players put character models onto a larger base than their troops, to make them stand out." -isnak
But we all model our models on the bases they came with and that is how they are to be modeled according to you. So...this example your giving, with this 4th ed changed base of coolness...what exactly does his terminator base look like now once you go to make it legal? is it a 40mm? or a 25mm? one of those is tactically better in cc...
"So you don't believe in discussing RAI, but believe that the player's intent governs whether or not they are cheating?" -Isnak
I do. Because English says so. See dictionary quote above. English RAW.
"Frankly, I disagree. Either using smaller bases is cheating, or it isn't. Whether the player is using smaller bases because he couldn't be bothered changing them, or is using them specifically because they think that they're an advantage, makes no difference - in either case they receive whatever benefits that base provides." -insnak
If done so with knowledge as per above.
"Although we do appear to be still ignoring the fact that using a smaller base doesn't only provide benefits... There are downsides to the smaller base as well." -isnak
I mentioned your avoiding blasts in a post several back and again in this post. But we are talking about close combat units. They gain an advantage. BA got a better codex, larger bases for cc models in a cc army. It isn't fair to have the same army, same rules, same units, same tactics, same dice rolls, and lose because your opponent cheated to gain more attacks.
Again using the dictionary definition of cheating which supports mine..
Meh. You've clearly made up your mind already. My solution in these situations is to simply not play with someone who might prejudge me as a cheater because I don't want to go through the financial, time consuming and, quite frankly, destructive process of ripping my models off their bases so that I can rebase and repaint, hoping I'm able to duplicate my previous work.
I disagree with you on this. Based on 20+ years of anecdotal evidence, the general gaming community also disagrees with you.
If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.
RAW, thats not true. The BRB says to use the models base that was supplied. Just because you are using those models to represent something else does not mean you don't use the base supplied with the model.
Technically, by RaW that is true, if you refer to my rules quote above. Using Blood Angel models as "proxy" Ultramarines, you are not following the rules (the exact rules). I'd point out there is no way i'd make this comment in a game, but it was in reference to THIS THREAD.
By "pure RaW" (again emphasising that i doubt anyone follows this) conversions, Kit bashes, and "proxying" are not allowed. I'd be the first to argue for a cool conversion/proxy should be allowed, even if the base size is completely different.
As Insaniak says, you gain some advantages but loose others, so the end result is usually not an issue...
Not seeing anything to refute my point.
You are either not allowed to use your BAtac marine models as UM tac marine or you ARE allowed to use BAtac marine models as UM tac marines. In the 1st case the question of weather or not you'd have to change the base is moot. In the second, there is nothing to say you don't use the base the model came with.
Correct, i was just pointing out (see above for support) that your second case was not allowed (Using BAtac marine models as UM tac marines, by the rules is no different to using a box of Chaos Marines as UM tac marines)
The issue of rebasing older models entirely comes down to the individual player, or possibly tournament. Most people play casually; most people don't care. I've anecdotally heard of tournaments requiring people to play on currently distributed base sizes for given units, and ones that encourage people to go find older models for smaller bases for rules advantage.
The rules are intentionally ambiguous because, I believe, GW doesn't really care and is more into the modeling hobby aspect of it. People might not have the bases supplied in the boxes for so, so many reasons. Off the top of my head, there's aftermarket kits, attempting to make the guys look more scenic, having a huge overstock of nicer-quality bases (say, Warmachine's), rebasing models on newer more modern sizes to match currently sold units... I've personally played against one of each of those.
I just can't get behind a hardline "must" when 1) rules do not say so, and 2) it'd make it illegal to use other GW merch like one of their basing kits. Technically nothing says I'm allowed to modify the bases, therefore having a guy on another half centimeter of plastic would be "modeling for advantage."
I'm 99.9999% certain that GW doesn't care how you play and that they're just happy if you're buying models and playing. I'm also 99.9999% certain that if you talked to the authors, they'd tell you to relax, have a beer and play a game. I'm 99.9999% certain that GW could give two craps how you're basing your models. The wording in the BRB is to generalized and vague.
And, as by most of my posts on this matter, you would be entirely correct. Adding a basing kit's 2mm item between the model and his base would technically count as MFA.
But then you also got that right: Who would actually care, past a few tournaments that might insist on "Current" base sizes?
To the general question:
Should i use 25mm or 32mm for my Space Marines? (any type of marine)
Comes the answer:
Pick whichever you prefer, they'd probably all look better on 32mm.
However, in YMDC, if the Question is:
What do the rules allow?
Then the Answer can only be supported by the Rules found in the book, and indeed seem rather "Restrictive".
Then the Answer can only be supported by the Rules found in the book, and indeed seem rather "Restrictive".
But... not really. It literally says as part of the rule "Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases."
This is why I don't get how that is being interpreted as a hard rule. That's an example. Followed by another example in models not being supplied with a base at all.
It's also why I snipped them out, and would continue to do so, whenever this topic comes up. Arguing examples as to why something might be the case are the ONLY ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS is... well I mean it's a special level of whatever it is.
No i'd say "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." is the hard rule, while what follows is "just examples", but IMHO "examples" are also rules, because they are written as part of them, and in this case cover all the options.
