Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

"MoDElinG fOr AdvANtaGe"

Or something like that. I personally don't care if the new marines are on 32, if you want to play them on 24mm go ahead.

The boyz never fit that well on 25mm bases and 32mm look right nice :-)

 Kroem wrote:
The boyz never fit that well on 25mm bases and 32mm look right nice :-)

I literally have 400+ ork models. I will not be changing their bases just because GW finally figured out that issue. Any new models will get their new base but otherwise nope.

In general I don't.

I wouldn't and would even be using the old base size for newer models. I don't like the look of a bunch of sizes mixed in an army (except for units with major size differences). And besides, it would be impossible to find 32mm washers.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

Presumably so they can play against other people who want to use the current base sizes. Same reason why people get the 9th ed. Codex Space Marines when the 8th ed. book is still perfectly usable.

At least it's not as destructive as people cutting their battlemats.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I wouldn't and would even be using the old base size for newer models. I don't like the look of a bunch of sizes mixed in an army (except for units with major size differences). And besides, it would be impossible to find 32mm washers.

See that's what I do atm. 20 new marines get Ebay bought 25mm, makes more sense than ripping up hundreds of the already based and painted models in my army.

I play in tournaments which tend to enforce the proper base size.

Honestly, most of the new bases make things look better/ less wobbly. I rebased all my Wraiths to 50 MM and it's much better.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

Presumably so they can play against other people who want to use the current base sizes. Same reason why people get the 9th ed. Codex Space Marines when the 8th ed. book is still perfectly usable.

At least it's not as destructive as people cutting their battlemats.

,
Whole armies ripped off their bases, cleaned up, fixed on new bases, which then need basing. A lot more work and a lot more destructive I think (also you can just not use part of a battlemat).

Also rules changes and minor model changes are really not the same, and it's disengenuous to suggest otherwise.

Traditionally, I've just left them on whatever size they came with as GW has stated that this is still legal. I know tournaments have different standards but even without Covid, work has me busy enough that tournaments aren't really a thing for me, so like I said, I haven't been worrying about it.

That said, a friend just told me you can actually get "base expanders". Essentially, "new bases" that the old basis fit into. So this way, you would theoretically be able to keep your old bases and get the correct new base size as well. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet, but if this is true, I could see myself slowly converting to the new sizes. My biggest issue has been not wanting to destroy bases I spent a ton of time on (not to mention the few completed models you're likely to wreck because they didn't separate cleanly from the old base). This would eliminate that concern for me.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
The boyz never fit that well on 25mm bases and 32mm look right nice :-)

I literally have 400+ ork models. I will not be changing their bases just because GW finally figured out that issue. Any new models will get their new base but otherwise nope.

Same.

I did put the correct oval bases under my scratch built buggies though, so they could be an acceptable conversion of the new buggies. But they didn't have any base before, it was no trouble at all, except that I had to find MDF bases on ebay because GW doesn't sell them separately.

I like having all my marines on 32mm bases, they look better that way. But, I've not had to rebase models besides that.

The entire game runs to base size, if you've 25mm vs 32mm you can get more models in a specific area with 25mm bases compared to 32mm. Which means more models which can make it into close combat; or more models which can stand in a line and be in range to shoot etc.

Base size affects model performance.

Rebasing is thus a means to keeping up to date with the models development. The only issue is sometimes GW is haphazard and doesn't make it clear for 40K what size models are supposed to be on.




Otherwise rebasing isn't all you can do. As Tycho notes there are also base extenders; stick them on and the base is bigger and you've not had to pull anything off the base .

Tycho wrote:
Traditionally, I've just left them on whatever size they came with as GW has stated that this is still legal. I know tournaments have different standards but even without Covid, work has me busy enough that tournaments aren't really a thing for me, so like I said, I haven't been worrying about it.

Tournaments always have house rules, like time limitations or the requirement of having the entire army painted.

As long as the rulebook doesn't have a chart in which are stated the legal base dimensions of each unit, there is no official rule that makes older base sizes illegal.

 Overread wrote:
The entire game runs to base size, if you've 25mm vs 32mm you can get more models in a specific area with 25mm bases compared to 32mm. Which means more models which can make it into close combat; or more models which can stand in a line and be in range to shoot etc.

Base size affects model performance.

Rebasing is thus a means to keeping up to date with the models development. The only issue is sometimes GW is haphazard and doesn't make it clear for 40K what size models are supposed to be on.




Otherwise rebasing isn't all you can do. As Tycho notes there are also base extenders; stick them on and the base is bigger and you've not had to pull anything off the base .

The problem is that you can still get kits with older size bases from GW themselves. Drukhari scourge still can be found with 25mm bases even in official GW stores.

It doesn't sound like much of a difference, but you can do a fair bit more basing on a 32mm compared to a 25mm.

To be honest I don't really much care. I decided to rebase all my Marines years ago. Bought a couple of bags of bases and did it all one afternoon. If someone rocks up with an army on 25mm bases when they should be on 32mm, I really wouldn't mind, same as when my opponents don't mind that my HQs are on 40mm bases so I can really add some scenic bits.

It has always entertained that people embrace horrendous army imbalance but freak out about a couple mm on a character base "cuz the auras will give you an advantage"

It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The entire game runs to base size, if you've 25mm vs 32mm you can get more models in a specific area with 25mm bases compared to 32mm. Which means more models which can make it into close combat; or more models which can stand in a line and be in range to shoot etc.

Base size affects model performance.

Rebasing is thus a means to keeping up to date with the models development. The only issue is sometimes GW is haphazard and doesn't make it clear for 40K what size models are supposed to be on.




Otherwise rebasing isn't all you can do. As Tycho notes there are also base extenders; stick them on and the base is bigger and you've not had to pull anything off the base .

The problem is that you can still get kits with older size bases from GW themselves. Drukhari scourge still can be found with 25mm bases even in official GW stores.

Oh agreed, its a mess for Tyranids as well.
It's why I wish GW would release a base size chart - they CAN do it; they did it (and kept it up to date) for AoS and its a godsend for keeping things clear. It also keeps GW from random base size changes because they will get noticed. Right now 40K is a free-for-all where you could get any base in a box and be confused.

Every time this comes up I try to remind people to politely email GW and ask for a base size chart, like AoS has, for 40K. The more of us who ask the more chance GW will do it.

For me, I want there to be consistent base sizing across the whole army. If it changes then any new models I add will be on the new size, so I want the older ones to match. If the army in question is already done though and I do not plan to add to it then I will leave it as it was.

Another factor for me is that when the base size changes I almost always think it is an improvement in visuals. And for some units, like my tyranid warriors, I couldn't even fit them base to base on the smaller size to begin with!

