I’ve been guessing this was coming for a while, but it looks like Boyz are moving to 32mm bases based on this photo. Check the upper right-hand corner.
I think we can call this one confirmed - I was going through today's new pre-orders (Yay, the Mekboy workshop comes with the scrap terrain from Speed Freakz!) and I see every infantry box for Orks have been repackaged, and, well, to copy and paste from the Ork Boyz description:
"This boxed set contains 11 multi-part plastic Ork Boyz, and includes options for sluggas, choppas, shootas, heavy weapons and stikk bombz. Models supplied with 32 mm round bases"
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OT: Personally I hate the bases on vehicles.... but that does look like a great, Mad-max style horde.
GW have very much decided all models are going to be on bases now and they only have rules for non-based models as legacy code (or special rules for skimmers).
SemperMortis wrote: yeah.....again, not rebasing my 300+ infantry models NOR my 35ish Warbikes.
If anyone takes issue with it, they probably aren't worth playing with to begin with. I don't play orks & I'm well aware that 25mm is advantageous over 32mm but I would never ask an ork player to rebase hundreds of infantry. That is just absurd.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OT: Personally I hate the bases on vehicles.... but that does look like a great, Mad-max style horde.
GW have very much decided all models are going to be on bases now and they only have rules for non-based models as legacy code (or special rules for skimmers).
FW clearly didn't get that memo based on the new Necrons super heavy!
Have you seen the imaginary base rule on that thing?
SemperMortis wrote: yeah.....again, not rebasing my 300+ infantry models NOR my 35ish Warbikes.
If anyone takes issue with it, they probably aren't worth playing with to begin with. I don't play orks & I'm well aware that 25mm is advantageous over 32mm but I would never ask an ork player to rebase hundreds of infantry. That is just absurd.
I can honestly see GW allowing that untill 9th edition then the base size for models will be specified. Look at whats happening with bike, buggies etc, the future seems to be everything on a base and it will have to be of the specified size.
This is less about players it's about GW and the need for parity in a competitive setting. They can't allow people to have an advantage over people playing with current models.
SemperMortis wrote: yeah.....again, not rebasing my 300+ infantry models NOR my 35ish Warbikes.
If anyone takes issue with it, they probably aren't worth playing with to begin with. I don't play orks & I'm well aware that 25mm is advantageous over 32mm but I would never ask an ork player to rebase hundreds of infantry. That is just absurd.
I can honestly see GW allowing that untill 9th edition then the base size for models will be specified. Look at whats happening with bike, buggies etc, the future seems to be everything on a base and it will have to be of the specified size.
This is less about players it's about GW and the need for parity in a competitive setting. They can't allow people to have an advantage over people playing with current models.
Yes, it's a genuine concern for the competitive scene. 25mm gives you an extra rank in melee compared to 32. For a horde that's huge.
In the competitive scene the various orgniser packs will often define things like base size requirements. GW plays it easy with use whatever you want almost - whilst the competitive major events will specify and normally stick to the newest.
So yeah if you're casual gaming its fine, sort of, but competitive get out the rebasing tools (though to be fair considering this has happened for a lot of armies thus far it was sort of expected to happen )
Overread wrote: In the competitive scene the various orgniser packs will often define things like base size requirements. GW plays it easy with use whatever you want almost - whilst the competitive major events will specify and normally stick to the newest.
So yeah if you're casual gaming its fine, sort of, but competitive get out the rebasing tools (though to be fair considering this has happened for a lot of armies thus far it was sort of expected to happen )
So far only 1 event I've been to has had a base size requirement. They were mostly doing it because of how many daemons players there were. But I almost got hit with a penalty for my Berserkers, I made them in 4th edition so they're on 25's. Most people don't care because I space them out pretty good, but one dude was being salty about it.
Aye I can wager it will get stricter as time goes on - even if you're trying to play fair its hard when you've not got the right base size. Step-up bases are out there on the market so you don't have to rebase you can extend the base.
Overread wrote: Aye I can wager it will get stricter as time goes on - even if you're trying to play fair its hard when you've not got the right base size. Step-up bases are out there on the market so you don't have to rebase you can extend the base.
You won't be allowed to use them in the Warhammer Citadel though probably
SemperMortis wrote: yeah.....again, not rebasing my 300+ infantry models NOR my 35ish Warbikes.
If anyone takes issue with it, they probably aren't worth playing with to begin with. I don't play orks & I'm well aware that 25mm is advantageous over 32mm but I would never ask an ork player to rebase hundreds of infantry. That is just absurd.
I can honestly see GW allowing that untill 9th edition then the base size for models will be specified. Look at whats happening with bike, buggies etc, the future seems to be everything on a base and it will have to be of the specified size.
This is less about players it's about GW and the need for parity in a competitive setting. They can't allow people to have an advantage over people playing with current models.
Yes, it's a genuine concern for the competitive scene. 25mm gives you an extra rank in melee compared to 32. For a horde that's huge.
I can already see the dakka posts and vocal minority outrage - "Modelling for advantage"
I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
Each of those rows has 78% the number of boyz in it, limited by charge distance in the wrap around.
Net result is 58.6% as many attacks as before.
It is a 40% nerf to the unit.
Assuming you always get them all in before and whatever you were fighting could survive that many attacks. Otherwise that's just a misleading statistic. Anything that needed that many attacks has a bigger area to surround anyway.
Each of those rows has 78% the number of boyz in it, limited by charge distance in the wrap around.
Net result is 58.6% as many attacks as before.
It is a 40% nerf to the unit.
Assuming you always get them all in before and whatever you were fighting could survive that many attacks. Otherwise that's just a misleading statistic. Anything that needed that many attacks has a bigger area to surround anyway.
It isn't always 40%, but that is more common that you think. Dajump 40 boyz near a knight. The magical 9 inch charge, with 3 inch pile in, puts up a nice neat 10-boy front row, with 25mm bases. The back rows fill in for your sweet 40 in combat.
Unless the knight is on a very bare table and has nobody around it, it is very hard to get more than 10 or 11 in the front row. The jump/charge rules are almost magically designed to pack in 40 25mm models.
32s just get shafted. The 9th and 10th boyz simply cannot charge that far. In any event, losing the 4th row is a certainty.
Note: against other 25s and 32s, the fourth row CAN fight, because the 2nd row is within an inch. Only against extremely wide bases, where there are no small circles poking out, is the 2nd row farther than 1 inch away. This kills the 4th row.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
You can tell someone has been in the hobby for a while when they refer to basing as "flocked" - have an exalt my veteran brother
Outside of the super serious e-sport "all my sponsors are watching this match" mentality, I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with what base size your orks are on. Hell, both of the LGS I visit, several of the players still have their marines on 25's and no one has said a thing.
Thank you haha, Most of my marines are still on 25mms, since my chapter was completed a while ago, though I did a few characters on a bigger base to add detail and importance.
My death watch are on bigger bases since that's what they came with and I don't mind the extra room to give them some more detail/bitz trophies. (My group will usually trade bitz to what ever model killed the most in a given match and if possible we try to incorporate part of that into that model if possible. ). But the idea of taking hobby money and effort to rebase dozens or hundreds of models doesn't interest me
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
The issue that GW has with that is that they make no money from people using 10-20 year old mini's.
They make their money on selling models, and accessories.
I'm not saying that it should be a must do for casual players, just giving people an opinion on what I see coming.
You might not like it but GW doesn't see old model support as profitable, atleast nothing like as profitable as selling new models or bases.
Though nothing beats the look of shock when people pick up my old-school metal mini's on new bases and are shocked at the wieght
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
The issue that GW has with that is that they make no money from people using 10-20 year old mini's.
They make their money on selling models, and accessories.
I'm not saying that it should be a must do for casual players, just giving people an opinion on what I see coming.
You might not like it but GW doesn't see old model support as profitable, atleast nothing like as profitable as selling new models or bases.
Though nothing beats the look of shock when people pick up my old-school metal mini's on new bases and are shocked at the wieght
While all that is true, I don't believe they have upped the base size in order to increase sales. They will know it will piss some older players off, and that many will go to third party solutions if they do decide to upsize their bases.
They will have done it simply because the models look better on a larger base. And that being the case they aren't going to be constrained by a 20 year old decision.
As BCB says, if you don't like it you are free to ignore it in the current rules. If you're chasing the tournament meta then tournaments have always had their own rules that might force you to change your models anyway. It's always been extra expensive to play 40k competitively.
It's this kind of thing that is part the reason we get Primaris and other completely new units when a faction is updated - because the history of the game has way too much baggage and it's so much easier just to start with a clean slate than to update units from the 80s and enter this minefield.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
The issue that GW has with that is that they make no money from people using 10-20 year old mini's.
They make their money on selling models, and accessories.
I'm not saying that it should be a must do for casual players, just giving people an opinion on what I see coming.
You might not like it but GW doesn't see old model support as profitable, atleast nothing like as profitable as selling new models or bases.
Though nothing beats the look of shock when people pick up my old-school metal mini's on new bases and are shocked at the wieght
But forcing people to buy new models to replace old is soooooo good idea after all...No way they can't compete by making good models people WANT to buy rather than just changing rules so that you HAVE to buy...Well actually they don't at least do quite that badly. They do change efficiency for same effect but at least they don't ban you from using old models. GW actually is good one in that sense. They don't force you to rebase. Only TFG's are forcing people to rebase. GW? They couldn't care less.
And as for TFG?'s? Well they are TFG's. They deserve no mercy. Let them whine. Let them cry. Show them middle finger and go on. They have a problem? Tough. TFG's having a problem isn't worth worrying about.
Stux wrote: Makes sense to me, given how stocky the models are.
I put my Ork Boyz from Shadow War Armageddon on 32mm bases ages ago. (and a few other odds and ends whose feet stick off a 25mm base; Inquisitor Coteaz and one of the Malleus Inquisitors for example).
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
The issue that GW has with that is that they make no money from people using 10-20 year old mini's.
They make their money on selling models, and accessories.
I'm not saying that it should be a must do for casual players, just giving people an opinion on what I see coming.
You might not like it but GW doesn't see old model support as profitable, atleast nothing like as profitable as selling new models or bases.
Though nothing beats the look of shock when people pick up my old-school metal mini's on new bases and are shocked at the wieght
But forcing people to buy new models to replace old is soooooo good idea after all...No way they can't compete by making good models people WANT to buy rather than just changing rules so that you HAVE to buy...Well actually they don't at least do quite that badly. They do change efficiency for same effect but at least they don't ban you from using old models. GW actually is good one in that sense. They don't force you to rebase. Only TFG's are forcing people to rebase. GW? They couldn't care less.
And as for TFG?'s? Well they are TFG's. They deserve no mercy. Let them whine. Let them cry. Show them middle finger and go on. They have a problem? Tough. TFG's having a problem isn't worth worrying about.
Wow calm down no need to start trying to throw TFG around.
GW haven't specified base size in 40K yet but they have done in AoS before and they seem to be following AoS with 40K so I would not rule it out.