A) "on the base they are supplied with"
B) "on unusually modelled bases"
C) "aren't supplied with a base at all"
Do you think there is a D) ? I can't think of one, and would say "A" is the norm...
On the Krom Dragongaze model... The finished model in the pictures is on the larger base but the black/white instruction booklet I got with mine he's shown on a smaller 28mm base.
TheHogweed wrote: On the Krom Dragongaze model... The finished model in the pictures is on the larger base but the black/white instruction booklet I got with mine he's shown on a smaller 28mm base.
Weird, but true. The model was supplied with a 40mm base AND the finished photos show a 40mm base. But as you can see, the instructions clearly show a smaller base.
BlackTalos wrote: No i'd say "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." is the hard rule, while what follows is "just examples", but IMHO "examples" are also rules, because they are written as part of them, and in this case cover all the options.
A) "on the base they are supplied with"
B) "on unusually modelled bases"
C) "aren't supplied with a base at all"
Do you think there is a D) ? I can't think of one, and would say "A" is the norm...
Yeah it is the norm. And then it lists a few exceptions, immediately. Then you're supplied with guidelines for alternative basing.
Examples never cover every conceivable answer. That's the point. It's to get your mind rolling to go "Oh there are exceptions, cool." I would say wanting to put your regular marines on 32mm bases because the newest space marine chapter is doing qualifies. It'd be future-proofing it if nothing else because you know whenever the next SM box comes out, it'll be on 32mm bases. Obviously that's speculation on my part.
Sure, but that's still part of "section A)" as any box of marines you buy will come with 25mm. Unless you buy a BA Tactical Squad, for which GW gives you the option in writing (in the box) to put on 25 or 32mm.
As said, if you can find an option D) that is not A), B), or C) then i would probably agree with you. But i'm almost certain those are the only 3 possible answers.
SRSFACE wrote: Yeah it is the norm. And then it lists a few exceptions, immediately. Then you're supplied with guidelines for alternative basing.
Examples never cover every conceivable answer. That's the point. It's to get your mind rolling to go "Oh there are exceptions, cool." I would say wanting to put your regular marines on 32mm bases because the newest space marine chapter is doing qualifies. It'd be future-proofing it if nothing else because you know whenever the next SM box comes out, it'll be on 32mm bases. Obviously that's speculation on my part.
The thing is, they're not written as examples.
The text gives you the normal situation - models are assumed to be on their own base.
Then it lists two specific situations where they might not be on their own base, and tells you what you can do in those situations.
Nowhere in that rule does it suggest that those two situations are just examples, nor does it suggest that 'I want to use a different base to the one supplied with the model' is a valid reason for changing it.
HawaiiMatt wrote:
Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.
No. Would you please help me understand your meaning behind this question?
The point he was making was that the old metal terminators were only ever sold with 25mm bases. You will not find that model in a pack anywhere with a 40mm base.
You can buy a plastic terminator model with a 40mm base... but that's not the same model. A unit of metal terminators represents the same unit as a unit of plastic terminators... but they're different models. The former are metal models sold with 25mm bases. The latter are plastic models sold with a 40mm base.
Putting the metal terminator onto a 40mm base would not be putting it onto the base that the model is 'currently' supplied with under your definition, because that specific model is not sold with a 40mm base. A different model, that represents the same unit on the table, is.
This is regardless of it creating a numerical advantage to players. I get that in the case of blast templates larger bases lower wounds, but we are talking about close combat units who will gain a numerical advantage in close combat...
No, you're talking about close combat units. Everyone else is talking about the game as a whole, on the understanding that while some units might be better off than others on smaller bases, it swings the other way for other units.
This is where you're going to keep running into disagreement. You've got this idea that smaller bases are automatically better (because you're looking at one specific instance and judging that the benefit in that case outweighs the negatives) and most everyone else is saying that's not the case, but even if it is this is a situation that is perfectly acceptable within the rules. It's not different to the kneeling guardsman having a different LOS profile to a standing one... yes, in certain situations, it's going to be better for the guy to be kneeling. That doesn't make it cheating, or automatically a good idea, to use all kneeling models.
Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.
For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them a
Automatically Appended Next Post: Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.
For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them and the game continued. No complaining, no whining, no judges needed to be present. Why? Because he modeled him that way for the rule of cool.
Now hypothetical player B) beings the same helldrakes and has modeled it that way for the advantage of "you have to measure to my hull, so you'll never get melta or heck any rapid fire from any real distance" that person, is cheating. He would probably say, but my model is that way cuz its cooler. Not want to swap then for measuring and a judge would need to get involved.
This forum post is about a close combat army isnak. Not tau or centurion star hop up in my fortress of redemption space Marines. It's about Blood Angels. That's why I single out close combat units like terminators and mega nobs. You make it about bikes and random other things. I am trying to help the og poster and anyone looking here because they read the forum title.
Also I see what Hawaii is saying now, thank you isnak. It's a good point you bring up. They are two separate things. I'll take some time and contemplate your question then let you know what I think
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps mob can you fix this post, my phone messed up the first half sending it twice
How is "Sometimes players have models on unusually modeled bases" not an example, that's an explicit permission to have models on bases not default? If some players are a subset of all Warhammer 40k players assumed to be playing by the rules, why do some people have unusually sized/modeled bases despite their being an assumption of using what came in the box?