Basing is the only thing in the hobby I don't like to do. So of course I would never rebase models as I'm happy about every model that actually has a proper base . I also couldn't care less about tournaments and GW themselves throw different base sizes into kits without any clear pattern, so who cares, really? Take your Metal Terminators on 25mm and let them fight against my power Armoured Foul Blightspawn on 40mm Base, the game won't explode.

 Overread wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The entire game runs to base size, if you've 25mm vs 32mm you can get more models in a specific area with 25mm bases compared to 32mm. Which means more models which can make it into close combat; or more models which can stand in a line and be in range to shoot etc.

Base size affects model performance.

Rebasing is thus a means to keeping up to date with the models development. The only issue is sometimes GW is haphazard and doesn't make it clear for 40K what size models are supposed to be on.




Otherwise rebasing isn't all you can do. As Tycho notes there are also base extenders; stick them on and the base is bigger and you've not had to pull anything off the base .

The problem is that you can still get kits with older size bases from GW themselves. Drukhari scourge still can be found with 25mm bases even in official GW stores.

Oh agreed, its a mess for Tyranids as well.
It's why I wish GW would release a base size chart - they CAN do it; they did it (and kept it up to date) for AoS and its a godsend for keeping things clear. It also keeps GW from random base size changes because they will get noticed. Right now 40K is a free-for-all where you could get any base in a box and be confused.

Every time this comes up I try to remind people to politely email GW and ask for a base size chart, like AoS has, for 40K. The more of us who ask the more chance GW will do it.

Heh. I'm working against you here in that I send them Emails asking for no base size chart & arguing for its removal from AoS.

As a tournament judge, please don't :(

My marines look a lot better on a 32mil. I even rebase my old metal minis, just snip off the planck in the middle and glue onto the new base.

Also, If you're going to mix Primaris with firstborn, having both on same size bases makes the size difference easier to stomach somehow.

Still keeping my scouts on 28mil. Makes them look smaller, which I find fitting!

I finally re-based my Dark Vengeance Chosen like a month-and-a-half ago. I did it becuase I had long since refreshed my CSM army to the new scuplts that those models weren't very likely to see play being miss-matched and looking even smaller than the new marines. I have small pile of 32mm bases now. So I took the opportunity to re-base them. Even managed to keep enough of the slotta piece to give them a lift making them appear like they are the same size as the new marines. Now I am flushed with Aspiring Champions and the ability to run Chosen with way too many different weapons in them.

I couldn't remove the base from the Chaos Lord from Dark Vengeance. So I just glued the old base to 32mm and stuck some bits on the lower bench. It doesn't look great, but I think it is serviceable with the cape doing a lot of lifting to conceal how lazy I was. It also has the added benefit of really hiding that the lord is shorter than the new models to the point that unless scrutinizing the model, it actually looks bigger because of the biggest, flattest, roundest tactical rock.

I started 40k just slightly before the marine change from 25mm to 32mm. I definitely had the ability to go to 32mm with minimal re-basing early in my collection. I held out as the smaller bases required less basing. Which I don't much care for. Other than my Fallen and Vrosh Tattersoul (Exaulted Champion), I have either given away or re-based my collection to current base-sizes. However, I didn't have all that many models to change. So few, I didn't buy bases specifically to do it. I don't know if I would have bothered if I had a bigger collection.

That said, 32mm look and work so much better than 25mm. I would have preferred that Genestealers would have gone to 32mm way back when. That way a lot less of the model would over-hang the base.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

It doesn't take tearing them apart. I just put adapter rings on all my Sisters.

As for bases sizes, yes, it is a problem. The size of the base determines how densely the unit can be packed, where models and fit, and how much the unit can spread out. In fact, the model can be basically anything, as long as the base size is proper, because for the most part it's the base that plays the game by defining the model's position, volume, etc. and the model itself is decorative.

ccs wrote:
In general I don't.

This.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

It doesn't take tearing them apart. I just put adapter rings on all my Sisters.

As for bases sizes, yes, it is a problem. The size of the base determines how densely the unit can be packed, where models and fit, and how much the unit can spread out. In fact, the model can be basically anything, as long as the base size is proper, because for the most part it's the base that plays the game by defining the model's position, volume, etc. and the model itself is decorative.

There's pros and cons to smaller or bigger bases. If a few mm of base were really such an issue, why hasn't GW made it a rule?

Because GW takes a casual approach to their rules.

Aesthetics. I think a lot of classic-Marine models whose feet hung off their 25mm bases look better on 32mm bases.

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
As a tournament judge, please don't :(

Why not? I'm not in favor of "official" base sizes and I think GW needs to hear my opinion on that.

JakeSiren wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

That I think is the perfect example of why GE should be providing 2 things
1 a base size chart
2 if you buy a box that doesn't have the correct base in it you should be able to swap them in store for the current bases free of charge.

I've received boxes of ork boyz before that still came with small bases. An email to GW about it ended up with them sending me a pack of 32mm bases.

I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

I will be honest, I don't rebase my models. I won't, I don't play tournaments anymore and if someone has an issue with my old models, or feels like my base size is the only reason I can win, they can just not play with me.

At a certain point people need to take agency of being an adult and accept loss may sometimes happen to skill or luck or both in some aspects and not just because of the give and take of a base size.

Frankly I feel like they push the base size changes more to try and make more money by selling new models or bags of bases. I won't buy hundreds and hundreds of dollars of bases for models I already spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on just because they decide they want me to have larger bases after 20 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For me, I want there to be consistent base sizing across the whole army. If it changes then any new models I add will be on the new size, so I want the older ones to match. If the army in question is already done though and I do not plan to add to it then I will leave it as it was.

Another factor for me is that when the base size changes I almost always think it is an improvement in visuals. And for some units, like my tyranid warriors, I couldn't even fit them base to base on the smaller size to begin with!

Quoting you, because I like you. This is how I run it as well, like the majority of my marine forces are older models on old bases but I did make a deathwatch force that is all using the current base size for marines. I just won't change my hundreds of other old models and spend that money and time to do so. So the base size changes if anything just mean my older groups are done as is which means less money for GW which I am sure was their intention.

I only rebased an army once. It was about 8000 pts of Daemons, 90% of which where infantry-sized guys like Plaguebearers and Horrors.

Of course, that was after I got burnt out on WHFB, took them off their squares, and put them on rounds for 40K. But there's no way in Hell I'm changing them from 25's to 32's now.

Fun thing is that now I can put them on movement trays that hold round bases when some of my friends get the urge to Oldhammer. It was a blast playing that after AOS had been a thing for literally years.

@AngryAngel, WTY for the compliment

ccs wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
As a tournament judge, please don't :(

Why not? I'm not in favor of "official" base sizes and I think GW needs to hear my opinion on that.