Also there is also the other aspect of just because you can doesn't mean you should, as people have pointed out nothing stops people using epic models in 40K. (Might actually make marines playable) but that doesn't mean you should be doing it, or that people will allow it.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't get why anyone is getting angry about it. The rules don't specify what base you have to use (although I really wish it did!) so you can mount grots on 200mm bases for all the rules care.
In clubs people will work out what they want to do on their own, and tournaments will house rule as they always have. If you're a "serious" tournament player you would already be willing to deal with inconvenience to do so.
It's not even that difficult if you're willing to accept having taller models, just stick the base on top of a 32mm base. If you want to take more time and effort, you can easily cut a hole in the top of a 32mm base and slide the old 25mm base in, then patch up the hole with basing. And if you're REALLY lazy you can shell out for pre-made base converters.
I'm not doing either because existing models I bought, built and painted/flocked should require periodic maintenance because GW decided 10 to 20 years later certain models look better on a bigger base. You will have a lot of older players be turned off if you try to go with anything other than base it with what we sold it on at the time.
This is the sort of pain that Napoleonic wargamers have been dealing with since the 70s. Just be grateful you might only need to do it for the infantry in a 40k army.
Ice_can wrote: GW haven't specified base size in 40K yet but they have done in AoS before and they seem to be following AoS with 40K so I would not rule it out.
In Warhammer Age of Sigmar, most distances are measured from one model’s base to another model’s base. In the vast majority of games, the actual size of the base is not terribly important, and you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer.
The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. To address this, on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range.
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.
We’ve organised the base sizes first by Grand Alliance, and then alphabetically by faction. To find a model’s suggested base size, simply look up the model’s Grand Alliance and then its faction, and then read down the list until you find the model in question. The suggested base size appears to the right of the model’s name. As new models are added to the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range, we will add their suggested bases sizes to the list.
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.
So... what's a polite answer to this, instead of just burst into laughter?
JimOnMars wrote: Polite answer is to get out your micrometer and physically measure 7 millimeters between each and every boy in the blob, in each phase.
Make sure to measure them all during the charge, then again during the pile in, and a third time during consolidate.
The ork players turn should only last a few hours each.
FrozenDwarf wrote: whoever dident see this move when GW first created 32mm bases must be blind.
they want to get away from 25mm cuz lots of 3rd partys makes them and do them better then what gw does.
It's not like a 25mm base can't be copyrighted but they can land exclusive rights to make discs in 32mm - the idea that they made the bases slightly larger to combat 3rd party bits makers is pretty laughable, you're just going to see all those bases re-offered in 32mm again within a few months.
Besides, GW isn't really in the scenic base business, there is no reason for them to spend significant outlays to hinder competition in a space they don't even play in.
While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself. Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases. None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
Ice_can wrote: GW haven't specified base size in 40K yet but they have done in AoS before and they seem to be following AoS with 40K so I would not rule it out.
In Warhammer Age of Sigmar, most distances are measured from one model’s base to another model’s base. In the vast majority of games, the actual size of the base is not terribly important, and you can use bases of whatever size or shape you prefer.
The only possible exception to this is matched play games. This is because matched play games are intended to be evenly balanced contests, and in these circumstances having the same model on a different sized base can become an issue. To address this, on the following pages you will find a set of suggested matched play base sizes for all of the models in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range.
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game. For example, if you are a veteran player using an old unit that is mounted on 25mm square bases instead of the suggested 32mm round bases, you should set the unit up, make any moves, and measure all distances as if they were mounted on the larger 32mm round bases when you play matched play games. Although this may sound a bit complicated, in practice it is actually very easy to do.
We’ve organised the base sizes first by Grand Alliance, and then alphabetically by faction. To find a model’s suggested base size, simply look up the model’s Grand Alliance and then its faction, and then read down the list until you find the model in question. The suggested base size appears to the right of the model’s name. As new models are added to the Warhammer Age of Sigmar range, we will add their suggested bases sizes to the list.
The above might be the single handed dumbest thing I've ever seen GW produce.
Galef wrote: While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself. Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases. None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
-
I have the same sentiment. Especially in regard of models "deserving" the bigger base, because of their size and/or wounds. It's weird, but it's more or less what's behind the true reason about what I feel "appropriate" for a model. It just "feels" right in the way you described it!
Also Ghaz - to clarify, I was not laughing at you, but at the policy reported, for the reasons JimOnMars illustrated so well. Just in case.
Galef wrote: While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself.
Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases.
None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors
Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
-
Why should Bloodletters be closer to Beastmen Gors when they have always been monsters in all of their incarnations? And I use monster in the sense of demons with a ton of strenght and agility. This incarnation of Bloodletters look very slick but if you go to the artwork they are actually beffy.
Spoiler:
They are bigger and stronger that humans, and they have always been that way, it is not creep in any sense of the word.
At the end of the day, Boyz have always find themselves too big for 25mm bases, thats why in old fantasy normal humans where in 20mm square bases like goblins and elfs and dwarfs but ork boyz where on 25mm square bases alongside the bigger Chaos Marauders and Chaos Warriors (Fantasy's Space Marines)
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
FrozenDwarf wrote: whoever dident see this move when GW first created 32mm bases must be blind.
they want to get away from 25mm cuz lots of 3rd partys makes them and do them better then what gw does.
expect tanks to be forced on bases in 9th edition.
Ah they want to get away 25mm so they make entirely new kits with 25mm...Yeah makes sense!
(oh and hint: 3rd parties do 32mm as well and better than GW)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimOnMars wrote: Polite answer is to get out your micrometer and physically measure 7 millimeters between each and every boy in the blob, in each phase.
Make sure to measure them all during the charge, then again during the pile in, and a third time during consolidate.
The ork players turn should only last a few hours each.
Yep. If TFG's are going to make issue with that in tournaments I'll do just that and ensure game goes 1 turn. 2 tops. Have fun at that TFG.
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
You are "that guy" if you invent your own house rules like have to rebase old models
FrozenDwarf wrote: whoever dident see this move when GW first created 32mm bases must be blind.
they want to get away from 25mm cuz lots of 3rd partys makes them and do them better then what gw does.
expect tanks to be forced on bases in 9th edition.
Ah they want to get away 25mm so they make entirely new kits with 25mm...Yeah makes sense!
(oh and hint: 3rd parties do 32mm as well and better than GW)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimOnMars wrote: Polite answer is to get out your micrometer and physically measure 7 millimeters between each and every boy in the blob, in each phase.
Make sure to measure them all during the charge, then again during the pile in, and a third time during consolidate.
The ork players turn should only last a few hours each.
Yep. If TFG's are going to make issue with that in tournaments I'll do just that and ensure game goes 1 turn. 2 tops. Have fun at that TFG.
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
You are "that guy" if you invent your own house rules like have to rebase old models
I never said you need to rebase. I said you don't get the benefits of having the older bases now that 32mm bases are the standard. The easiest way to do that is to simply not count the fourth row of boyz models in close combat. Saying your Boyz get to fight in 4 ranks while an Ork player who started this year only fights in three ranks is the epitome of feth you got mine.
Quite frankly even suggesting that saying fefth you eat slow playing is an acceptable response to someone going you should be using 32mm so only 3 rows can fight is a far worse attitude than just saying only the front 3 ranks get to fight.
3 rows of 25mm will include more models than 32mm in three rows.
Galef wrote: While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself. Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases. None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
-
Why should Bloodletters be closer to Beastmen Gors when they have always been monsters in all of their incarnations? And I use monster in the sense of demons with a ton of strenght and agility. This incarnation of Bloodletters look very slick but if you go to the artwork they are actually beefy.
Why? Toughness THREE, that's why
When the current plastic kit was released, 'Letters were T4, just like Orks who are also "beefy". And it made perfect sense Why on Holy Terra did GW think it was a good idea to make them T3???? Something nearly twice the bulk of a Gaurdsman or Aeldari should NOT be T3. But if they insist on keeping them that stat, I'll insist on keeping mine on 25mm bases, or use an alternative model (like Beastmen Gors with red skin).
At least Orks are still T4, so they at least "kinda" make sense on 32mm, even if it'll be a pain for Ork players
Galef wrote: While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself.
Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases.
None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors
Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
-
Why should Bloodletters be closer to Beastmen Gors when they have always been monsters in all of their incarnations? And I use monster in the sense of demons with a ton of strenght and agility. This incarnation of Bloodletters look very slick but if you go to the artwork they are actually beefy.
Why? Toughness THREE, that's why
When the current plastic kit was released, 'Letters were T4, just like Orks who are also "beefy". And it made perfect sense
Why on Holy Terra did GW think it was a good idea to make them T3????
Something nearly twice the bulk of a Gaurdsman or Aeldari should NOT be T3.
But if they insist on keeping them that stat, I'll insist on keeping mine on 25mm bases, or use an alternative model (like Beastmen Gors with red skin).
At least Orks are still T4, so they at least "kinda" make sense on 32mm, even if it'll be a pain for Ork players
-
Sisters of Silence have been 32mm since launch and are only T3 all be it in Power Armour
In all honesty I expect the new Sisters of Battle to be 32mm and 40mm based aswell from what GW have shown.
Iron_Captain wrote: It does look better, but it is a pretty big nerf to Ork infantry lists.
They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?
Galef wrote: While I do think Orks look good on 32mm, I am not looking forward to playing against someone with a 100+ Boy army all spaced out with larger bases. That's gonna be a pain.
Not to mention all the minor affects it will have for the Ork player himself.
Personally, I feel anything short of a Space Marine (in both physical size and points cost) should have remained on 25mm bases.
None of the lesser daemon Troops should have been put on 32mms. Not that they don't look good on them, but they are not durable enough to merit it. Pink Horrors and 'Letters specifically are just too big as-is. Pinks should be the size of Blues and 'Letter should be closer to Beastmen Gors
Just my personal opinion on scale creep
Nobs on 32mms work fine as they have an extra wound, but Boyz should be 25mm
-
Why should Bloodletters be closer to Beastmen Gors when they have always been monsters in all of their incarnations? And I use monster in the sense of demons with a ton of strenght and agility. This incarnation of Bloodletters look very slick but if you go to the artwork they are actually beefy.
Why? Toughness THREE, that's why
When the current plastic kit was released, 'Letters were T4, just like Orks who are also "beefy". And it made perfect sense
Why on Holy Terra did GW think it was a good idea to make them T3????
Something nearly twice the bulk of a Gaurdsman or Aeldari should NOT be T3.
But if they insist on keeping them that stat, I'll insist on keeping mine on 25mm bases, or use an alternative model (like Beastmen Gors with red skin).
At least Orks are still T4, so they at least "kinda" make sense on 32mm, even if it'll be a pain for Ork players
-
Sisters of Silence have been 32mm since launch and are only T3 all be it in Power Armour
In all honesty I expect the new Sisters of Battle to be 32mm and 40mm based aswell from what GW have shown.
Ugh, that's horrible. And they aren't even bulky like 'Letters or Orks.
Guess I'll just go rebase all my Eldar Guardians on 40mm bases in preparation for this ridiculousness
I am going to once again say that Base Size should be listed on the datasheet and be enforced in Matched Play. If you wanna bash toys together, go nuts and do whatever, but for structured play you have to bite the bullet and do things correctly.