It doesn't say "Some people are cheating, but you can still legally play them if X," which is the argument you're making.
SRSFACE wrote: How is "Sometimes players have models on unusually modeled bases" not an example, that's an explicit permission to have models on bases not default?
Given that it's in the middle of a rule telling you that you can put them back onto the proper bases, it's an awful long way from permission to have models on non-standard bases.
It says that sometimes these things exist, not that you're allowed to do it. Similarly, the statement 'Sometimes people drive faster than the speed limit' is not permission to break the speed limit.
And it's not an example because it's not an example. It's a statement that sometimes players have models on unusually modelled bases.
We already addressed why they might be on unusually modelled bases earlier.
SRSFACE wrote: I'm afraid to call you out on your crap right now under penalty of being banned as you've already threatened me with.
I'm out of this conversation as a result.
That's one approach.
Alternatively, you could try just making your argument without being rude about it. Having a different opinion isn't the issue, just your chosen approach to presenting it.
I would have to agree on the statement being able to be denoted as an example.
'Sometimes people drive faster than the speed limit' is an occurrence, an "example" of what is sometimes done.
Most example are still RaW though, so making assertions that "examples exists, which means the norm is not set in stone" is a bit of a stretch...
If the rule quoted above had "Sometimes, players use much larger bases than those provided. These rules assume those much larger bases are *fine*", then i would class it both as an "example" and as a permission to do so.
Unfortunately, the rule only describes the 3 situations i listed, and we are never out of those boundaries. (Are we? )
Ah, the squares I was thinking about! These are what I picture when I read the words unusually modelled bases, given how rounded bases is by far the normal for this game. Given that Game Workshop had a time where they clearly where progressing into round bases for all their models, such a Rule would clearly make sense to allow re-basing into the new standard. Given that they 'hack and paste' many of their Rules between editions, such a Rule could exist long after the progression period is over.
JinxDragon wrote: Ah, the squares I was thinking about!
These are what I picture when I read the words unusually modelled bases, given how rounded bases is by far the normal for this game. Given that Game Workshop had a time where they clearly where progressing into round bases for all their models, such a Rule would clearly make sense to allow re-basing into the new standard. Given that they 'hack and paste' many of their Rules between editions, such a Rule could exist long after the progression period is over.
Your comment actually crystallized something in my head. The rules text in the BRB ALLOWS for us to re-base models to another appropriately sized base, but does not require it.
Kriswall wrote: I'm reading an acknowledgement that players sometimes have models with unusually modelled bases. The correct course of action in these cases is to "feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size..."..
Yes, that was my point.
Your previous post seemed to be suggesting that the rule was giving permission to model stuff on unusual bases, which it isn't. It's just giving permission to replace those unusual bases with 'correct' bases.
This is out of left field, but with so many people following the rules to the letter like a lawyer.... If GW printed on their rule book "Warhammer 40K games must be played with models and scenary supplied by Games Workshop". Will the fanboys still argue against people playing against the rules?
As to OP's comment. I would accept both 32mm and 28mm on tactical squads. In friendly or tournament play.
wufai wrote: This is out of left field, but with so many people following the rules to the letter like a lawyer.... If GW printed on their rule book "Warhammer 40K games must be played with models and scenary supplied by Games Workshop". Will the fanboys still argue against people playing against the rules?
As to OP's comment. I would accept both 32mm and 28mm on tactical squads. In friendly or tournament play.
You seem to have totally missed what this forum is for. It's for answering what the rules actually say, and not necessarily how we would play it in our own games.
I have a question. Say I buy the Blood Angels tactical box and decide that these guys would work better as Sternguard with all of their bling. And, I decide to mix in some Sternguard box models and bits for both looks and combi weapons. How would I base these extra models? I gave them 32mm to match the rest of the squads. Would, RAW, I have to base the Sternguard box guys in 25mm bases and play with squads with mixed base sizes? What if I mixed the parts together and had a guy with half BAtac parts and half Sternguard parts? What base would I give him?
Okay, so that leads me to my next question: To GW, what is a model? Is a model the bit of plastic representing a tactical marine or the more abstract rules concept of a tactical marine that is represented by the bit of plastic?
I would argue that, given the way GW writes it's rules, the term "model" does not actually refer to the bit of plastic on the table. Many rules state something like "X number of models suffer a y". Obviously, the piece of plastic is not actually suffering these hits but rather the more abstract idea it represents. The term "model", in GW's rules, refers to a playing piece.
This would mean that that yes, you would have to rebase all of your Blood Angel stuff to have 32mm since the playing pieces are now based as such RAW.
bs You dont have to rebase.. When a model has to use the base it is coming with then old blood Angel stuff is allowed to stand on the old bases cuz it was coming with em at the time
TheCustomLime wrote: Okay, so that leads me to my next question: To GW, what is a model?
Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'
(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)
A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model.
Oh, GW, in your effort to cast 40k as a tool for creating stories between collections of miniatures rather than a game you have created stupid RAW. So, basically, RAW third-party miniatures are invalid as gaming pieces since models, as defined in the 40k rulebook, are Citadel miniatures.