Because a lack of official base sizes creates a huge mess for tourney organizers/judges to deal with, on top of what matched play already is! And you lose nothing for it being there; many people will not know the official size outside their army anyways, and many more won't care in a casual setting unless someone is clearly being exploitative. The only people who would be up tight about it are ones best to be socially distanced from even outside a pandemic. But tourney runners cannot just walk away from those people, and it is apparently considered tolerable behavior (seriously there are some social standards way off calibration when it comes to that stuff) so I have to deal with it. An official chart makes it very cut and dry; it is being used as X and legal, or anything else and not. While that is clearly far too strict for an everyday game, at a tournament things need to be that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

That I think is the perfect example of why GE should be providing 2 things
1 a base size chart
2 if you buy a box that doesn't have the correct base in it you should be able to swap them in store for the current bases free of charge.

Another option is GW could come out with an official chart that says "either". The only thing it would remove is the OLD biker base; a rectangular cavalry base.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

It doesn't take tearing them apart. I just put adapter rings on all my Sisters.

As for bases sizes, yes, it is a problem. The size of the base determines how densely the unit can be packed, where models and fit, and how much the unit can spread out. In fact, the model can be basically anything, as long as the base size is proper, because for the most part it's the base that plays the game by defining the model's position, volume, etc. and the model itself is decorative.

There's pros and cons to smaller or bigger bases. If a few mm of base were really such an issue, why hasn't GW made it a rule?

Yeah, there are advantages to doing either, that doesn't make it not exploitable or irrelevant. That kind of just shows that fixed bases need to be a thing.

GW hasn't done anything about it because there'd be a backlash if people were told to rebase minis, particularly since GW doesn't sell expander rings.
And they do have a statement on the subject: "use the base size that comes in the box". This isn't great, but effectively canonizes the currently issued base size as standard for the model with the caveat that old models don't need rebasing.

What is the official application of "use the base size that comes in the box" for models that had no base like one generation of Sentinels, or heavy weapon teams that were mounted on separate bases? A what's in the box or Xmm chart would be handy here. A document listing all current and grandfathered in base sizes.

Also, as much as GW loves extracting money from the player base, I am surprised that they do not sell an extravagant base size adapter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

While that is clearly far too strict for an everyday game, at a tournament things need to be that way.

Sorry but that's not true at all. Tournaments already rely on house rules (times limitations, requirements of fully painted armies, adoption of some format like the ITC one, etc...), so if you think there could be arguments about bases just issue another house rule to fix it: you'll have your chart anyway.

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

Most of the times the new base size just looks better on the model.

I also go to tourneys and they are a bit more strict about this.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
I've received boxes of ork boyz before that still came with small bases. An email to GW about it ended up with them sending me a pack of 32mm bases.

This - at one point (some) GW stores had bases behind the counter and would offer you the different size ones. I was given 32s for Boyz & Plaguebearers.

I do not rebase my old models and in fact I base my new models on 25mm consistent with the industry standard since forever. If a model could not be based on 25mm then I consider it out of scale with my collection and do not purchase it (new chaos marines, primaris, and so on).

I despise the change in bases as one of THE most anti-consumer things GW has ever done, I hate it's effect on the industry and I utterly hate the scale creep it results in. It actually makes me feel quite despondent when I think about the standard shifting away from 25mm to the bigger standard, resulting in bigger scaled miniatures and effectively meaning I will not be able to buy correctly scaled miniatures any more for my armies. I guess I will switch to Historicals or something at that point.

I feel the whole rebasing nonsense is a massive feth you to the community and yeah, I am properly salty about it. I also accept that some may think it looks better, I don't agree, particularly not on a collection wide basis where I suddenly have stuff out of scale with my older stuff.

What happens if a unit option exists, but only as a model that is part of a different box, and the other unit has different bases.

Like lets say someone wants a reaper gun in their csm squad, but havocks come on big bases. Does the reaper gunnner have to be on the bigger havock base, or does he have to be on the same base as the rest of the unit?

 Banzaimash wrote:
Why do people rebase their models just because GW starts putting different base sizes in their boxes? It seems a bit bizarre to me, tearing apart perfectly good models because GW have decided to switch from 25mm to 32mm. As long as base sizes are consistent within a unit/army surely there should be no problem. It's strange that minor changes made by a company are treated like a royal decree by some. So why do people do this?

Requiring models to be based on what GW currently puts into the box with the miniatures is a popular houserule.

I intended to rebase my army in early 2016. That was largely due to me deciding on a new basing scheme and wanting to unify the scheme across older models as well, but would carry the additional benefit of 'modernising' the base size on older units.
I got around to buying up a bunch of bases, and then my love of 40k collapsed and I never got around to it.
Generally I think my models are better off on the smaller bases, as it's the assault troops that are older and I can fit noticably more into melee/deepstrike bubbles on 25mm bases than 32mm.

So I definitely understand tournaments wanting to define this sort of thing, and GW supporting that would be a great help for them.
However, I understand why they don't. 40k is a very old game with a lot of collections that would be invalidated by requiring 'modern' bases.
It works for AoS because they functionally restarted that game from scratch with the current base sizes, so there were no old collections to invalidated (they were invalidated by the existence of AoS anyways).

GW has plenty of games that have more precise, designed-from-the-ground-up-for-competitive/tournament-play games such as Underworlds or Kill Team Arena that play fast, are highly streaming-friendly due to smaller play-areas and game-time, have MtG-inspired cycles of cards to keep the meta evolving, etc..

It's all there for the taking.

But as long as there's also a niche for a sprawling, "simply-show-off-all-your-toys" and "play-all-sunday-afternoon" games like 40K, GW shouldn't necessarily ditch it (yet) in favour of publishing only the competitive games like Underworlds.

Hiseadmose wrote:Also, as much as GW loves extracting money from the player base

Wait, the player needs a base now!?!? I have been out of this game for too long...

Yeap. you better super glue the right size base to your butt or else you'll be accused of leading by bad example for your army men.

 Da Boss wrote:

I feel the whole rebasing nonsense is a massive feth you to the community and yeah, I am properly salty about it. I also accept that some may think it looks better, I don't agree, particularly not on a collection wide basis where I suddenly have stuff out of scale with my older stuff.

I think that sometimes it does look better. I think big bases are fine for display models. Otherwise, I've not rebased since I updated my Terminators. (Once I saw deepstrike shenanigans due to differently sized bases, I wanted no part of it.)
The gameboard is small enough- bigger bases make it smaller still.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeap. you better super glue the right size base to your butt or else you'll be accused of leading by bad example for your army men.