BaconCatBug wrote: I am going to once again say that Base Size should be listed on the datasheet and be enforced in Matched Play. If you wanna bash toys together, go nuts and do whatever, but for structured play you have to bite the bullet and do things correctly.
doing things correctly means giving models an appropriate base size in the first place, then not changing it without a very good reason as it relates to the games, specifically not "well it looks better", Orks especially being too big for the 25mm base they used to sit fine on tends to suggest the models should have been slightly smaller perhaps.
BaconCatBug wrote: I am going to once again say that Base Size should be listed on the datasheet and be enforced in Matched Play. If you wanna bash toys together, go nuts and do whatever, but for structured play you have to bite the bullet and do things correctly.
doing things correctly means giving models an appropriate base size in the first place, then not changing it without a very good reason as it relates to the games, specifically not "well it looks better", Orks especially being too big for the 25mm base they used to sit fine on tends to suggest the models should have been slightly smaller perhaps.
This was a decision taken decades ago. You can't expect them to be bound by that forever. 32mm makes loads of sense for Orks. They are supposed to be large, broad, and muscular so making them smaller doesn't really make sense either.
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
FFS of course I would let the new guy attack 4 rows. Easy fix is to allow his model bases to overlap a little, making the orks fit the way were designed, before the nerf.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OT: Personally I hate the bases on vehicles.... but that does look like a great, Mad-max style horde.
GW have very much decided all models are going to be on bases now and they only have rules for non-based models as legacy code (or special rules for skimmers).
Iron_Captain wrote: It does look better, but it is a pretty big nerf to Ork infantry lists.
They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?
Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why are so many of you pretending this isn't a massive nerf to the orks?
Would you be just as happ if lasguns were Rapid fire 16 instead of 24? What about reducing psychic power range by an equivalent amount?
Why should it only be assault swarm armies that have to eat this nerf?
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
FFS of course I would let the new guy attack 4 rows. Easy fix is to allow his model bases to overlap a little, making the orks fit the way were designed, before the nerf.
You'd do some clunky shenanigans like that rather than make the older player follow the new rules?
This was a decision taken decades ago. You can't expect them to be bound by that forever. 32mm makes loads of sense for Orks. They are supposed to be large, broad, and muscular so making them smaller doesn't really make sense either.
How large exactly? Ork "suffered" kinda of a size creep. In the way they were represented in the old art, they didn't look that massive. I am mainly thinking about those old Paul Bonner illustrations, as an example. For a good part of WH40k and fantasy, orcs were S3 unless you bought specific, rare units.
meleti wrote: 40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.
You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.
meleti wrote: 40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.
You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.
Marines have long been too small compared to other humans and humanoids. Primaris are closer to what classic marines should be, based on the fluff.
But then this is complicated further by the weird proportions. Standard Guardsmen for example have massive heads and are extremely broad. If you scale a picture of a real person to the same height as a Guardsman the difference is comical!
meleti wrote: 40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.
You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.
Is it even scale creep or was it always there? I am thinking of this artwork which is from 3rd edition or even earlier, I think:
RogueApiary wrote: Easy fix. In tournaments don't count the 4th row of boyz. Done.
How is that a fix? Permanently nerfing a base troop unit that just got a point increase as a codex gift?
Because the alternative is that putting new Ork models on older bases becomes advantageous. The models come on 32 mm, they play on 32mm. I respect your right to not have to rebase everything, but if you think you're entitled to an extra rank of attacks over the brand new Ork guy at the club because you're grandfathered in then you're 'that guy.'
FFS of course I would let the new guy attack 4 rows. Easy fix is to allow his model bases to overlap a little, making the orks fit the way were designed, before the nerf.
You'd do some clunky shenanigans like that rather than make the older player follow the new rules?
Yes, when the new rule is "your army is 41% less effective now. Sucks to be you."
meleti wrote: 40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.
You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.
Marines have long been too small compared to other humans and humanoids. Primaris are closer to what classic marines should be, based on the fluff.
Basing our image of what a marine "is" on 3rd edition, definitively primary are the first instance of GW properly scaling a marine. However, see below.
meleti wrote: 40k scale makes no sense in the art. Go take a look at half the illustrations of Space Marines ever drawn, the proportions make no sense at all.
You are probably right, but I would argue that marines """suffered""" an ever greater scale creep.
Is it even scale creep or was it always there? I am thinking of this artwork which is from 3rd edition or even earlier, I think:
Spoiler:
That is 3rd edition unless I am mistaken. But have a look at the old art. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/342983.page Especially page 4. Moot point at the end, I guess. Primaris-size is the standard now and I am ok with that. I just wonder if GW will scale up everything. That would make the (needed) scale up marines got with Primaris completely pointless. IMHO, of course.
It does suck to have to rebase da boyz, I hate it.
However, I recently started redoing all my old boyz from the painfully flat paintjob they have had since 3rd edition. So I'm probably going to bite the bullet now rather than later...
The only positive I can find in this is that I've been thinking that I need to make some new terrain for Kill Team, so now I can theme the bases to the new terrain! Lucky me...
Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
At least in my area it comes down to what base did the model come with at the time. If you have the old school tiny terminators on 25mm from back in the day that's fine. If you bought current terminators and put them on smaller bases that would get you some stick eye. Most players I know love to see older models. Though ironically this is probably an edition were positioning and base size mean less than most editions.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
At least in my area it comes down to what base did the model come with at the time. If you have the old school tiny terminators on 25mm from back in the day that's fine. If you bought current terminators and put them on smaller bases that would get you some stick eye. Most players I know love to see older models. Though ironically this is probably an edition were positioning and base size mean less than most editions.
Actually it was frowned upon to use 25mm termies when you still scattered on deepztrikes as it was much easier to put down termies on 25mm vs 40mm.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
You get that, right?
TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.
It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
You get that, right?
TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.
It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.
I get why they are reluctant to do that though, since it would force re-basing on a massive scale and they know that won't be received well. They also recognize that any change to match play is going to affect how most games are played. Again what is the correct size for a base or for that matter the correct size for a model? Older models tend to be smaller which has both advantages and disadvantages but that extends to conversations, counts as, and general model work. Anyone who wants to abuse the rules will, regardless of the rules. Forcing certain bases won't fix that.
BaconCatBug wrote: I am going to once again say that Base Size should be listed on the datasheet and be enforced in Matched Play. If you wanna bash toys together, go nuts and do whatever, but for structured play you have to bite the bullet and do things correctly.
doing things correctly means giving models an appropriate base size in the first place, then not changing it without a very good reason as it relates to the games, specifically not "well it looks better", Orks especially being too big for the 25mm base they used to sit fine on tends to suggest the models should have been slightly smaller perhaps.
This was a decision taken decades ago. You can't expect them to be bound by that forever. 32mm makes loads of sense for Orks. They are supposed to be large, broad, and muscular so making them smaller doesn't really make sense either.
If you want to argue that in 'structured play', you have to do things "correctly", and that means rebasing all your models when a new guideline is issued:
Doesn't that suggest that 'structured play' is simply poorly structured and not worth respecting? If an entire army (Space Marines, Orks) was on the correct size bases for structured play one day, and then, the very next day, a revision to structured play indicates that they are all on the wrong size bases, do we re-evaluate every game played under the old structure? Surely the new structure is correct and the old structure must have always been incorrect, right? Every single battle fought under the old, incorrect structure was played incorrectly, right? Take back the prizes and the awards, everybody.
Either the standards for structured play are simply rules (or guidelines), and have to be followed to the extent the game specifies (which might be very strict, like Magic, or looser, as GW clearly seems to be to me), or the standards are there to enforce some objective reality about the game (Orks are supposed to be on 32mm bases because X).
Nothing that GW has said seems to indicate that they are using base size as some absolute metric for some aspect of the game. Instead, they have established a guideline for base sizes. They could (as it is their game), say that you have to use bases of the appropriate size, like they explain how to determine hits, and wounds, and saves. They have not.
Instead, it really seems like they have said that if it really matters in your particular matched play scenario, to the players, here is a suggested way to handle the base sizes.
FWIW, I think even that is ridiculous. Sure, there are benefits and drawbacks for various models using various base sizes. Sure, one type of model that remains on one type of base may be more effective than another that rebases, while another may benefit from rebasing. If it matters to you, rebase to a new standard. If it doesn't, keep your old bases. Given the lack of precise, mathematical rigor in this game, I can't see that this is the fight to pick.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
You get that, right?
Thats precisely what I'm trying to get at - where do you draw that line? When a certain strategy is viable with 25mm bases? Not rebasing your model is totally up to you, but the game desperately needs uniformity and concrete rule.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
You get that, right?
TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.
It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.
Ork boyz are costed assuming 40 can get in.
You want the unit to lose 40 percent of its value, without changing its point cost?
Of course you do! You love it when your opponents get a 40% nerf without compensation. Just not your army.
I would love for somebody to buy a boat of Ork Boyz already on 25mm bases, and a boat load of Boyz on 32mm bases, and just mix the units together. The amount of people "Reee!"-ing over it would be amusing.
skchsan wrote: Termies went from 25mm to 40mm, and noone said its a huge nerf. Is this only because greentide was a viable army comp and termie "horde" wasnt? Where do we draw the line between standardization and a nerf? To be fair, old termies on 25mm isnt even allowed on the table for most tourneys, while still using 25mm base infantries that got "upgraded" to 32mm are still perfectly legal to do so?
All of the termies could get in to combat, whenever they wanted. Last time I checked, no one was worried about the third or fourth rows of termies.
You get that, right?
TIL Terrain or other models don't exist that can create a funnel effect and affect how many rows of Terminators can fight based on their base size.
It's just my opinion, but I feel if you want to play matched play your bases should be the correct size. The fact that GW refuse to clearly specify the "correct size" is the problem here.
Ork boyz are costed assuming 40 can get in.
You want the unit to lose 40 percent of its value, without changing its point cost?
Of course you do! You love it when your opponents get a 40% nerf without compensation. Just not your army.
Isn't that how most arguments go on Dakka? "Nerf every army but the one that I play"
They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?
Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.
But can't Orks rapidly redeploy that bulk with the Tellaporta stratagem or with Da Jump? I'm just looking for a silver lining here.
They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?
Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.
But can't Orks rapidly redeploy that bulk with the Tellaporta stratagem or with Da Jump? I'm just looking for a silver lining here.
It makes it easier to encircle the enemy, or at least block their path.
The really stupid thing about GW and base sizes is, it is totally possible to write the rules of the game so that base sizes have no in game effect. If I wanted to change the base sizes for aesthetic reasons (this must be the reason GW are doing it!) then I would just make sure that the base sizes were irrelevant. Saga does this for example - rather than measuring on an individual model basis, if a unit is in combat the entire unit is in combat. This is much simpler and less fiddly in game to work out, and means it really does not matter that base size you use.