To answer the OP's question, it would be against RAW to rebase your miniatures in larger base size since the rules say to use the bases they came with. Just use whatever came in the box at the time and you'll be good rules wise.
HIWPI: Power armored Marines (Including artificer armor) can be either 25mm and 42mm. It's really more of an aesthetic choice than anything else.
TheCustomLime wrote: So, basically, RAW third-party miniatures are invalid as gaming pieces since models, as defined in the 40k rulebook, are Citadel miniatures.
Yes. It's been that way for some time now. GW don't want you using 3rd party miniatures. You're only supposed to be using Citadel miniatures, with Citadel terrain on Citadel Realm of Battle boards, all painted with Citadel paint and assembled with Citadel glue.
Hell, from 6th edition onwards, they stopped even encouraging conversions, never mind subbing in completely different models. Have a look through any of the current crop of codexes and see how many converted models you can find.
Insaniak, I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly. Still ponder if one could use that Rule to make Terrain Datasheets with point costs and 'choice or a Codex:XXX' Rule, but that is for other times.
JinxDragon wrote: Insaniak,
I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly.
Well, that and the fact that their terrain range is still somewhat limited. I suspect that sometime in the next couple of editions any reference to using other terrain will disappear.
JinxDragon wrote: Insaniak,
I disagree about Citadel Scenery due to the Scratch-built Terrain Rule, but they "bestow" us that simply so they don't have to do Terrain Rules properly.
Still ponder if one could use that Rule to make Terrain Datasheets with point costs and 'choice or a Codex:XXX' Rule, but that is for other times.
"The Battlefield Terrain section describes how to incorporate Citadel terrain..."
That means that all of the rules in the Battlefield Terrain section only applies to Citadel terrain kits.
"Many players enjoy making their own terrain... Players that do so will need to devise their own datasheets for the terrain models they have created".
RAW, you need to make up your own rules for scratch-built stuff. They could be exactly the same as the Ruins rules. But they wouldn't be "Ruins" for rules purposes.
Insaniak, A possibility but I am not overly convinced given how long Game Workshop has been in business and how many opportunities they have failed to take. Stronghold Assault could have done for Terrain what Escalation had done for Lords of Wars, but was nothing more then a few Rule tweaks and a place to store the imperial Data-slates they had already created. What few additions they did add to the book where also, not surprisingly, imperial themed. Regardless of what occurs in the future, Scratch-built Terrain literally gives us permission to use every day objects as terrain, so the Authors clearly want us to use more then Citadel Scenery when it comes to terrain... for the time being at least.
Thecustomlime, The Datasheet could have a Rule which states that it counts as Ruins, what then?
FratHammer wrote: Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.
Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.
Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... So I'm back on my band wagon of being right. Read all the back pages and provide evidence, don't say "RAW you're wrong" because I can't refute an incorrect statement without knowing the evidence you're claiming to stand on. I've proven the rules state what I have said. The only evidence against me was that I might be taking model as unit, but as isnak has worded beautifully any problems with that theory. So...rebase your models. And qq to gw.
FratHammer wrote: Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.
Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.
Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... So I'm back on my band wagon of being right. Read all the back pages and provide evidence, don't say "RAW you're wrong" because I can't refute an incorrect statement without knowing the evidence you're claiming to stand on. I've proven the rules state what I have said. The only evidence against me was that I might be taking model as unit, but as isnak has worded beautifully any problems with that theory. So...rebase your models. And qq to gw.
"Models" are defined as Citadel miniatures according to the rules. As in, the plastic miniatures that are created under the Citadel brand.
"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with".
This can also be worded as:
"The rules in this book assume that the Citadel Miniatures are mounted on the base they are supplied with".
So, whatever came in the box with the Citadel miniatures is the bases you put them on. Rebasing them is against the rules since the Citadel miniatures did not come with those bases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Insaniak,
A possibility but I am not overly convinced given how long Game Workshop has been in business and how many opportunities they have failed to take. Stronghold Assault could have done for Terrain what Escalation had done for Lords of Wars, but was nothing more then a few Rule tweaks and a place to store the imperial Data-slates they had already created. What few additions they did add to the book where also, not surprisingly, imperial themed. Regardless of what occurs in the future, Scratch-built Terrain literally gives us permission to use every day objects as terrain, so the Authors clearly want us to use more then Citadel Scenery when it comes to terrain... for the time being at least.
Thecustomlime,
The Datasheet could have a Rule which states that it counts as Ruins, what then?
Well, then it counts as ruins but it would be fan rules instead of official rules.
"Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'
(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)
A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model." -isnack.
So it's a blood angels space marine, not an abstract piece of plastic. A model represents something, not nothing, hence why a model should be based on the base the model is currently supplied with. And then repeat all my arguments up until this point. When a model was just a plastic abstraction the argument held. It no longer holds if the model transcends anything other than a piece of plastic. Once it goes back to representing something, they all represent that thing, they are all models that represent the same thing, and are therefore not currently supplied with those tiny bases. They were once, but no more. And for validation it means current see 4 pages of previous comments on how the English language works.
Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.
I've rebased my Dark Angels (well, all those in bog standard power armour anyway) on 32s. Space Marines in general JUST ABOUT manage to fit on 25s regardless of their pose. On 32s they fit very comfortably on them. Same applies to Necrons
Does this make me a cheater? Hardly. It just means I've chosen to base them on a size that is appropriate for the model.