*magnetises flying base to arse*

I must admit I didn't tear any models apart to rebase them, I just got the adaptors that go round the edges from a bloke in USA.

It actually gave me a bit more room on the bases to put sand and detritus without looking too cramped.

 Kroem wrote:
The boyz never fit that well on 25mm bases and 32mm look right nice :-)

Yep, this was my reasoning. Plus I'd already put my Nobz, Lootas and special weapons on 32s when they first came out, as it was good at stopping them falling over. Certainly not worth getting bent out of shape about one way or the other, imo.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

I mean aside from the 30+ years on square bases that came before AOS....

AoS is a new lore and rule edition, but lets not fool ourselves; the game is built right off the back of Old World; even round bases since its start were sometimes changed as 2.0 and the formal rules and base size chart came out and were sorted out. There's no reason that the same can't be true for 40K as well.

PLUS lets not forget the current base size is information that is out there in the world; its right in every current box produced for each miniature. IT's messy though because sometimes the same model has different sizes depending on how its sold - eg there are differences with the same model between genestealer cults and Tyranids are those differences simply manufacture choices or are they balance choices - which is which. Without an official chart its confusing. With a chart you have a single clear easy to read reference point.


GW loses nothing, people are still free to follow GW's "use the base that came in the box" line and to use whatever they want. Those who want to use the system as fairly and strictly as they can can do so; events can be run with clear guidelines and boundaries without argument and debate or bias.



A base size chart also helps us restrict GW's casual base size changes. I think once or twice models got random base changes in AoS and because there was the chart it got noticed and GW had to either update the chart or update manufacture. So in a sense it helps restrict base size changes once the chart is out in the wild. It makes GW hold up to a standard and helps check if there's been a packing error or such.




Basically the chart benefits us as gamers and as a gaming community in just the same way that an FAQ and Errata helps us better understand the interaction between some rules and clarifications on how rules work when there's confusion.

I think if they were gonna change the bases like that they should have designed the rules to make them independent of base size, but we've had that discussion several times here by now

Plenty of games (Saga is a good example) have rules that ignore bases for gameplay, and I think if you are gonna do this sort of stuff designing the game to not care too much about bases is the way to go.

When was it that Marines moved to 32s? 2015 maybe? Can’t believe this discussion is still going round in circles and people are still getting a mad about it tbh. It literally doesn’t matter unless you’re playing hyper-competitively, in which case either there’ll be additional tournament rules, or you can houserule it with your opponent. Just smacks of people going out of their way to find something to complain about at this point.

JakeSiren wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It is also not modeling to advantage since its a split.

Smaller bases = more models in CC
Larger Bases = easier to spread out for area denial.

You'll eventually find someone who's going to abuse that grey area.

I vaguely remember someone having a oddly convenient old marine CC squads on 25mm bases but all their back field or screening units magically happened to be on 32mm.

Also remeber hearing a story of an argument about bases from way back in 3rd or 4th when terminators were changed as the metal ones on 25mm had way less risk for close deepstrikes than 40mm models.

IMHO Tournaments should be inforcing current base sizes for consistency.
In friendly games that between the two of you.

That's fine for most models, but things like seekers of Slaanesh have 2 current base sizes depending on which kit you buy. The recent boxes are oval, where as the current Seeker box is the old biker base. Which one should players then be forced to use?

If you are playing Age of Sigmar there is a very explicit base guide provided by GW. I would even say that the one they explicit state to use in AoS is the official one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

It is more that AoS already did a whole base change(square to round) already so adding basing guide was minimal inconvenience compared to rebasing everything from square to round. AoS still has a ton of old models so it was never a new game miniature-wise from the ground up. You still get square bases in kits(just got a Slaughtermaster that has both round and square bases).

Karol wrote:
What happens if a unit option exists, but only as a model that is part of a different box, and the other unit has different bases.

Like lets say someone wants a reaper gun in their csm squad, but havocks come on big bases. Does the reaper gunnner have to be on the bigger havock base, or does he have to be on the same base as the rest of the unit?

my converted havocs are on 32mm, no way im putting and regular power armor guys on mixed base sized. Power armor on 32mm, terminator on 40, dreads on 60. but my CSM are mostly 30k kits anyway so theyre a lot smaller than the regular range.

Plus going up in size is easy with the rebasing 3rd party attachments you just put onto the base and away you go.

Hiseadmose wrote:
What is the official application of "use the base size that comes in the box" for models that had no base like one generation of Sentinels, or heavy weapon teams that were mounted on separate bases? A what's in the box or Xmm chart would be handy here. A document listing all current and grandfathered in base sizes.

HWTs are the one place I feel less indifferent about rebasing. Partly because the base is so much bigger, and partly because I've run into too many guard players that 'forget' that the loader doesn't shoot or fight separately. When they're still using separate models, the likelihood of 'forgetting' goes up a lot.

Though 'rebasing' in this casestock (cereal box or the like) can be easy as a circle of card and blutack on the bottom of the old bases.

 Nazrak wrote:
When was it that Marines moved to 32s? 2015 maybe? Can’t believe this discussion is still going round in circles and people are still getting a mad about it tbh. It literally doesn’t matter unless you’re playing hyper-competitively, in which case either there’ll be additional tournament rules, or you can houserule it with your opponent. Just smacks of people going out of their way to find something to complain about at this point.

I am mad about it because it has a knock on effect on the industry in a way I don't like, meaning that the old scale is going to get inflated more commonly, and my collection will be out of scale with the new stuff.

I mean that is kinda the point of HAVING scales in the first place and it seems obnoxious to me for GW to do this basically so they can re-sell their space marine range.

I'm such a cheapskate and I haven't any desire to play 40k anymore (haven't played in 3 editions), so you'd think I'd run away from any rebasing.

However, I find my self really interested in converting my old Blood Angels to 32mm as a pure aesthetic modeling project. In an army with plenty of jump troops and wide-stanced metal marines, 32mm just looks better to me and stands -in many cases- to be better balanced.

Just ordered a sample of both sizes of "eccentric miniatures" rebasing rings.
https://www.eccentricminiatures.com/adapterrings.html
Supposedly size A fits GW better, but the slightly bigger Size B might better fit around my much-too-thick painted base edges.

I rarely rebase, but I have purchased quite a number of 25mm > 32mm extension rings.

It started for me as a visual aid on ork nobs so it was easier to pick them out when in a massive close combat. But since I have some old school pewter assault marines with metal jump packs, I enlarged their bases for greater tabletop stability.