The fact that GW doesn't design the game this way suggests they do not give a crap about players or they are too incompetent to see the problem or the obvious solution. Given their track record I sadly think it is the latter. Edit to add: Were ork infantry lists over powered this edition? I had played Ork infantry from 3rd edition til 6th when I stopped playing 40K due to hating the way the rules had gone, but I was not under the impression that ork horde lists were that powerful in the current edition. If they are not overpowered then reducing their power further seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.
Seeing players support this is sad. Have ye no sense of fair play?
Entire unit in combat then doesn’t vibe with conga lines to auras, as you end up with guys who must have 20 metre chainswords if they can hit from miles away. Making bases sizes irrelevant impacts on other areas. It’s not incompetence - it’s a choice. Dislike it, cool, but don’t pretend ignoring base sizes doesn’t break other areas of the current rules.
Da Boss wrote: Edit to add: Were ork infantry lists over powered this edition? I had played Ork infantry from 3rd edition til 6th when I stopped playing 40K due to hating the way the rules had gone, but I was not under the impression that ork horde lists were that powerful in the current edition. If they are not overpowered then reducing their power further seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.
Seeing players support this is sad. Have ye no sense of fair play?
Depends. If one of the player slowplays so games go 1-2 turns then orks are king. If game goes the standard 5-6 turns as per scenario(or until one side is wiped) then they were(and doesn't look promising for change either) mainly avoiding wipeouts. General pattern: Turns 1-2: Flood table, score maelstrom cards where you can(praying for secure/defend X as unless it's one opponent parks on you were generally quaranteed to get it. Controlling 5/6 was commong. 4/6 pretty much standard). Then from turn 3 onwards with huge casualties(60 models a turn is pretty easy even for substandard gunline) ork control starts to wane. Turn 4 things are just trying to score anything and keep something alive. Turn 5 is hoping game ends as with that casualty rate even 300+ model army struggles(especially as morale boost is long gone by now so you are losing models to morale as well). Turn 6...Well every time game went to turn 6 I got wiped out.
GW has upped the killing power up the roof in 8th ed while defensive abilities have stayed same. Orks actually took step back in that for boyz...Need to buy more grots.
And to think 60 boyz used to be useful number. Not in 8th :-/ Have to sell tons of models after all.
JohnnyHell wrote: Entire unit in combat then doesn’t vibe with conga lines to auras, as you end up with guys who must have 20 metre chainswords if they can hit from miles away. Making bases sizes irrelevant impacts on other areas. It’s not incompetence - it’s a choice. Dislike it, cool, but don’t pretend ignoring base sizes doesn’t break other areas of the current rules.
Entirely agree with this.
In fact I'd go further and use the base for more so the model can be abstracted. That allows more scope for cool conversions and kit bashing without any possibility of it being considered modelling for advantage.
Since 40K is a mass battle game, I would say "the unit" is a better level of abstraction than the individual. Keeping the skirmish roots in there makes things quite clunky. If there are problems with other weird edge cases with auras and so on, well, that is easy enough to write in a different way so that it cannot be abused.
If GW are going to change base size it is bad game design to have the base size be significant in the game.
(Though, I have stopped playing 40K precisely because I was frustrated with this sort of thing. So perhaps I should bow out of the thread now.)
Da Boss wrote: The really stupid thing about GW and base sizes is, it is totally possible to write the rules of the game so that base sizes have no in game effect. If I wanted to change the base sizes for aesthetic reasons (this must be the reason GW are doing it!) then I would just make sure that the base sizes were irrelevant. Saga does this for example - rather than measuring on an individual model basis, if a unit is in combat the entire unit is in combat. This is much simpler and less fiddly in game to work out, and means it really does not matter that base size you use.
The fact that GW doesn't design the game this way suggests they do not give a crap about players or they are too incompetent to see the problem or the obvious solution. Given their track record I sadly think it is the latter.
Edit to add: Were ork infantry lists over powered this edition? I had played Ork infantry from 3rd edition til 6th when I stopped playing 40K due to hating the way the rules had gone, but I was not under the impression that ork horde lists were that powerful in the current edition. If they are not overpowered then reducing their power further seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.
Seeing players support this is sad. Have ye no sense of fair play?
It's not so much about being better or worse per say personally.
It is the inconsistency that I hate as old players with 25mm bases will still do well and claim their is nothing wrong with the army while new players on 32mm's struggle.
If everyone is playing the same game with the same models atleast some hope exsist of it being noticed that even with a codex they suck. If running them on 25mm keeps them at the top tables GW will say jobs a good one while new players just learn to hate the army and it dies.
Nothing stops new players from using older bases. As Ork Boys were once on 25mms bases, this means some players will still use 25mm bases. As nothing in the game dictates different rules for a new player vs a "veteran", it is perfectly legal for a new player to pick up a box of Boys + some 25mm bases and use those. They shouldn't "have" to, but they can
Same goes for Space marines. If it was legal/supplied with the model as any point in the game's history, you should be able to use it. I feel GW intentionally does not address base size for this very reason. The player should be able to decide which base they feel is the best for their models....within reason. The "within reason" part is important and ultimately up to the player's community to dictate..
For example, Terminators used to be based on 25mm way, WAY back in the day. But now they are on 40mms. That's a big change. While using 25mms might be "legal" given the above guidelines, it should be frowned upon because the models themselves have goen thought many changes since them and really look and play better on 40mms.
One of the last subjective element left in the game is TLOS. This works well for skirmish games but not on a typical 2k pt games (as evidenced by 50% obscured, tip of lance on custodes jetbikes providing TLOS, etc). IMO, the primary branch of 40k matched play needs to do away with any Z-axis directional values completely and go strictly with base-to-base basis.
It's a war sim game, not a FPS. It needs more concrete sets of standards and rules, and in order to do so, certain elements needs to be abstracted further - i.e. base sizes.
Base size is essentially the concept of "hit box" on the table top, and it should be brought up to a level of certain uniformity.
JohnnyHell wrote: Entire unit in combat then doesn’t vibe with conga lines to auras, as you end up with guys who must have 20 metre chainswords if they can hit from miles away. Making bases sizes irrelevant impacts on other areas. It’s not incompetence - it’s a choice. Dislike it, cool, but don’t pretend ignoring base sizes doesn’t break other areas of the current rules.
You could also make coherency a matter of being within a certain range of the unit leader, rather than being next to a single other model. That will make units for blobs round the leader, rather than long chains. That's something for a major revision, though.
Or just say ranges are measured to/from the models' heads (or suitable alternative, in the case of things without a head) and adjust as necessary. Then base size is irrelevant, other than stopping the model falling over.
I suspect that most ork players genuinely don't care too much about the nerf it brings to have the bigger bases (though it's probably an unnecessary nerf now they've gone up to 7pts)
I also believe they look fine on 32mm, maybe a little better than 25mm (though personally I don't really think the difference in looks amounts to much).
The only thing I DO care about is if players ask me to rebase 120 models at a huge cost in time and some probably damage to the feet of the models, just cos GW is rebasing for aesthetics. If they really want to nerf boyz further, I would be a lot less unhappy if they just made them cost more points or something.
I won't be rebasing until GW actually writes it in the rules that you have to rebase old models to new bases in matched play. They were assembled with the bases they were supplied with.
I suspect that most ork players genuinely don't care too much about the nerf it brings to have the bigger bases (though it's probably an unnecessary nerf now they've gone up to 7pts)
I also believe they look fine on 32mm, maybe a little better than 25mm (though personally I don't really think the difference in looks amounts to much).
The only thing I DO care about is if players ask me to rebase 120 models at a huge cost in time and some probably damage to the feet of the models, just cos GW is rebasing for aesthetics. If they really want to nerf boyz further, I would be a lot less unhappy if they just made them cost more points or something.
I won't be rebasing until GW actually writes it in the rules that you have to rebase old models to new bases in matched play. They were assembled with the bases they were supplied with.
This. This is a perfectly acceptable attitude/approach to the current given situation.
I only recently rebased my bikers on the 75mm ovals from the 70mm round rectangle bases. Now their weapons don't get tangled up with each others when I have them stored away, and it looks MUCH better on the oval bases.
Issue of base sizes will only come to play once they establish a "suggested matched play base standards" like in AoS, so in the meanwhile, lets not bring out the pitchforks and lit torches and scream "NERF"
Galef wrote: Nothing stops new players from using older bases. As Ork Boys were once on 25mms bases, this means some players will still use 25mm bases. As nothing in the game dictates different rules for a new player vs a "veteran", it is perfectly legal for a new player to pick up a box of Boys + some 25mm bases and use those. They shouldn't "have" to, but they can
Same goes for Space marines. If it was legal/supplied with the model as any point in the game's history, you should be able to use it. I feel GW intentionally does not address base size for this very reason. The player should be able to decide which base they feel is the best for their models....within reason.
The "within reason" part is important and ultimately up to the player's community to dictate..
For example, Terminators used to be based on 25mm way, WAY back in the day. But now they are on 40mms.
That's a big change. While using 25mms might be "legal" given the above guidelines, it should be frowned upon because the models themselves have goen thought many changes since them and really look and play better on 40mms.
-
So why is me using my 25mm terminators and 25mm Calgar model "should be frowned upon, but buying new ork units and 25mm bases is OK? What is Terminators at 25mm actually are ok and not feelbad to play would that make it ok?
Your setting a weird double standards.
I'm not saying anything about what their power level is, but if base size is such an issue to their power people placing in tournaments with 25mm's will hide how bad or not 32mm boys are.
If everyone playes at 32mm and place like GK's then their is evidence that GW should rightly be forced toadmit their over nerf and address it in FAQ3. (Or atleast in CA 2019, I would rather orks didn't have to wait untill CA 2019 to get playable units).
They'll lose attacks for sure, as less boyz will get into combat, but I wonder if the additional board control from bigger bases make up for this at all?
Almost nothing. The extra base size does not allow any ork to run farther, it just makes more of their "bulk" hang back towards the deployment zone. You DO get more coverage in the deployment zone because of this, but that isn't where ork boyz want to be.
But can't Orks rapidly redeploy that bulk with the Tellaporta stratagem or with Da Jump? I'm just looking for a silver lining here.
This is true. On a deep strike, a 30-strong unit can conga line all across the board, if that is desirable. If it can charge one unit from there, it could theoretically pile in to an entire army. With 32mm bases, that line is 8 inches longer (96 vs 88).
Area effects are similar, and could possibly kill a flyer. The 32s would be slightly better at this.
Galef wrote: Nothing stops new players from using older bases. As Ork Boys were once on 25mms bases, this means some players will still use 25mm bases. As nothing in the game dictates different rules for a new player vs a "veteran", it is perfectly legal for a new player to pick up a box of Boys + some 25mm bases and use those. They shouldn't "have" to, but they can
Same goes for Space marines. If it was legal/supplied with the model as any point in the game's history, you should be able to use it. I feel GW intentionally does not address base size for this very reason. The player should be able to decide which base they feel is the best for their models....within reason.
The "within reason" part is important and ultimately up to the player's community to dictate..
For example, Terminators used to be based on 25mm way, WAY back in the day. But now they are on 40mms.