FratHammer wrote: Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.
I'm still not following your logic here, because what you're saying has no connection to the actual rules.
You seem to be suggesting that the fact that the rulebook refers to Citadel miniatures as models proves that all miniatures that represent that model must be on the same base, and that base should be whatever is on the 'current' version of the model... But there is no link between the rule and your conclusion.
So, again, please explain what link you're seeing there.
FratHammer wrote: "Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'
(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)
A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model." -isnack.
So it's a blood angels space marine, not an abstract piece of plastic. A model represents something, not nothing, hence why a model should be based on the base the model is currently supplied with. And then repeat all my arguments up until this point. When a model was just a plastic abstraction the argument held. It no longer holds if the model transcends anything other than a piece of plastic. Once it goes back to representing something, they all represent that thing, they are all models that represent the same thing, and are therefore not currently supplied with those tiny bases. They were once, but no more. And for validation it means current see 4 pages of previous comments on how the English language works.
A model doesn't represent anything. GW gives a very clear definition of what they consider a model to be: A physical miniature manufactured under the Citadel brand. Model does not refer to the Tactical marine the miniature represents. Nothing in the rules suggests that. More evidence for this:
"...starting with a guide to forging a battle-ready army from your collection of Citadel miniatures". (Under "Preparing for Battle")
People do not collect abstract concepts. They collect pieces of plastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FratHammer wrote: Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.
No, the rules refers to the base the actual miniature came with. I am not following your logic here.
Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread. As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.
Also I agree with you Custom, on the we collect plastic. But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something. If it's just plastic, that model does indeed "need to be based on" the base it came with, which is what Hawaii it's saying. Though if the model represents something, then that is not in fact true.
Btw I see no evidence to suggest you can base non BA Space Marines on 32mm bases (yet)
So the rule as I've quoted a million times... No, ya know what, if you care to read English properly, just look up one of my previous posts on how their language states in plane English, that we must base our models in the currently supplied base. I'm sick of cherry pickers.
FratHammer wrote: Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread.
No, we're saying your newest posts are making some sort of logical leap that you're not explaining.
As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.
Indeed you don't. But you're not being asked to supply previous information. You're being asked to explain the current argument.
You claimed that my presenting the rule that 'models' refers to 'Citadel Miniatures' somehow 'validates' your claim that you have to use the base a model is currently supplied with, regardless of what came in the box. But you have yet to provide any logic that actually links those two things together.
But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something.
There is nobody participating in this thread named 'isnak'.
The rules in this book assume that a model is mounted on the base it is supplied with...
That is what the rule says when changed from plural (models) to singular (a model). It clearly shows your position is wrong and does not concern itself with what base any other model was supplied with.
FratHammer wrote: Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread. As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.
Also I agree with you Custom, on the we collect plastic. But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something. If it's just plastic, that model does indeed "need to be based on" the base it came with, which is what Hawaii it's saying. Though if the model represents something, then that is not in fact true.
Btw I see no evidence to suggest you can base non BA Space Marines on 32mm bases (yet)
So the rule as I've quoted a million times... No, ya know what, if you care to read English properly, just look up one of my previous posts on how their language states in plane English, that we must base our models in the currently supplied base. I'm sick of cherry pickers.
Please try to keep this civil. Please don't imply that people who don't agree with you or don't follow your logic can't read English... particularly when your posts are riddled with grammar and spelling errors. There is a saying about pots and kettles that seems appropriate.
You also keep changing the wording of the rule in your posts, which does really make your logic harder to follow. The rule book doesn't say "currently supplied base". You're adding the "currently" bit yourself. The rule in question ACTUALLY says "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." If I have an old metal Terminator in my army, the rule assume my old metal Terminator is mounted on the base it is supplied with. What base was it the old metal Terminator supplied with? It's supplied with a 25mm base. I defy you to find me an old metal Terminator, new in package and supplied with a 40mm base.
For you to be correct, you'd have to demonstrate that when GW uses the word 'models' in the above rule, they aren't referring to the actual, physical... well, models. Otherwise, you can demonstrate that my old metal Terminator is supplied with a 40mm base (good luck with this one). I'd even be OK with you demonstrating how a currently available for purchase old metal Terminator (links provided to multiple new in blister eBay auctions previously) that is supplied with a 25mm base isn't being currently supplied with a 25mm base.
Alright, Frat, I'll address your other arguments if you still stand by them.
"If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater"
No, it is not cheating to buy old terminators just for the sake of getting smaller bases. Is it a jerk move? Probably not. But it is perfectly legal rules wise as these miniatures are being used with the bases they came with.
"Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater. "
Those people are wrong since those are still valid models under the model definition. There is no expiration date on Citadel Miniatures.
"Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made."
Okay, so, the term unit is not a substitute for the term "Model". They are both distinct terms in the rulebook with their own definitions.
"This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there."
Models are not the abstract rules idea of what they represent. A model of a Tactical Marine is not the WS 4 BS4 Superman of Death. The model is the actual miniature. As in, the chunk of plastic. If that chunk of plastic was supplied with a 25mm base in 2001 then it doesn't matter if a different chunk of plastic in 2014 with the same name was supplied with a 32mm. Under the rules, they are different entities.