Since then I've enlarged all jump infantry bases in my collection as well as the old school metal terminators which now have a 32mm base, not 40mm.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
When was it that Marines moved to 32s? 2015 maybe? Can’t believe this discussion is still going round in circles and people are still getting a mad about it tbh. It literally doesn’t matter unless you’re playing hyper-competitively, in which case either there’ll be additional tournament rules, or you can houserule it with your opponent. Just smacks of people going out of their way to find something to complain about at this point.

I am mad about it because it has a knock on effect on the industry in a way I don't like, meaning that the old scale is going to get inflated more commonly, and my collection will be out of scale with the new stuff.

I mean that is kinda the point of HAVING scales in the first place and it seems obnoxious to me for GW to do this basically so they can re-sell their space marine range.

Sorry if I've missed what you're getting at, but you seem to be taking issue with Space Marines getting bigger, which is an entirely different conversation to the one about base sizes.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
I do find it odd that they provide an official base size chart for AoS, but not for 40k.
Measurements are a lot more fiddly in Sigmar for combat distances, but it surely can't be that difficult a thing to keep up to date for 40k?

Because 40k has 30+ years of models on various versions of round bases. AoS doesn't. Quite easy to set the parameters for your game when you build it from the ground up, this is why 40k has more wishy washy rules on bases as it has to accommodate old collections. AoS does this too, but because it is so (relatively) new it can say quite clearly "If you want to play in tournaments- these are the base sizes you have to use."

It is more that AoS already did a whole base change(square to round) already so adding basing guide was minimal inconvenience compared to rebasing everything from square to round. AoS still has a ton of old models so it was never a new game miniature-wise from the ground up. You still get square bases in kits(just got a Slaughtermaster that has both round and square bases).

That's what I was trying to say there. Honest, guv.

I never rebase my models. Not least because I prefer the look of smaller bases. I know I'm probably going against the grain in terms of 40k players, but I don't think bigger is better, and I don't like either scale-creep or the trend towards over-designed, centrepiece models.

That aside, I also think it's important to recognise that while some shifts in base-size are (arguably) justified, many others are far from natural. For example, many characters these days have larger bases for no other reason than to accommodate whatever stupid piece of scenery said character has been positioned on. Hence, if someone is using an older model, or a conversion, or even the new model without half a cathedral beneath it, then the old baze size will probably be both more appropriate and look far better than the newer one.

Hell, look at the example of the Sister Hospitaller, which some genius at GW designed to turn into a diorama. But for anyone using the older model (or any equivalent), it will look absurd on a 50mm base. It'll be like playing a unit in a video game with severe pathing issues. Unless you're desperate to ensure that even your models respect social distancing rules, I can't see much point in moving to such an absurdly oversized base.

Well, I've rebased my whole BA army, from 25 to 32 mm.
Because larger bases look cooler.

I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.

I am a little confused on the reasons GW on their new models being unscrupulous. I assume you mean GW wants to squeeze more money out of its customers from this. Wouldn't models that take up more space, and therefor requiring less of them on the table, and taking longer to pain mean GW would probably get less money then? I mean there are a number of things one could say how GW is putting the screws to their customers for more money, but what you're saying ain't it.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean by using big models and giant bases. Frankly, marines, boyz and whatever else had their bases go from 25mm to 32mm in their boxes really can be explained as an aesthetics thing. Take a gander around other modern miniatures games and the base size they put their models on. They are going to look a lot more like a space marine on a 32mm base than one on a 25mm. And please, don't try and say this GW leading the way. If anything, they were (and with a few models) way behind on this. I am surprised it took GW as long as it did. Jump troops on 25mm bases is dumb, frankly. How many times did you have to upright these models on 25mm and/or stick weights to the bottom to prevent them from toppling over. Because I still had to do that with my hormagaunts.

As for the character models, I think it is less about fitting more terrain bits on them and more about more easily picking them out of a crowd. My Primaris are as plain as the day is long. It isn't hard to lose track of which one the Lt is among a squad or two of Intercessors. But that 40mm bases makes it easy for me and my opponent to know where that dude is. The extra 8mm to the diameter isn't so much that poor Lt feels all alone on his own private piece of nowhere.

Finally, I am not exactly sure where this giant models is coming from save a handful of special characters and/or centerpeice models. Which if you don't like you don't have to include in your collection. Yes, Primaris space marines are clearly bigger than Guardsmen which are slightly bigger than GSC Neophytes and other modern human-size models. I would think that is about getting them back into scale as space marines in armor are much larger than non-augmented humans. The new Chaos Space Marines are larger, but I was able to make my Dark Vengeance Chosen to appear about the same size through some trickery. Necron Warriors are about the same size as they were. Chaos Terminators are so identical is size that I can free mix and match them in squads, and you wouldn't be able to tell on the table. There are hiccups sure, Eliminators are extra big even for Primaris. I don't know maybe tall space marines make better snipers. Abbadon and Guilliman are kinda ridiculous in stature, but Warhammer 40,000 is a ridiculous setting. I think people sometimes forget just how ridiculous the setting is and don't step back enough to remember that.

If a person doesn't want to re-base, that is both completely understandable and more than fine by me. However, I would it strange to start a completely brand-new army and seek to go back to models barely able to fit on top of the small confines of the older, smaller sizes that can't be placed on anything but the gentlest of slope without falling over. I fought against for a bit early on, but I think the new base size has a lot more going for it than the old base size before even considering the rules.

 Nazrak wrote:
When was it that Marines moved to 32s? 2015 maybe? Can’t believe this discussion is still going round in circles and people are still getting a mad about it tbh. It literally doesn’t matter unless you’re playing hyper-competitively, in which case either there’ll be additional tournament rules, or you can houserule it with your opponent. Just smacks of people going out of their way to find something to complain about at this point.

The argument was going on long before regular marines were rebased. The release of the plastic Terminator kit with 40mm bases was probably where it started in earnest, although there have also been various arguments about Guard heavy weapon teams and dreadnoughts with or without bases back to the start of 3rd edition at least.

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

There are good things and bad things for larger base sizes. If you see what GW is intending and choose to play into it, that seems a little odd to me. Do you really somehow believe these gakky rules writers agonize on their rules working flawlessly dependent on base size ? I think you give them far too much credit as to assume they are playing some 3 D chess 3 turns ahead. The model basing has pretty much nothing to do some real or imagine fairness or balance. It's just them changing their mind, again. I mean look at bike bases. They were this square ugly things, then the smaller ovals which I like now they are the bigger ovals in a couple years they could make them be even bigger ovals and I don't think this has anything to do with someone sitting around figuring out the perfect base sizes for their rules to be perfect.

I can lose a game just fine with my old based models or my new based models and won't just retire whole armies because I won't rebase them. If I wanted to play in a tournament I'd use stuff that is set up currently, because it cuts down on disagreements but in like the 99% of my games if someone thinks an old based marine army gives me some huge advantage, that sounds like it would be scapegoat for having lost.