That's a big change. While using 25mms might be "legal" given the above guidelines, it should be frowned upon because the models themselves have goen thought many changes since them and really look and play better on 40mms.
-
So why is me using my 25mm terminators and 25mm Calgar model "should be frowned upon, but buying new ork units and 25mm bases is OK? What is Terminators at 25mm actually are ok and not feelbad to play would that make it ok?
Your setting a weird double standards.
I'm not saying anything about what their power level is, but if base size is such an issue to their power people placing in tournaments with 25mm's will hide how bad or not 32mm boys are.
If everyone playes at 32mm and place like GK's then their is evidence that GW should rightly be forced toadmit their over nerf and address it in FAQ3. (Or atleast in CA 2019, I would rather orks didn't have to wait untill CA 2019 to get playable units).
Two reasons: 1 - terminators are generalists, and not created specifically as a horde assault unit. They suffer in tight spaces, this is true. But with 5 models the effect is much less pronounced, even with 40s. The net effect on the unit is less. Choppa boyz exist for one purpose, and one purpose only--4 deep charges.
2 - Terminators should be priced appropriately, just like boyz should be on 32s. I think GW realizes their mistake on termies. If they choose to do nothing, it's because they want you to buy new models. But the chance of termies getting an appropriate price (possibly in 2 months) is small but it exists.
In two days, boyz go from 6 points to 7. The chance of 32mm boyz going to an appropriate 5 points is zero.
nareik wrote: Pretty sure any play testing would have been on 25s.
How are you sure of this?
would suggest because its very unlikely GW paid to rebase a large orc army or several for such testing, and likely don't have a large in house ork army on 32mm bases themselves
If so, why were they on 25s for all those years? Was that a mistake?
Accept the new reality, or don't. It doesn't sound like you play in tournaments so youre really not the target audience as far as this discussion goes since nobody outside of your local gaming group will care if your fourth row swings or not. This only matters for competitive where you can have a new Ork player at a disadvantage to an old one. Both against the old Ork player and relatively against any of their other opponents.
I fully expect index options to eventually be removed from matched play/competitive as well. It creates way too many headaches in the long run to carve out exceptions than it does to just say "go with the most current models."
If so, why were they on 25s for all those years? Was that a mistake?
Because GW have changed the base they are on now?
That's awesome, GW can either send me free bases then or they can kiss my ass. Models don't expire, they aren't fruit. My newer models are on the bases they came with, my older models are on bases they came with. I'm not ripping my models apart a decade plus later because they suddenly decided to find another way to pump money out of it's fanbase.
If so, why were they on 25s for all those years? Was that a mistake?
Because GW have changed the base they are on now?
That's awesome, GW can either send me free bases then or they can kiss my ass. Models don't expire, they aren't fruit. My newer models are on the bases they came with, my older models are on bases they came with. I'm not ripping my models apart a decade plus later because they suddenly decided to find another way to pump money out of it's fanbase.
And if you'd read my posts, I said that was perfectly fine because the rules allow it. However, don't expect everyone to go along with that since the new standard is 32mm bases.
Are you guys aware that 32mm bases can fight in 4 ranks? They just have to be in a slightly staggered pattern (6mm apart). I did some geometry, and on a frontage of 100mm exactly 16 25mm bases can fit, while with 32mm bases about 10,5 fit. Sure there is a difference, but it's not like less ranks can fight. I attached a picture to illustrate
Also where are you guys planning on buying 32mm bases? I cant find any deal from gw, so alternatives? [img]
If so, why were they on 25s for all those years? Was that a mistake?
Because GW have changed the base they are on now?
That's awesome, GW can either send me free bases then or they can kiss my ass. Models don't expire, they aren't fruit. My newer models are on the bases they came with, my older models are on bases they came with. I'm not ripping my models apart a decade plus later because they suddenly decided to find another way to pump money out of it's fanbase.
And if you'd read my posts, I said that was perfectly fine because the rules allow it. However, don't expect everyone to go along with that since the new standard is 32mm bases.
Question then, would you have an issue with someone using an older model that has current rules? It's technically not the current standard. For instance I have a chaplain model from the 90s that is a head smaller than current standard marines. Should I put him in a draw and forget he exists because he isn't as big as the current model. The idea of standards for models that need to be updated is silly, and is harmful to the hobby.
HoundsofDemos wrote: The idea of standards for models that need to be updated is silly, and is harmful to the hobby.
And that is where I disagree. I don't think it's too much to ask for you to update the base of your models after 10-20 years.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Question then, would you have an issue with someone using an older model that has current rules? It's technically not the current standard. For instance I have a chaplain model from the 90s that is a head smaller than current standard marines. Should I put him in a draw and forget he exists because he isn't as big as the current model.
I assume you are not familiar with my reputation. Of course I would be ok with it because the rules currently allow you to do so. That doesn't mean the majority of people would (as I have been informed multiple times, the "majority" don't play by the rules). Also, me being "okay" with it doesn't mean I agree with it. If I had my way base size would be a stat on the datasheet and (for matched play at least) be enforced.
Marine players (loyalist) went through this already. My entire Raven Guard force is unplayable in tournaments because its still on 25's which was the standard when I built it in 5th edition.
All my bases were custom made by me so I have yet to find the drive to upgrade them. But that's my choice and I accept it as such.
I used it as personal incentive to start building and play a new army. At some point I'll go back and upgrade the bases.
I feel like I'm the only person that thinks boyz are fine on 25mm. I could see 32mm on any other Ork infantry but boyz don't feel like they need it. I mean, you're sometimes taking 30, smaller base makes sense.
I've been playing since 2nd edition and all my orks and marines have been on 25s. Everyone I have played against since then have used 25s. People who just joined the game and those who hate an ork green tide need to relax. If tournaments want to ban the 25s ork players need not go and let the organizers know about it. GW needs to make a decision. Due they want to drive away all the old ork players or do they want to sell them all the new shiny models they are just putting out. If they want to drive me and my money away that's their decision.
Pointer5 wrote: I've been playing since 2nd edition and all my orks and marines have been on 25s. Everyone I have played against since then have used 25s. People who just joined the game and those who hate an ork green tide need to relax. If tournaments want to ban the 25s ork players need not go and let the organizers know about it. GW needs to make a decision. Due they want to drive away all the old ork players or do they want to sell them all the new shiny models they are just putting out. If they want to drive me and my money away that's their decision.
Persecution complex much? They changed them to 32mm because they changed them to 32mm. They didn't do it to "drive away all the old ork players" because you can still use your old models. If you're playing tournaments you have to be willing to deal with rebasing. If you're not then it doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Also, if you've already bought your models, how can they be "driving you and your money away"?
I do find it a bit interesting that Ork players are angry at something others of us have had to do beforehand over the years. Space Marines and Necrons to 32mm and Terminators to 40mm, Bikers to the new ovals, and so on. It's going to continue until GW is happy with how it looks or whatever reasoning they have for this(I personally just think the larger bases look better).
Regarding a game being gak if it cares about base size then you haven't played many miniature games. Warmahordes has very strict base rules, X-Wing has very strict base rules(with a base scale creep happening between 1.0 and 2.0). Bases are the best unit of measurement of the abstract game that is tabletop wargaming.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Which brings me to my own personal gripe regarding the base change. I can deal with as it is a part of the game as it progresses. Wouldn't be the first game or the last. Games change and the rules evolve. What annoys me about the entire thing is that GW hasn't sold their own conversion kits making everyone rely on Third Party suppliers.
Regarding power of Orks between 25mm and 32mm my guess is we'll see when the Ork codex comes out. Then the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
Eldarsif wrote: I do find it a bit amusing that Ork players are angry at something others of us have had to do beforehand over the years. Space Marines and Necrons to 32mm and Terminators to 40mm, Bikers to the new ovals, and so on. It's going to continue until GW is happy with how it looks or whatever reasoning they have for this(I personally just think the larger bases look better).
Regarding a game being gak if it cares about base size then you haven't played many miniature games. Warmahordes has very strict base rules, X-Wing has very strict base rules(with a base scale creep happening between 1.0 and 2.0). Bases are the best unit of measurement of the abstract game that is tabletop wargaming.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Which brings me to my own personal gripe regarding the base change. I can deal with as it is a part of the game as it progresses. Wouldn't be the first game or the last. Games change and the rules evolve. What annoys me about the entire thing is that GW hasn't sold their own conversion kits making everyone rely on Third Party suppliers.
Regarding power of Orks between 25mm and 32mm my guess is we'll see when the Ork codex comes out. Then the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
It does seem a little odd that they haven't released their own. Seems like an easy sell to that demographic, and doesn't take much design time at all.
BaconCatBug, you are using a tautology. You must know that is poor argument. GW have changed the base size for some reason, there could be several different reasons. We can only speculate as to why. It might be that they wanted to make bigger minis because they think they will look better, and perhaps they just think 32mm looks better on it's own. Perhaps they want to be different to the majority of skirmish games on the market that use 25mm. Who knows?
You say it does not affect you in the slightest but you also say that opponents may disagree with you playing with 32mm bases even in casual games. So it does have an impact on the game for people. Gradually the older bases will not be accepted, and that is a bummer for people who have hundreds of miniatures based on the old bases.
As to tournament play, well, for some people that is a major part of when they get to play. It is a bummer that those people now have to rebase their entire army, which is quite difficult when you have polycemented your boyz to their bases or made custom bases. It is not unreasonable to complain about that or be upset by it.
I think it is fine for them to make whatever choices they want to about the base size for the miniatures, but it would be considerate of them to make sure it did not impact players who have smaller base sizes by thinking about it in the rules.
Regarding a game being gak if it cares about base size then you haven't played many miniature games. Warmahordes has very strict base rules, X-Wing has very strict base rules(with a base scale creep happening between 1.0 and 2.0). Bases are the best unit of measurement of the abstract game that is tabletop wargaming.
.
I very much agree with you here. But I those other games are consistent with base sizes. I understand that GW has been around longer than them and has made changes like this in the past. But those changes tended to be isolated to single units in single armies. It wasn't such a big deal, then. The difference now is that entire ranges are suddenly having their bases changed, and this has a much bigger impact on gameplay. So it would make sense to me that if they are making this change (which to me seems pretty gratuitous, and I would love to hear a GW designer give a rationale for it) it would also make sense to rethink the rules so that base size does not matter to avoid causing problems for people. It is just being considerate. Saga for example allows you to use whatever base size you want and is a very well balanced and enjoyable game.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Another method is to cut the rim of the 25mm base off, glue the mini to a 32mm base and then add some extra basing material to blend the old base into the new one. It's pretty much how I rebased my WHFB daemons onto round bases, way faster than cutting the mini off its original base and you're far less likely to accidentally cut a foot off!
I very much agree with you here. But I those other games are consistent with base sizes. I understand that GW has been around longer than them and has made changes like this in the past. But those changes tended to be isolated to single units in single armies. It wasn't such a big deal, then.
X-Wing did scale changes so they are not consistent. They tested out certain base sizes and realized that it made some ships unbalanced. I would also like to point out that technically GW has already done the biggest base change of them all and that is the change from Fantasy to AoS which was anything but fun. However, the AoS game I am playing now is super fun and I love the round bases on some of my larger units.