So, yes, this does mean that you can have a unit of Terminators with differing base sizes.
Kris, in always posting during a break from work on my phone and cannot control how awful swipe's auto correct is. The extra periods and incorrect words really grind my gears, but I'm not willing to constantly fix words while on a time schedule. Also I have stated why I believe it means current several times, to include the use of the dictionary. It is not the past tense WERE it is the present tense ARE that is used in the rule we are discussing. So the rules say currently supplied with via the English language. Your only leg to stand on is the argument that current can instead mean packaged with 20 years ago, but unopened. Which has been a hard argument to refute.
Custom, great argument, break is to short but I'll hit you back after work.
And Ghaz, no changing words in the book when we talk RAW.
FratHammer wrote: Kris, in always posting during a break from work on my phone and cannot control how awful swipe's auto correct is. The extra periods and incorrect words really grind my gears, but I'm not willing to constantly fix words while on a time schedule. Also I have stated why I believe it means current several times, to include the use of the dictionary. It is not the past tense WERE it is the present tense ARE that is used in the rule we are discussing. So the rules say currently supplied with via the English language. Your only leg to stand on is the argument that current can instead mean packaged with 20 years ago, but unopened. Which has been a hard argument to refute.
Custom, great argument, break is to short but I'll hit you back after work.
And Ghaz, no changing words in the book when we talk RAW.
Fair, but unless you're buying new models everytime you start a game, you have to assume a certain amount of past tense.
Again, what's the limit? Are the models I bought earlier today ok? Are the models I bought yesterday ok? A year ago? A decade ago? The rules assume we're basing are models on the bases they are supplied with.
Again, I ask... what base IS supplied with the old metal Terminators? Until the end of time, the answer to that question will be a 25mm base. They may not be easy to find, but if you can find them, those models are CURRENTLY supplied with 25mm bases.
If you asked me "What size bases do Terminators come with?", I might assume you mean the current models and say 40mm. I might also ask you, "Which Terminator models are you referencing? They've come with a variety over the years."
Until such time as the army list entries have a required base size (this will most likely never happen), we should continue to buy models, open the box, assemble them and stick them to the base that was also in the box. How long we subsequently retain the model is irrelevant.
As seen below a model has characteristics.
How can plastic have characteristics? Because that plastic represents something. An intangible something. Some would use the word unit, as Hawaii suggested.
Models have attributes. So you want to believe model doesn't have any link in time to its current form, fine. Buy a second or third ed book and use your old cost, your old starts, your old wargear.
As you can see from the below, model, refers to an orc boy, a space marine terminator, a blood angel. Not just a piece of plastic. It represents it in its current state. So as I said, I'll allow you to claim your 25mm bases on models that should have larger ones if you use the proper "models" cost and statistics from the codex it was sold with.
I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"
If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now I'm going to bed. I'll post a retort during break because I'm sure someone will have something. LOL
FratHammer wrote: I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"
If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now I'm going to bed. I'll post a retort during break because I'm sure someone will have something. LOL
Please demonstrate how the model in the attached link IS CURRENTLY supplied with a 40mm base. To clarify, I'm not interested in one of the several kits currently sold on the GW website. I'm interested ONLY in the specific model in the link.
FratHammer wrote: I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"
If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?
No. None of that post makes any sense at all. I would recommend spending a little more time proof reading before hitting the 'post' button.
This is also the last time I point out that my username isn't 'isnak'. I'm going to just assume you're deliberately trolling from here on out.
FratHammer wrote: As seen below a model has characteristics.
How can plastic have characteristics? Because that plastic represents something. An intangible something. Some would use the word unit, as Hawaii suggested.
Models have attributes. So you want to believe model doesn't have any link in time to its current form, fine. Buy a second or third ed book and use your old cost, your old starts, your old wargear.
As you can see from the below, model, refers to an orc boy, a space marine terminator, a blood angel. Not just a piece of plastic. It represents it in its current state. So as I said, I'll allow you to claim your 25mm bases on models that should have larger ones if you use the proper "models" cost and statistics from the codex it was sold with.
Admittedly, I think GW's definition of a model is asinine for that very reason but here is the problem with your argument: Models do not have inherent characteristics. Those characteristics are assigned to them by Games Workshop and are subject to change. A power armored marine armed with a boltgun can have different characteristics depending on what chapter tactics you use, which codex you have or even what unit you assign it to.
Thus, a model does not inherently represent anything. Their representation is assigned. Plus, there are no assigned bases to specific types of models. A Blood Angels tactical marine is not required to have a 32mm base anywhere in it's rules.
TheCustomLime wrote: Those characteristics are assigned to them by Games Workshop and are subject to change.
And can also apply to multiple different models.
An old metal terminator, an old plastic terminator, and a current plastic terminator all have the same characteristics.
The size of their base is not a characteristic. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents you from using all three of those models, even though the models themselves are different sizes and they have different bases.
I read this thread. I laughed, I cried (figuratively). I was in doubt whether to add my own story. I will.
I had a question on other fora. I custom picked my Imperial Guard models. Using Ebay, my bits box, and bits sites I gathered Kromlech Kilted legs, GW bodies and arms, Scottish heads from yet another company, weapons left and right. I never bought a complete kit, and also not a complete model. Then it came to using these parts for a heavy weapons team. What bases to use? The problem?