Small models I don't rebase and if it's a problem for anyone oh well. Large models I'll just glue the old base on top of the new one and blend it with sand and rocks. Who cares if it's now 5mm taller?

I don't play, but may decide to in the future. My basing varies quite a bit from the standard if I think it will look cooler - I tend to put Marine sergeants and character models on 40mm bases, for example. My bases are part of the painting and modelling side of the hobby and I refuse to change it just to fit in with changes in packaging.

For people who do rebase - how do you do it? (Not talking about base extenders.) My figures are glued/melted on to their bases, which are then heavily textured. If I tried to snap them off I'd just break them.

I mean, no one should care about that. However in their anti hobby sort of way they do imply and lean on base sizing being super critical or height of model being of utmost game breaking importance, like the term modeling for advantage.

This all didn't mean anything when I started playing, however now you hear it a lot more. I think GW dialed in on telling people to buy new models or new bases or scrap whole armies didn't go over well, so they instead toss these slogans around and press that somehow base size, model height, break and shake the rules it nudges players to do that themselves.

I think the going to models eye view and giving model size a factor on game rules as opposed to being a mere abstraction was done with a clear and concise goal of implied but not demanded obsolescence of old models. Which is why they keep growing in both model size and base size.

If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me.

Like for instance an old friend of mine has an old vintage ork army, with all the tiny old trucks and I know he's taken flak for playing it being told he has to get the new trucks because the old ones are too small and " modeling for advantage " the reality is, he just likes his old army, when did that become wrong ? When GW decided they didn't like people sitting on old models.

If/when they press away first born marine armies that will be for the same reason and I bet you it'll strike other armies as well in time.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me...

I don't think the whole "model's-eye-view" thing is an evil plot to make older minis obsolete; there are, broadly speaking, three ways to do line of sight in a wargame: 2d model position with "height" as a number that defines where LOS block starts/stops, like in Warmachine or WHFB, true LOS where you kneel down and check the model's actual position, like in 40k, or true LOS with a theoretical position, like Infinity and its silhouette markers. 2d positioning makes for a very precise but not very cinematic wargame (ask any 40k player why they're not playing Warmachine and "models running around on a flat surface covered in mouse-mats" is probably going to come into the discussion), Infinity and the silhouettes are much slower/harder to play and wouldn't be practical at 40k's scale. True line of sight is really just the standard approach for games with widely varying model sizes and widely varying terrain. You could blame it on 40k's influence infecting the industry, but having tried to write LOS rules a few times I don't think there's a fast/easy solution that gets rid of it.

I have a couple of ork units for 40k that need to be finished. Once they are done I'll go with the bases that come in the boxes. I'm more concerned how the models look on the base and the functionality than some rules lawyer opinion. I don't have to worry about tournaments since I haven't played in one in twenty years.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...If someone thinks I'm way off base here ( because I came with a smaller base in my box ) please let me know. This is however how it feels to me...

I don't think the whole "model's-eye-view" thing is an evil plot to make older minis obsolete; there are, broadly speaking, three ways to do line of sight in a wargame: 2d model position with "height" as a number that defines where LOS block starts/stops, like in Warmachine or WHFB, true LOS where you kneel down and check the model's actual position, like in 40k, or true LOS with a theoretical position, like Infinity and its silhouette markers. 2d positioning makes for a very precise but not very cinematic wargame (ask any 40k player why they're not playing Warmachine and "models running around on a flat surface covered in mouse-mats" is probably going to come into the discussion), Infinity and the silhouettes are much slower/harder to play and wouldn't be practical at 40k's scale. True line of sight is really just the standard approach for games with widely varying model sizes and widely varying terrain. You could blame it on 40k's influence infecting the industry, but having tried to write LOS rules a few times I don't think there's a fast/easy solution that gets rid of it.

I like how you quoted that one line there..smooth. That said, they did use abstraction for heights and sizes and I recall it feeling fine and easy to wrap my head around. Which made the change away from it feel needless and cumbersome, just how it felt to me anyways.

What, in 4e? Sure, you could do the abstracted 2d LOS, it'd just be awkward, not necessarily match up with your terrain very well, and create loads of weird edge cases to do with wide variation in model height. I'm not saying true LOS is the best or the only approach to writing the game, I just think there are advantages from a design standpoint other than just forcing people to buy new minis.

Sure could be, but coming from a company trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth, make dubious army set up calls, sneak in soft squats slowly, etc.

If I was going to guess that the LoS change was all for the good of the game or a way to try and make size and thereby new models matter to move them more, I'd pick they did it to sell newer models. If they really wanted the game to be in a good state they'd actually be trying to perfect and refine the system and not just mixing it up all the time to move books and shake up the whole system all the time.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I like how you quoted that one line there..smooth. That said, they did use abstraction for heights and sizes and I recall it feeling fine and easy to wrap my head around. Which made the change away from it feel needless and cumbersome, just how it felt to me anyways.

They did use an abstracted system in 4th edition... for area terrain and close combats, while the rest of the time the game used true LOS, as it has done in every other edition. It's not some new ploy, it's how the game has always worked LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure could be, but coming from a company trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth, make dubious army set up calls, sneak in soft squats slowly, etc.

If I was going to guess that the LoS change was all for the good of the game or a way to try and make size and thereby new models matter to move them more, I'd pick they did it to sell newer models. If they really wanted the game to be in a good state they'd actually be trying to perfect and refine the system and not just mixing it up all the time to move books and shake up the whole system all the time.

It's nothing to do with selling bigger models. The models got bigger because it lets them make them more detailed. GW have always leaned towards using true LOS because it is more immersive than an abstract system... Getting down to see what the models see pulls you into the action. It's just an extra layer of visual spectacle.

We will have to agree to disagree it adds any kind of depth to the experience to spider man around the table to check out the eye view. The abstracted method for terrain and units did a good deal to make things move smoother, imo of course.

As well there was no real modeling for advantage in those old ways, base sizes weren't stressed so highly, etc. These are newer sticking points and I do recall the old rule book stances being what the models came with being legal.

I highly doubt detail factors into it as much as wanting to push new plastic, at least for a company selling models.

My 2nd to 6th Ed Dark Angels shall remain on their original bases. It means that I can't mix new and old squads of Tactical/Devastator dudes for aesthetic reasons, but hey. I do prefer the new bases, but I don't like going backwards hobby-wise with my own minis. If it was good enough in 1996 then by the Emperor its good enough in 2021.

I recently rebased my 2nd/3rd Ed Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams. I had bumbled along for a while by just keeping the loader close to the gunner, but I decided to get with the times and base them because it did confuse opponents. I guess that means that the new IG Codex will go back to loaders being on their own...