I also think their(GW) approach to bases and overall methodology is changing. They've already released a size-guide for AoS and I do believe a size guide for 40k is an eventuality. The biggest question is whether they will keep that scale moving on or if it is at whim. They should also be providing solutions instead of just telling everyone that bases have changed and now you must deal with it in whatever way you can. At least X-Wing Conversion pack gave me a few new bases for the ships that had their base size changed.
On the plus side I do think that as long as they do an additive sizing(ie. bases scale up, not down) then there are very often workarounds either way. I do however agree that it would be nice to hear some rationalizing behind the changes although my guess is that their answer will most likely just be "Rule of Cool".
Eldarsif wrote: I do find it a bit interesting that Ork players are angry at something others of us have had to do beforehand over the years. Space Marines and Necrons to 32mm and Terminators to 40mm, Bikers to the new ovals, and so on. It's going to continue until GW is happy with how it looks or whatever reasoning they have for this(I personally just think the larger bases look better).
Regarding a game being gak if it cares about base size then you haven't played many miniature games. Warmahordes has very strict base rules, X-Wing has very strict base rules(with a base scale creep happening between 1.0 and 2.0). Bases are the best unit of measurement of the abstract game that is tabletop wargaming.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Which brings me to my own personal gripe regarding the base change. I can deal with as it is a part of the game as it progresses. Wouldn't be the first game or the last. Games change and the rules evolve. What annoys me about the entire thing is that GW hasn't sold their own conversion kits making everyone rely on Third Party suppliers.
Regarding power of Orks between 25mm and 32mm my guess is we'll see when the Ork codex comes out. Then the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.
For me, the 40K changes and the AOS changes are the same thing. I am not going to use the 32mm bases for any of that stuff, because I dislike the extended footprint and prefer to be able to be consistent within my collection. So I actually buy 25mm bases for any GW stuff I buy and base them on that. I do not play AoS or 40K any more as a result, but I sometimes buy GW minis to use in other systems.
Eldarsif wrote: I do find it a bit interesting that Ork players are angry at something others of us have had to do beforehand over the years. Space Marines and Necrons to 32mm and Terminators to 40mm, Bikers to the new ovals, and so on. It's going to continue until GW is happy with how it looks or whatever reasoning they have for this(I personally just think the larger bases look better).
Funny you mention that. Guess what bases my marines are? The 25mm bases they have always been with. Like hell I rebase them. Big middle finger to anybody who insist me to rebase them.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Neither option solving the key problem for me. HUNDREDS of euro's that needs to be spent.
tneva82 wrote: Neither option solving the key problem for me. HUNDREDS of euro's that needs to be spent.
You can get a hundred 32mm bases for 35 euro on the GW site, you can get them cheaper on bits sites and even cheaper again if you opt for plain black resin bases off eBay. Have you got more than 300 Orks that would need rebasing or would you be looking to put them on scenic resin/plastic bases?
tneva82 wrote: Neither option solving the key problem for me. HUNDREDS of euro's that needs to be spent.
You can get a hundred 32mm bases for 35 euro on the GW site, you can get them cheaper on bits sites and even cheaper again if you opt for plain black resin bases off eBay. Have you got more than 300 Orks that would need rebasing or would you be looking to put them on scenic resin/plastic bases?
a) I do have hundreds of orks actually. Total model count for my orks is ATM 520 and this doesn't include pile of orks in box and unassembled boxes
b) it's not just bases but movement trays(enough to cover all the models and some spare to differentiate different clans and unit size combinations) to ensure games end up within the ~2.5h I have to play. Those would go to garbage bin because funny that 32mm bases don't fit 25mm base movement trays.
I have never and will never rebase my models. The GW rule is use whatever base your model came with.
Thats what I'll stick with.
I didn't rebase my terminators when they went from 25s to 32s.
I didn't rebase my AOS armies.
I certainly won't rebase anything in the future because I put a lot of time into my models and bases and I have no interest in having to arbitrarily destroy my work every few years because GW decides to add a few more mm to the base and tournament players get bent out of shape because that 7mm difference is suddenly game busting to them.
Eldarsif wrote: I do find it a bit interesting that Ork players are angry at something others of us have had to do beforehand over the years. Space Marines and Necrons to 32mm and Terminators to 40mm, Bikers to the new ovals, and so on. It's going to continue until GW is happy with how it looks or whatever reasoning they have for this(I personally just think the larger bases look better).
Funny you mention that. Guess what bases my marines are? The 25mm bases they have always been with. Like hell I rebase them. Big middle finger to anybody who insist me to rebase them.
Now, does it suck if you have everything based and spent a lot of time it? Definitely, not going to argue that. There are, however, solutions. I personally just glue the old existing base on top of another larger base and create a little terrain/basing out of the thing(steps, skulls, whatever). It does increase the height of the model a bit, but for old Terminators it just puts them in line with the new ones. The second option is to buy those converters some outlets are selling.
Neither option solving the key problem for me. HUNDREDS of euro's that needs to be spent.
Although I do feel you are exaggerating about bases(I am almost pooping bases because I have so many of them and I paid very little for all of them) I get your point. To be fair the movement trays are a different problem and I do empathize. I myself haven't rebased nearly everything I have as I don't see a need until I am actually playing the army in a more competitive environment(which I have used more my Aeldari for). Again, for the sake of transparency this mostly applies to my Dark Angels as I have tried to keep the Necrons correctly based and the Ork change is recent.
Regarding playing I do believe it is still within the ruleset that players agree beforehand before playing whether something is okay or not. You might, however, have some issues if you attend tourneys, but if they are not your thing I think you can be perfectly fine with not rebasing anything. Nobody is forcing you to rebase anything and that is good for everyone to keep in mind. Only time you "might" be forced to change bases is either because of FLGS peer pressure or you are a tourney goer. If you have awesome peers in your group/FLGS and don't attend tourneys then this base sizing will very likely not affect you in any way.
Those would go to garbage bin because funny that 32mm bases don't fit 25mm base movement trays.
You could very well sell those trays to Tyranid or any AoS player who is using smaller bases. If you were to go down the path of rebasing - not saying you should btw - then you could at least recuperate the costs of the movement trays as they have, if anything, become a little more popular.
If your not playing competitively then sure it probably isn't going to be a huge decider on who wins a given game.
But if you want to play competative you suck it up and change.
Simply put you might think its unfair that you have to rebase models.
I think it's unfair that people with old models should have inherent advantage over new players.
Also as has been said by multiple posters you can just get clip on extender rings if rebasing is so objectionable.
auticus wrote: I have never and will never rebase my models. The GW rule is use whatever base your model came with.
Thats what I'll stick with.
I didn't rebase my terminators when they went from 25s to 32s.
I didn't rebase my AOS armies.
I certainly won't rebase anything in the future because I put a lot of time into my models and bases and I have no interest in having to arbitrarily destroy my work every few years because GW decides to add a few more mm to the base and tournament players get bent out of shape because that 7mm difference is suddenly game busting to them.
Then you don't get to complain when someone refuses to play you, or tournaments refuse you entry.
In 20 years (this past summer) that has never happened (being refused a game or entry into an event of any kind). So I'm really not sweating it. All of our local events have always been to use whatever base was supplied with the model. For the past two decades.
For those who are genuinely offended by the 32mm bases: no one here is telling you that you need to rebase your models. All we're saying is that 32mm is the new standard, and YMMV depending on the types of games you will/may be attending in the future.
It's not wrong to say "to hell with new standards!", but it doesn't make the fact false.
auticus wrote: In 20 years (this past summer) that has never happened (being refused a game or entry into an event of any kind). So I'm really not sweating it. All of our local events have always been to use whatever base was supplied with the model. For the past two decades.
Yeah, I feel like 99.9999% of players and events have zero issues with models being on some variant of base that they either are currently or have been previously supplied with.
Few exceptions apply, however, but those are always because the current model is vastly bigger and has thus been supplied with a larger base since. 2 Examples would be Termies and Daemon Princes. When both were metal, they were supplied with 25mm or 40mm respectively. But plastic Termies have had 40mms for over a decade now and the plastic DP comes with a 60mm.
So while most players would accept the metal versions on the smaller bases, the exact same models (from a rules perspective) in their plastic version have never been supplied with the smaller base and thus you might get the stink-eye if you rolled up with a few plastic DPs on 40mms or plastic Termies on 25mm. It's really weird that the same models (again from a rules perspective) can have different standards/expectations put on them, but that seems to be the way it is.
For Orks (to get a bit more on topic) if GW re-releases Ork Boyz with 32mm bases, then Ork players (new or old) will have the choice between either 25mm or 32mm. Both are not only legal, but should be acceptable no matter what your personal opinion is about them
auticus wrote: In 20 years (this past summer) that has never happened (being refused a game or entry into an event of any kind). So I'm really not sweating it. All of our local events have always been to use whatever base was supplied with the model. For the past two decades.
Yeah, I feel like 99.9999% of players and events have zero issues with models being on some variant of base that they either are currently or have been previously supplied with.
Few exceptions apply, however, but those are always because the current model is vastly bigger and has thus been supplied with a larger base since.
2 Examples would be Termies and Daemon Princes. When both were metal, they were supplied with 25mm or 40mm respectively.
But plastic Termies have had 40mms for over a decade now and the plastic DP comes with a 60mm.
So while most players would accept the metal versions on the smaller bases, the exact same models (from a rules perspective) in their plastic version have never been supplied with the smaller base and thus you might get the stink-eye if you rolled up with a few plastic DPs on 40mms or plastic Termies on 25mm.
It's really weird that the same models (again from a rules perspective) can have different standards/expectations put on them, but that seems to be the way it is.
For Orks (to get a bit more on topic) if GW re-releases Ork Boyz with 32mm bases, then Ork players (new or old) will have the choice between either 25mm or 32mm. Both are not only legal, but should be acceptable no matter what your personal opinion is about them
I am at a point in my life where I pretty much only play at organised events. I am not going to go through the hassle and awkwardness of showing up only to be told that my army is not allowed, or even dealing with people complaining that I am modelling for advantage.
You are of course right when you say it is the new standard, but I will just not play the game in that case. No biggy. But I am certainly allowed to voice my opinion about it.
Gitdakka wrote: Are you guys aware that 32mm bases can fight in 4 ranks? They just have to be in a slightly staggered pattern (6mm apart). I did some geometry, and on a frontage of 100mm exactly 16 25mm bases can fit, while with 32mm bases about 10,5 fit. Sure there is a difference, but it's not like less ranks can fight. I attached a picture to illustrate
Also where are you guys planning on buying 32mm bases? I cant find any deal from gw, so alternatives? [img]
Yes, 4 ranks can fight in this pattern. But look at that anemic front row! Instead of 10 wide, you have 6?
auticus wrote: In 20 years (this past summer) that has never happened (being refused a game or entry into an event of any kind). So I'm really not sweating it. All of our local events have always been to use whatever base was supplied with the model. For the past two decades.