These models were custom picked bits from different manufacturers. No bases were supplied.
The rules assume you use the bases supplied. This would, of course, mean I had to look further.
Those same rules then add you can use different bases. When no bases were supplied, one should look to models of a similar type.Here is another problem.
"Heavy Weapons Team" is a special rule from the codex. It is not a model type. The heavy weapons team is typed "infantry". Infantry is based in 25mm, 32mm, 40mm, and even 60mm. So, what is appropriate? I mentioned just basing the models on their own 25mm bases, and then putting those on a scenic 60mm base. This way, I could even simply remove the loader as some sort of wound marker.
By this time I had already been called a cheater, someone who models for advantage, and even some less friendly things. Even pointing out that the newest Astra Militarum models in the Astra Militarum codex follow type-rules, and not special rules-rules, was in vain. I mean, look at the picture on page 70 in the Codex: Astra Militarum. About three-quarters to the bottom right, there is a missile launcher guardsman in the front row, on a freaking 25mm base. Right there, in plain freaking sight! His "heavy weapons team" loader is behind him, on his own freaking 25mm base! Page 86 shows them again, this time next to eachother, no doubt as to them being two separate models. I shouldn't look at those pictures, and the model type was mentioned in the rules, and the rules don't state you should look at pictures. The heavy weapons team rule treats the two members of the team as a single model, but treating them that way also implies they aren't such. Those pictures don't lie.
So, in the end, in my opinion the rules aren't that clear at all. GW gives guidelines and assumptions within the rules. Hard and fast base rules would be, when they start printing codices with a standard base size per model. It is not that difficult. Look:
Guardsman (infantry 25mm)
Guardsman Sergeant (infantry character 25mm)
Guardsman Heavy Weapons Team (infantry 60mm)
Space Marine (infantry 32mm)
Space Marine Sergeant (infantry character 32mm)
Space Marine Terminator (infantry 40mm)
Chaos Space Marine (infantry 32mm)
Necron Immortal (infantry 32mm)
Space Marine Dreadnought (Vehicle, Walker 60mm)
Until such time as GW releases a rules appendix with a comprehensive list like my examples, I found out every thread about this subject tends to get heated, as there is too much room for interpretation, and even GW doesn't consistently provide examples (such as those Astra Militarum models with the missile launcher).
While many people would probably moan and whine the moment GW makes such a list (as they then officially have to re-base their models) I do think it would provide a whole lot more clarity.
Homestly, I laugh at base size arguments. Put your models on any base you want. For every advantage for a larger base, there is a disadvantage. And in a game of random dice rolls a few mm making or braking a game is silly.
Lord Xcapobl wrote: I read this thread. I laughed, I cried (figuratively). I was in doubt whether to add my own story. I will.
I had a question on other fora. I custom picked my Imperial Guard models. Using Ebay, my bits box, and bits sites I gathered Kromlech Kilted legs, GW bodies and arms, Scottish heads from yet another company, weapons left and right. I never bought a complete kit, and also not a complete model. Then it came to using these parts for a heavy weapons team. What bases to use? The problem?
Well, there are two solutions to this problem. You could ask the supplier from what box he got the GW parts from and use similarly sized bases. Remember, it doesn't matter what type of model you intend to represent with this parts. Just what bases came with them originally. And it has to be the Citadel miniature parts. 3rd party miniatures aren't considered valid models.
The other solution is to look at similar models and see how they are based. And, you are right, this can vary. Basing a HWT on 25mm and a 60mm are both valid ways of basing them since, in this case, you would use official GW images as a rules reference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hisdudeness wrote: Homestly, I laugh at base size arguments. Put your models on any base you want. For every advantage for a larger base, there is a disadvantage. And in a game of random dice rolls a few mm making or braking a game is silly.
The point of YMDC is to find the RAW. It is up to the players if they will follow it or not. Personally, I think the decision between 32 and 25mm is mostly an aesthetic one. I base my first company power armor vets on 32mm because it makes them look more badass and imposing.
Lord Xcapobl, Lets make it a little more simple, the below scenario cuts out any third party questions and involves lacking a base:
I purchase a Box of terminators... don't know why, I just did Due to a error in packaging I find that there are zero bases in the box I legally supply the appropriate base from another source as per the Rule being discussed
My opinion on the matter is thus: Bases are very important in this game, entire Rule-sets fall apart if they encounter a non-vehicle Model which is lacking a base. While I am sure Game Workshop would of been silent about what base to use, just as they are silent about which bolter in the kit you should put on a marine, this concept is so vital to the Rules that they simply had to address it. Their answer was one that was easiest for them, ensuring that Game Workshop will not have to keep track of all their previous products simply to update everything to a new Rule-set; Use whatever was supplied with the Model. Then they covered other situations of missing, deformed or otherwise clearly unsuitable bases by giving us a Rule grating substitutions for appropriate bases if we encounter these 'rare' situations.
Personally, I would rather a chart telling us what bases to use for each Model and supplying 'conversion bases' to update old models A simple ring that the old base sits in, giving it more girth...
No, it's not. It never has been. It never will be.