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
As well there was no real modeling for advantage in those old ways, base sizes weren't stressed so highly, etc. These are newer sticking points and I do recall the old rule book stances being what the models came with being legal.

People have been complaining about modeling for advantage at least since I started playing, which was early in second edition. The common argument that used to be brought up was how you could make you're Eldar Dreadnoughts more durable by posing them kneeling down. Nobody actually did it, but everyone complained about it.

People largely didn't stress about base sizes because most people accepted that it actually didn't make that much practical difference on the table, and for whatever benefits you got from it there were usually some negatives as well, although the specifics of that have changed from edition to edition. As I mentioned earlier, it seems people only really started drawing a line in the sand with base sizes when terminators went from 25mm to 40mm bases, because it made a difference to their Deep Strike footprint.

I highly doubt detail factors into it as much as wanting to push new plastic, at least for a company selling models.

Of course it's wanting to push the new plastic... but they're doing that by making the models (in their view) better. The fact that they are bigger is merely a side effect of that. I very much doubt that 'make the models bigger so people will have to replace their old models to stay in scale' was a strategy for a company that has historically never been able to stick to a consistent scale.

Yet again, agree to disagree my anecdotal evidence was that I didn't even hear modeling for advantage until around mid fifth start of sixth edition.

As for the models being better, if it was just them being better they wouldn't tie their look so heavily into in game use if they wanted to sell on better. As better would just sell itself.

Edit: Though I do like how you read their intentions so fully, are you a rules/model designer for them per chance to have such an inward look as to their motivations ? Otherwise its all just our best guess. I just don't really think they care much of offering us better and more just giving us more or selling new. To be clear I'm assuming their motivation isn't evil, it's simply being a greedy company. Which for them is not either good or bad just being what they are.

well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.

ccs 795623 11040933 wrote:well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.

I am a little confused on the reasons GW on their new models being unscrupulous. I assume you mean GW wants to squeeze more money out of its customers from this. Wouldn't models that take up more space, and therefor requiring less of them on the table, and taking longer to pain mean GW would probably get less money then? I mean there are a number of things one could say how GW is putting the screws to their customers for more money, but what you're saying ain't it.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean by using big models and giant bases. Frankly, marines, boyz and whatever else had their bases go from 25mm to 32mm in their boxes really can be explained as an aesthetics thing. Take a gander around other modern miniatures games and the base size they put their models on. They are going to look a lot more like a space marine on a 32mm base than one on a 25mm. And please, don't try and say this GW leading the way. If anything, they were (and with a few models) way behind on this. I am surprised it took GW as long as it did. Jump troops on 25mm bases is dumb, frankly. How many times did you have to upright these models on 25mm and/or stick weights to the bottom to prevent them from toppling over. Because I still had to do that with my hormagaunts.

As for the character models, I think it is less about fitting more terrain bits on them and more about more easily picking them out of a crowd. My Primaris are as plain as the day is long. It isn't hard to lose track of which one the Lt is among a squad or two of Intercessors. But that 40mm bases makes it easy for me and my opponent to know where that dude is. The extra 8mm to the diameter isn't so much that poor Lt feels all alone on his own private piece of nowhere.

Finally, I am not exactly sure where this giant models is coming from save a handful of special characters and/or centerpeice models. Which if you don't like you don't have to include in your collection. Yes, Primaris space marines are clearly bigger than Guardsmen which are slightly bigger than GSC Neophytes and other modern human-size models. I would think that is about getting them back into scale as space marines in armor are much larger than non-augmented humans. The new Chaos Space Marines are larger, but I was able to make my Dark Vengeance Chosen to appear about the same size through some trickery. Necron Warriors are about the same size as they were. Chaos Terminators are so identical is size that I can free mix and match them in squads, and you wouldn't be able to tell on the table. There are hiccups sure, Eliminators are extra big even for Primaris. I don't know maybe tall space marines make better snipers. Abbadon and Guilliman are kinda ridiculous in stature, but Warhammer 40,000 is a ridiculous setting. I think people sometimes forget just how ridiculous the setting is and don't step back enough to remember that.

If a person doesn't want to re-base, that is both completely understandable and more than fine by me. However, I would it strange to start a completely brand-new army and seek to go back to models barely able to fit on top of the small confines of the older, smaller sizes that can't be placed on anything but the gentlest of slope without falling over. I fought against for a bit early on, but I think the new base size has a lot more going for it than the old base size before even considering the rules.

First of all, it's contradictory to say, "GW are not leading the way on this" and then try and claim it's not actually happening, or "only for centerpiece models". That's demonstrably not true. For example, this bloodbowl lineman is clearly not a "special character and/or centerpiece model" and it looks like an ogre compared to older one.



Second, GW are clearly leading the way on this. If you say things like, "don't try and tell me GW are leading the way on this", I can only assume that you're simply not very active in the miniatures hobby outside of GW products. And there's nothing wrong with that btw, I don't mean to sound condescending or snarky. But it's just an obvious and widely known fact that GW are driving the 32mm choo-choo train. In fact, nearly all of the other miniature manufacturers that produce miniatures in this scale do so only so they will be compatible with GW products. I don't have a single miniature in that scale that is not a GW product. I'm sure they exist, but GW are most certainly leading the way.

Thirdly, it is price gouging. How do we know? Well because miniature war-gaming and board games such as blood bowl has got along just fine for the past ~five decades without requiring gigantic miniatures. They're that big for multiple reasons, but the sum total of those reasons is that GW thought they would sell more miniatures if they were that big. In fact, having huge miniatures on huge bases is actually detrimental to any game where space is a premium. But their goal is not to produce the best or most convenient game, their goal is to sell as many miniatures as they can.

You're allowed to like it of course. There's nothing wrong with preferring the 32mm scale models. But don't try and tell us it's not happening or that GW made the decision to do that for reasons that were anything else than increasing their bottom line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:
I really dislike the new era of gigantosauras sized models. I think the reasons for it on GW's behalf were unscrupulous, they take up more room on a limited table and they take longer to paint.

That said, if I was going to play 9th Edition, then I would use the big models and their giant bases. It doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise. And also those giant models would just look weird on normal-sized bases.

If I already had an army and was deadset on playing 9th Edition, then the old army would be retired, or used only for older edition games. Yes, that was exactly the plan by GW, make everyone buy more gak. But if it were me with a giant collection of 28mm-scale models on 25mm bases then I'd just give GW the finger and stop buying new editions. I'd pick my favorite old edition and stick with it. Because they're going to keep pulling this crap until people start.