Yeah, I feel like 99.9999% of players and events have zero issues with models being on some variant of base that they either are currently or have been previously supplied with.
Few exceptions apply, however, but those are always because the current model is vastly bigger and has thus been supplied with a larger base since.
2 Examples would be Termies and Daemon Princes. When both were metal, they were supplied with 25mm or 40mm respectively.
But plastic Termies have had 40mms for over a decade now and the plastic DP comes with a 60mm.
So while most players would accept the metal versions on the smaller bases, the exact same models (from a rules perspective) in their plastic version have never been supplied with the smaller base and thus you might get the stink-eye if you rolled up with a few plastic DPs on 40mms or plastic Termies on 25mm.
It's really weird that the same models (again from a rules perspective) can have different standards/expectations put on them, but that seems to be the way it is.
For Orks (to get a bit more on topic) if GW re-releases Ork Boyz with 32mm bases, then Ork players (new or old) will have the choice between either 25mm or 32mm. Both are not only legal, but should be acceptable no matter what your personal opinion is about them
Then like I said, Ork players now have the choice of which base they want to use. BOTH are perfectly legal, and more importantly, perfectly acceptable by all reasonable players.
They aren't both "legal", you use the base they come with. You can't buy Boyz now and put them on 25mm bases. Of course it's impossible to "prove" either way.
Da Boss wrote: 5 pages because of having to potentially rebase hundreds of miniatures, damaging them in the process.
Luckily for you, no one forced you to read the thread.
Yes because that's exactly what happened before.
Terminators on 25mm were rebased to 40mm. You had no choice in the matter. You had to do it.
Everyone with marines on 25mm has had to rebase to 32mm. With no choice in the matter.
All fantasy stuff has been rebased to circles. With no choice given.
Thousands of miniatures have been destroyed!!!
Oh wait...no hang on...that's all bs.
Today's players really are safe space hugging snowflakes XD
Bingo. And I don't see that rule that you use the base they come with anymore, and GW keeps changing FAQs, it is actually written somewhere? I searched the Battle Primer and most recent FAQ, but couldn't find anything remotely suggesting base size
Da Boss wrote: 5 pages because of having to potentially rebase hundreds of miniatures, damaging them in the process.
Luckily for you, no one forced you to read the thread.
Yes because that's exactly what happened before.
Terminators on 25mm were rebased to 40mm. You had no choice in the matter. You had to do it.
Everyone with marines on 25mm has had to rebase to 32mm. With no choice in the matter.
All fantasy stuff has been rebased to circles. With no choice given.
Thousands of miniatures have been destroyed!!!
Oh wait...no hang on...that's all bs.
Today's players really are safe space hugging snowflakes XD
Mate, I have been playing since second edition.
My post also contained the word "potentially". We are just discussing the news, which is the point of the discussion forum. You came in to piss all over everyone so you could feel superior, because you are very tough and strong and don't care about such trivial matters. I mean whatever floats your boat but don't fool yourself.
Bingo. And I don't see that rule that you use the base they come with anymore, and GW keeps changing FAQs, it is actually written somewhere?
-
As I've said at least four times now, RaW you can base your models however you want. If you want to put your grots on 60mm bases, that's legal. If you want to put your Knights on 25mm bases, also legal. But we're not talking about legality here because, as I have been informed, most people don't follow the rules. The whole concept of "Use the base they came on" is a social standard, not a rules standard. I personally disagree with both the social and the current rules standard. If I had my way base size would be a statistic on the datasheet (with "No Base" and "Flying Base" as options too) and be strictly enforced in matched play at the very least (with open play being whatever you want because who cares). However, since GW won't let me work for them for free to fix their rules, the rules are what the rules are and I would never dare to inform someone that because I don't like a rule I won't follow it.
From my own anecdotal experiences, people tend to dislike when people use the "wrong" base size, whether that is 25mm Terminators or 25mm Space Marines and (from now on I assume) 25mm Boyz and Nobz. I can only hope that tournaments do start enforcing base sizes (and lets face it anyone who enjoys playing 40k at tournaments is not the kind of person to get upset about needing to rebase their models) and GarageHammer will continue on as it always has, regardless of RaW, FAQs or Unwritten Constitutions.
If the tournament standard for Ork bases is 32mm, that would be really frustrating for a lot of Ork players, but probably better for the health of the game.
I am at a bit of a loss as to why nerfing orks is good for the health of the game, and also disagree that "the sort of player that plays at tournaments" would not mind rebasing all their miniatures. I think I have 220 or so 25mm based boyz in my most commonly used list. Damn right I would be butthurt about having to rebase it, especially since it is against the rules.
Not rebasing here, if GW want ork boys on 32mm they need to update the models so you have ork boy models that have only ever been on 32mm, they could make decent 'ard boyz etc
current models are staying on 25mm so they match the rest of them
if an event locally that I'm interested in says "no" I either use another army or don't attend, meh
Bingo.
And I don't see that rule that you use the base they come with anymore, and GW keeps changing FAQs, it is actually written somewhere?
-
As I've said at least four times now, RaW you can base your models however you want. If you want to put your grots on 60mm bases, that's legal. If you want to put your Knights on 25mm bases, also legal. But we're not talking about legality here because, as I have been informed, most people don't follow the rules. The whole concept of "Use the base they came on" is a social standard, not a rules standard. I personally disagree with both the social and the current rules standard. If I had my way base size would be a statistic on the datasheet (with "No Base" and "Flying Base" as options too) and be strictly enforced in matched play at the very least (with open play being whatever you want because who cares). However, since GW won't let me work for them for free to fix their rules, the rules are what the rules are and I would never dare to inform someone that because I don't like a rule I won't follow it.
From my own anecdotal experiences, people tend to dislike when people use the "wrong" base size, whether that is 25mm Terminators or 25mm Space Marines and (from now on I assume) 25mm Boyz and Nobz. I can only hope that tournaments do start enforcing base sizes (and lets face it anyone who enjoys playing 40k at tournaments is not the kind of person to get upset about needing to rebase their models) and GarageHammer will continue on as it always has, regardless of RaW, FAQs or Unwritten Constitutions.
Ok, that makes sense.
But I've always interpreted it as "Use the base the model CAME with" meaning any valid base size the particular model has ever been supplied with.
So If I bought a box of Orks last month, they CAME with 25mm
If I buy as box next month, they will have CAME with 32mm.
So Orks come with either 25mm or 32mm depending on when and where you bought them. So under the "social contract" either base is acceptable.
I've never interpreted it as you exact model came with this specific 32mm base, so it must be this base. It cannot be that 32mm that cam in a different box, it must be THIS 32mm that came with its box. If that were the case, then no one should ever be allowed to use scenic bases.
People typically only get huffy when the base sizes are different. If you are using a scenic 32 instead of a flat 32, I have never read nor seen anyone care about that instance.
There are pros and cons to having different size bases.
The one that people light on the most is that if they up the size then if you use a smaller size you're getting more models into contact and thus more attacks.
The downside is that if you are on a smaller base you don't take up as much tablespace. Which means screening operations and objective holding are more difficult.
The only intent that is currently written that I know about from Games Workshop is with regards to AOS where they have a suggested base size chart but specifically mention that the base your model came with is legal.
Da Boss wrote: I am at a bit of a loss as to why nerfing orks is good for the health of the game, and also disagree that "the sort of player that plays at tournaments" would not mind rebasing all their miniatures. I think I have 220 or so 25mm based boyz in my most commonly used list. Damn right I would be butthurt about having to rebase it, especially since it is against the rules.
It should be more than trivial to get all of your dudes in to fight. Especially with how easy it is to get a 9" charge for Orks with updated 'Ere we go, and also the ability to make it an 8" charge out of DS.
Finally, in a 'scale' standpoint, marines are T4 1W and are on 32mm, why not Orks?
auticus wrote: People typically only get huffy when the base sizes are different. If you are using a scenic 32 instead of a flat 32, I have never read nor seen anyone care about that instance.
That's because a few mm difference in height is generally a lot less significant in the game than a few mm difference in width. Especially on a melee unit.
Also you absolutely do get people getting huffy when a model is modelled much higher or lower than usual.
I've never seen anyone flip a table over a few mm in height. I've seen people pull the low crawling eldar wraith knight stuff before and that caused a great deal of angst, but never have in 20 years seen anyone care about a few mm in height from a scenic base.
I suppose different regions have different standards though so that's a new one for me to learn today
I would never change bases because of a rule change, because what's to prevent GW from changing the rule again? I did change some ork bases on my own, putting the nobs in my army on 32mm to distinguish them a bit more from regular boys.
amanita wrote: I did change some ork bases on my own, putting the nobs in my army on 32mm to distinguish them a bit more from regular boys.
I appreciate little things like this.
I think the most important thing is to be consistent. If you're a long-time player that has your models on 25mms, you should continue to put any new models of the same type on 25mm. Just do not mix 25mm and 32mm in the same army for the same type of model, unless it MEANS something, like having your Boyz on 25s and your Nobs on 32s.
amanita wrote: I did change some ork bases on my own, putting the nobs in my army on 32mm to distinguish them a bit more from regular boys.
I appreciate little things like this.
I think the most important thing is to be consistent. If you're a long-time player that has your models on 25mms, you should continue to put any new models of the same type on 25mm.
Just do not mix 25mm and 32mm in the same army for the same type of model, unless it MEANS something, like having your Boyz on 25s and your Nobs on 32s.
-
That sounds like a fine approach, but I think people should be encouraged to stick with 32mm - especially new players as they may find themselves stuck in a corner if they ever want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
Daedalus81 wrote: ..... want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
I guess my stance is that no tourney should EVER enforce base size by requiring the latest base be used. It's fine to only allow any base a particular model has ever been supplied with, as we do need some restriction to prevent people doing crazy things But requiring the newest, latest base, is an unfair requirement.
If someone wants to spend the time and money rebasing to use whichever size is "best", that should be their choice. But just because a kit has been updated, you should not require older players to spend that same time, money and effort if they do not want to.
Daedalus81 wrote: ..... want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
I guess my stance is that no tourney should EVER enforce base size by requiring the latest base be used. It's fine to only allow any base a particular model has ever been supplied with, but requiring the newest, latest base, is an unfair requirement.
If someone wants to spend the time and money rebasing to use whichever size is "best", that should be their choice. But just because a kit has been updated, you should not require older players to spend that same time, money and effort if they do not want to.
-
No-one is "requiring" anything of anyone. If a tournament wants to house rule that certain models must have certain bases, that's perfectly within their remit. Likewise, if you don't like it you don't have to go to those tournaments. And if you still want to play tournaments with your old, strictly superior models, make your own tournaments.
Da Boss wrote: I am at a bit of a loss as to why nerfing orks is good for the health of the game, and also disagree that "the sort of player that plays at tournaments" would not mind rebasing all their miniatures. I think I have 220 or so 25mm based boyz in my most commonly used list. Damn right I would be butthurt about having to rebase it, especially since it is against the rules.
It should be more than trivial to get all of your dudes in to fight. Especially with how easy it is to get a 9" charge for Orks with updated 'Ere we go, and also the ability to make it an 8" charge out of DS.