There are multiple ways to interpret rules. Says so in the tenets of YMDC.
We really need to squash this idea RAW is the end-all, be-all of rules discussions. The point is YOU make the call. YOU say how you interpret the rule. That might be RAW, RAI or HYWPI. Neither is superior to another, or inferior to another.
Anyway, the rules clearly state base sizes are merely an assumption. People have failed over 5 pages now to point me to something that utilizes a hard line rule that clearly, unambiguously states how to base models. That's because such a thing doesn't exist. If anything, this is kind of the ultimate YMDC discussion. HIWPI, this is a game played by and for people who collect, build and assemble models, so wiggle room in order to make things way cooler is necessary. Therefore, sure, using what is surely going to be the next size iteration from official GW space marine boxes pre-emptively is just gravy.
No, it's not. It never has been. It never will be.
There are multiple ways to interpret rules. Says so in the tenets of YMDC.
We really need to squash this idea RAW is the end-all, be-all of rules discussions. The point is YOU make the call. YOU say how you interpret the rule. That might be RAW, RAI or HYWPI. Neither is superior to another, or inferior to another.
Anyway, the rules clearly state base sizes are merely an assumption. People have failed over 5 pages now to point me to something that utilizes a hard line rule that clearly, unambiguously states how to base models. That's because such a thing doesn't exist. If anything, this is kind of the ultimate YMDC discussion. HIWPI, this is a game played by and for people who collect, build and assemble models, so wiggle room in order to make things way cooler is necessary. Therefore, sure, using what is surely going to be the next size iteration from official GW space marine boxes pre-emptively is just gravy.
"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with".
Ah, GW and it's love of ambiguous rules writing. Sure, it can be argued that the missing part of this statement is "...but it is not required". However, I would argue that the cases where there are no supplied bases, the part left open by the "assumption", is outlined below: Cases where bases are not supplied or where there are unusual bases.
Also, you are correct. HIWPI/RAI is a valid way of talking about the rules. I still think it's important to determine RAW just so that we have a clear understanding of what it is.
On many situations I agree with you. It is often the baseline. However, this one the intentional ambiguity is a good thing I believe.
For one, GW themselves features guys on larger than standard bases occasionally. Kriswall brought up the Space Wolf captain from the Stormwolf boxset earlier. I've checked and double-checked my own personal box of that. I have a spare 25mm base for him, not a 40mm that he's consistently shown on in the official rules for that box set. I'm actually going to go hunt down a spare 40mm when I get around to building and painting him.
The way this rule is worded, I keep focusing in on "Sometimes, players may have models on unusual bases." That line, to me, is huge. Astronomical. This is a game for hobbyists at the end of the day, and rules allowing people to do cool things and still play a game with their bad-ass models I think is very important.
The single most important part of the model basing rule is the rule of thumb at the end about using models of a similar type as guidance.
Dare I even mention the Forge World Space Marine primarchs and their double bases now?
Do you use the Horus model on his 40mm base, or on the entire staircase he stands upon? Both are supplied, and both are 'his base'. In that same vein I chose to start the discussion about heavy weapons teams from a custom source (or in my case multiple custom sources) where no bases were supplied, and GW never gave a clear and consistent rule. Just an assumption, and then a reference to type of model, as opposed to identical sorts of models and current model kits. I know, like probably most people here, that the difference between two guardsmen on individual 25mm bases, or both on a single 60mm base, is huge. The 60mm pie plate is way easier to clip with a blast marker or template attack, and cause the heavy weapons team some damage. The same with Horus on his staircase. Conrad Curze and his archway of balance?
However, when in the spirit of the rules I mention putting custom guardsmen on 25mm bases, and making a scenic 60mm plate to put the heavy weapons team on, and people on other fora still calling me a dirty cheat, an advantage-modeling-bastard, and way more unfriendly things, where is their RAW then? They never did mention anything to oppose my arguements about that little Rulebook Page 9 entry, about models and base sizes. A list like I made a very small example of, that would be huge. That would be RAW. Spirit of the rules? I gosh-darnedly put my models on my choice of bases, which I can use in any game with people who do the same. And I haven't found a single player yet who bases his gretchin mob of 20 each on their own 60mm base. To me, it seems, a lot of people still have a bit of common sense.
The mentioning of "Sometimes, players may have models on unusual bases." makes a big difference for mee, too. It implies choice. If I want my regular power armoured Space Marine Captain on a nice, scenic 40mm base, I should be able to, and this part of the rule provides me with just that permission. "May have" grants permission, as opposed to "might have", which states there is possibility even if prohibition could be found somewhere else.
The single most important part of the model basing rule is the rule of thumb at the end about using models of a similar type as guidance.
This, however, might be problematic. Heavy Weapons Teams are of the type "Infantry". So are Chaos Space Marines Terminators. So with this rule of thumb, I base my heavy weapons teams on 40mm bases? Or on 32mm bases, as Blood Angels Space Marines are of the "Infantry" type as well and their current box set provides 32mm bases?
In my opinion, this rule of thumb is shaky, as it allows me to have Horus (Infantry) on a 25mm base (which is unusual for him even though I may have him on an unusual base as per the RAW) even despite the box coming with not one but two bases for him.
Mega nobz have always been on 40mm bases 