Finally, in a 'scale' standpoint, marines are T4 1W and are on 32mm, why not Orks?
Have you tried it? Set up a knight or other large base near other models, then teleport 40 32mm boyz in and charge them. Use 11 for your charge roll.
IF the boyz can nearly surround the knight, it is easy. If they are forced into a blob or a wedge-shape, and can only go 11 inches, see how many get in the first 3 rows.
Da Boss wrote: I am at a bit of a loss as to why nerfing orks is good for the health of the game, and also disagree that "the sort of player that plays at tournaments" would not mind rebasing all their miniatures. I think I have 220 or so 25mm based boyz in my most commonly used list. Damn right I would be butthurt about having to rebase it, especially since it is against the rules.
It should be more than trivial to get all of your dudes in to fight. Especially with how easy it is to get a 9" charge for Orks with updated 'Ere we go, and also the ability to make it an 8" charge out of DS.
Finally, in a 'scale' standpoint, marines are T4 1W and are on 32mm, why not Orks?
Have you tried it? Set up a knight or other large base near other models, then teleport 40 32mm boyz in and charge them. Use 11 for your charge roll.
IF the boyz can nearly surround the knight, it is easy. If they are forced into a blob or a wedge-shape, and can only go 11 inches, see how many get in the first 3 rows.
Just playing along with this idea in real life setting - what's stopping the knight from just falling back? I mean, I'm assuming your charging with 4 ranks of boyz to tie up the knight, no? If that's the case, wouldn't it be easier to trap it in with 32mm bases intead?
Daedalus81 wrote: ..... want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
I guess my stance is that no tourney should EVER enforce base size by requiring the latest base be used. It's fine to only allow any base a particular model has ever been supplied with, but requiring the newest, latest base, is an unfair requirement.
If someone wants to spend the time and money rebasing to use whichever size is "best", that should be their choice. But just because a kit has been updated, you should not require older players to spend that same time, money and effort if they do not want to.
-
No-one is "requiring" anything of anyone. If a tournament wants to house rule that certain models must have certain bases, that's perfectly within their remit. Likewise, if you don't like it you don't have to go to those tournaments. And if you still want to play tournaments with your old, strictly superior models, make your own tournaments.
But it isn't that simple. Some people do not get the opportunity to play casual games and use tournaments as a way to pack several games in a single day. If a TO is that staunch about base size and the player in question has older models, I hope you can see how that isn't a fair judgment on the TOs part.
Having "house rules" is fine, but they should always be for the benefit of the players, not the detriment. Enforcing base size (other than the reasonable restriction that you have to use some version of a base the model has once been on) is a detriment.
Daedalus81 wrote: ..... want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
I guess my stance is that no tourney should EVER enforce base size by requiring the latest base be used.
It's fine to only allow any base a particular model has ever been supplied with, as we do need some restriction to prevent people doing crazy things
But requiring the newest, latest base, is an unfair requirement.
If someone wants to spend the time and money rebasing to use whichever size is "best", that should be their choice.
But just because a kit has been updated, you should not require older players to spend that same time, money and effort if they do not want to.
-
What is more unfair? A unit that can come in blocks of 30 and is way stronger when on 25mms or having to buy blue tack and base extenders?
I'm not saying Boyz will be broken on 25s, but they could be and they'll be on the receiving end of tournament restrictions.
Genestealers should probably expect the same when GSC comes out (god knows those models need it anyway).
Daedalus81 wrote: ..... want to play in tournaments that enforce a base size.
I guess my stance is that no tourney should EVER enforce base size by requiring the latest base be used. It's fine to only allow any base a particular model has ever been supplied with, but requiring the newest, latest base, is an unfair requirement.
If someone wants to spend the time and money rebasing to use whichever size is "best", that should be their choice. But just because a kit has been updated, you should not require older players to spend that same time, money and effort if they do not want to.
-
No-one is "requiring" anything of anyone. If a tournament wants to house rule that certain models must have certain bases, that's perfectly within their remit. Likewise, if you don't like it you don't have to go to those tournaments. And if you still want to play tournaments with your old, strictly superior models, make your own tournaments.
But it isn't that simple. Some people do not get the opportunity to play casual games and use tournaments as a way to pack several games in a single day. If a TO is that staunch about base size and the player in question has older models, I hope you can see how that isn't a fair judgment on the TOs part.
Having "house rules" is fine, but they should always be for the benefit of the players, not the detriment.
-
And from my perspective, the house rule to standardise base sizes is for the benefit of the players. It stops that one WAAC 16 year old from putting all his models on 25mm bases and saying "I bought these 20 years ago, honest." and having a MASSIVE advantage over a newer player who bought the new ork kits.
Again I will put the disclaimer and say I'd be totally fine with whatever bases you want to use, but the "most recent" base size is what I think should be enforced, especially for organised play where you need a clear and fair ruleset for everyone.
No, the whole point is to kill it...or at least work on that.
.....You... aren't serious about this are you?
A single swing of choppa from a boy has .0370 chance of wounding a T8 +3 Sv knight.
This would mean that mathematically you need 648 basic, unbuffed swings from a choppa to kill a knight.
Assuming 7 ppm boyz in a unit of 20+ boyz, in a vacuum, that would equate to 1,134 points worth of boyz. That sounds like a terrible way to deal with knights if you ask me.
Marmatag wrote: 11 inches of charge + 3 inches of pile in is enough to get 30 boyz to fight.
Because 3 rows can fight /w 25 mm bases. That means you need 10 boyz within 1" to get 30 to fight.
A unit of 30 boyz deal on average 4.44 W against a knight where all 30 boyz are swinging all 4 attacks at the knight. Lets assume they sourced a re-roll hit from somewhere: thats 5.92 W's. What if they have re-roll hits AND wound? 10.86 W against the knight.
Saying "32mm boyz are worth significantly less when trying to kill a knight" is a poor excuse for justifying why boyz shouldn't be on 32mm bases.
No, the whole point is to kill it...or at least work on that.
.....You... aren't serious about this are you?
A single swing of choppa from a boy has .0370 chance of wounding a T8 +3 Sv knight.
This would mean that mathematically you need 648 basic, unbuffed swings from a choppa to kill a knight.
Assuming 7 ppm boyz in a unit of 20+ boyz, in a vacuum, that would equate to 1,134 points worth of boyz. That sounds like a terrible way to deal with knights if you ask me.
I am deadly serious. Which is why we need 25 mm bases...
40 boyz who can all swing will get 6 wounds on the knight. Which is, considering, pretty close to fair, as 280 points killing 1/4 of a 400 point model in one turn is pretty ballpark for non-broken 40k (using the metric of a unit killing 1/3 of its own points per turn).
That's why I'm pretty salty about this whole thing. If you lose a quarter of those swings, it starts to get ugly really fast.
Some of this salt comes from the fact that orks had almost no ranged d6 damage and could do practically nothing against knights. The choppa boyz dropping 6 damage was one of our only options. With the codex, that is no longer true, and so "death by 648 cuts" may not be needed as much.
nevertheless, paying 7 points for a boy only to not get to use him at all is no fun (remember, after the boyz get that one attack the other side will fall back and vaporize all 40 of them.) making them bigger puts a big chunk of them out of their attack range, but still in plain view of the lasguns (et al) that did not get this nerf, on 32s OR 25s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: 11 inches of charge + 3 inches of pile in is enough to get 30 boyz to fight.
Because 3 rows can fight /w 25 mm bases. That means you need 10 boyz within 1" to get 30 to fight.
Yes, but 30 is not enough. We paid for 40, shouldn't we get to use 40?
Also, 10 32s do not always fit on the front line. If there is terrain or other units flanking the knight, the boyz can't occupy that space no matter how big the bases are. The best solution is to pack in as many as possible into a narrow, dense line, and back that up with 3 more rows.
No, the whole point is to kill it...or at least work on that.
.....You... aren't serious about this are you?
A single swing of choppa from a boy has .0370 chance of wounding a T8 +3 Sv knight.
This would mean that mathematically you need 648 basic, unbuffed swings from a choppa to kill a knight.
Assuming 7 ppm boyz in a unit of 20+ boyz, in a vacuum, that would equate to 1,134 points worth of boyz. That sounds like a terrible way to deal with knights if you ask me.
I am deadly serious. Which is why we need 25 mm bases...
40 boyz who can all swing will get 6 wounds on the knight. Which is, considering, pretty close to fair, as 280 points killing 1/4 of a 400 point model in one turn is pretty ballpark for non-broken 40k (using the metric of a unit killing 1/3 of its own points per turn).
That's why I'm pretty salty about this whole thing. If you lose a quarter of those swings, it starts to get ugly really fast.
Some of this salt comes from the fact that orks had almost no ranged d6 damage and could do practically nothing against knights. The choppa boyz dropping 6 damage was one of our only options. With the codex, that is no longer true, and so "death by 648 cuts" may not be needed as much.
nevertheless, paying 7 points for a boy only to not get to use him at all is no fun (remember, after the boyz get that one attack the other side will fall back and vaporize all 40 of them.) making them bigger puts a big chunk of them out of their attack range, but still in plain view of the lasguns (et al) that did not get this nerf, on 32s OR 25s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: 11 inches of charge + 3 inches of pile in is enough to get 30 boyz to fight.
Because 3 rows can fight /w 25 mm bases. That means you need 10 boyz within 1" to get 30 to fight.
Yes, but 30 is not enough. We paid for 40, shouldn't we get to use 40?
Also, 10 32s do not always fit on the front line. If there is terrain or other units flanking the knight, the boyz can't occupy that space no matter how big the bases are. The best solution is to pack in as many as possible into a narrow, dense line, and back that up with 3 more rows.
Let us hope the ork codex is better internally balanced so resorting to 40 boyz is not the best solution to fighting a knight!
skchsan wrote: Let us hope the ork codex is better internally balanced so resorting to 40 boyz is not the best solution to fighting a knight!
I am almost certain that it is not even if it means clearing the whole table except the knight.
It is better. Mek guns have better range and damage, the new buggies hit pretty hard and quite a few things got huge point drops. Plus a 16% across the board shooting increase.
Enough to drop 2000 points of knights? Nope. Still need choppas, at least to finish them off.
a) I do have hundreds of orks actually. Total model count for my orks is ATM 520 and this doesn't include pile of orks in box and unassembled boxes
b) it's not just bases but movement trays(enough to cover all the models and some spare to differentiate different clans and unit size combinations) to ensure games end up within the ~2.5h I have to play. Those would go to garbage bin because funny that 32mm bases don't fit 25mm base movement trays.
Five hundred and twenty orks Hopefully you won't have to go through the hassle of rebasing them all!
No, the whole point is to kill it...or at least work on that.
Well, while they can fall back over infantry and swarm models, they still have to be more than 1" away from enemy units. They might have a harder time doing that with the larger footprint of a unit on 32mm bases
(and a few other odds and ends whose feet stick off a 25mm base; Inquisitor Coteaz and one of the Malleus Inquisitors for example).
Hopefully you won't have to go through the hassle of rebasing them all!