That is not me however. I am still making up my mind whether I will go old-school and start WH40K with 3rd or 5th edition (not that 5th is particularly old school, but when they release a new edition every couple of years it is) or suck up the suckiness and giant models and just start with 9th. I can see arguments either way coming in new, but if I had an existing 25mm army, it would be a no-brainer to stay old-school.


.

There are good things and bad things for larger base sizes. If you see what GW is intending and choose to play into it, that seems a little odd to me. Do you really somehow believe these gakky rules writers agonize on their rules working flawlessly dependent on base size ? I think you give them far too much credit as to assume they are playing some 3 D chess 3 turns ahead. The model basing has pretty much nothing to do some real or imagine fairness or balance. It's just them changing their mind, again. I mean look at bike bases. They were this square ugly things, then the smaller ovals which I like now they are the bigger ovals in a couple years they could make them be even bigger ovals and I don't think this has anything to do with someone sitting around figuring out the perfect base sizes for their rules to be perfect.

I can lose a game just fine with my old based models or my new based models and won't just retire whole armies because I won't rebase them. If I wanted to play in a tournament I'd use stuff that is set up currently, because it cuts down on disagreements but in like the 99% of my games if someone thinks an old based marine army gives me some huge advantage, that sounds like it would be scapegoat for having lost.

My comment on it "it doesn't really seem to be a completely level and even playing field otherwise" was a side-point. No, I don't think the rules-writers are particularly phased about factoring in different bases sizes too much. I do however think that regardless of the fact the rules-writers don't seem to care too much about base sizes, models should still should be on the same scaled bases if you want to be as fair and even as possible. This likely does not matter for most people who are just playing friendly games to have fun. But if you've got a competitive streak or you're playing in a competitive competition I think it matters regardless of if the rules-writers took into consideration or not. It matters by accident (if you're very competitive, and there's nothing wrong with people that are).

However, that's not my main problem with them. My main problems are that they take up too much room, they take longer to paint and it's just all round a kind of dodgy maneuver on behalf of GW for $$$. Even though I wasn't personally effected, I don't like their attitude towards long-term fans ("let's think up a way to make them have to rebuy all the stuff they spent the last decade collecting").

(fwiw, I also don't think they look as good. The new sculpts look good, but they would look better in 28mm scale. The size of the new miniatures look almost like little "action figures" or dolls or something. But that is subjective opinion.)




... apols for the ten thousand edits. Just fixing typos (and I bet I still missed a bunch).

Definitely seems very much a split opinion on the general scale creep of 40k but quite frankly the writing has been on the wall for that one since 3rd edition with the oversized guardsmen.

Though I do think the scale creep does highlight or exacerbate the goofy proportions for some model's and also that most of the vehicals haven't been rescalled to match makes them look even more comical. Yeah sure 10 deathwatch vets fit in a rhino but 40k has never been a scale modeller based hobby.

Honestly Kriby has a lot of sins to answer for.

The vehement opposition to accepting if you want to be intournament or such that it's a reasonable expectation for you to use the current base sizes seems like disenting just because you like the sound of your own voice.

ccs wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

Be that as it may, its also a dime & a moment I dont need to spend.

It makes tournements more balanced, and at some point in the future, you WILL be forced to do it, as you wouldnt be able to paticipate in tournements and maybe skirmishes with friends either. With time, its expected that the 25mm that should be 32, actually becomes 32 to fully balance the game, which it isnt with 25mm when others use 32.

Inheritence tax isnt the same as this though. This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

In the end, you can do what you please. But eventually tournement creators can deny you entrance if you dont have proper bases. Furthermore it might be frowned upon even by friends when a model that should have changed its base to 32mm like 10 years ago (when we reach that stage) still hasnt had that done.

Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

It's been a while but I can say you're probably going to have a hard time getting even GW to allow you to use 25mm terminators in an office GW tournament.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

Tournaments making the ruling is a separate thing - I'm sure most tournaments would have a problem with my 25mm based Astartes.
I was just responding to the idea that GW themselves would make an official ruling. It's not in their interest. It would alienate and piss off a lot of established players to the point of driving them from the hobby and they would be unlikely to sell whole new kits to such people.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Tournaments making the ruling is a separate thing - I'm sure most tournaments would have a problem with my 25mm based Astartes.
I was just responding to the idea that GW themselves would make an official ruling. It's not in their interest. It would alienate and piss off a lot of established players to the point of driving them from the hobby and they would be unlikely to sell whole new kits to such people.

Why they have made such rulings in the past for their own events.

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

There are other things to adapt that aren't that easy. 25mm to 40mm or older to new bikes bases for example, I don't think there are any adapters for those.

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

I know the game has existed since, what, the 80s before my birth (im 28), but i just made a general statement and chose 10 years ago because thats a bit of time in which balancing things could happen. I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
well i mean, base adapters from 25mm to 32mm is a thing. its not super difficult nor time consuming to really do

There are other things to adapt that aren't that easy. 25mm to 40mm or older to new bikes bases for example, I don't think there are any adapters for those.

and that would be among the things that most players would be okay with. But something thats easy to get adapters for, probably not so much. And i think tournement creators are more lenient with things thats difficult to rebase, than things thats easy.

Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

Beardedragon wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

I wouldn't want GW releasing a chart with official bases though, as even casual games could be affected. Rule of 3 was released by GW as a "suggestion" and yet it became a mandatory rule in any meta.

Tournament organizers can already issue their house rules. They already do and don't need a guideline from GW.

 Blackie wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Stating that it will happen is an awfully strong statement.
I don't GW has much interest in fully balancing the game at all. They're only interested in maintaining enough balance to ensure the game remains popular and sells well.
As far as GW is officially concerned 25mm based Terminators are still legal on the tabletop.

Maybe. but GW dont make all tournements, and some tournement creators want proper basing. They would deny your 25mm terminators from being on the table. Its been years since terminators went from 25 to 40mm so at this point, people still using 25mm terminators, i will assume do this to gain an advantage with being able to hide more efficiently and get more terminators in to combat, and deepstrike more easy. Most dont have a ton of terminators, so terminators should be very cheap to put on adapters.

1 adapter for 1 model is around a quarter dollar. Its not expensive.

I understand people not wanting to rebase boyz or troops that you have a lot of , but elite infantry should be rebased with adapters. Or something else. Eventually ones troops should too, so one might as well start. It will be mandatory eventually by most tournement holders.

I wouldn't want GW releasing a chart with official bases though, as even casual games could be affected. Rule of 3 was released by GW as a "suggestion" and yet it became a mandatory rule in any meta.

Tournament organizers can already issue their house rules. They already do and don't need a guideline from GW.

Exactly. Im not expecting GW to make official rules, but i know tournement creators will. Thats why im saying i think one should put on adapters or rebase if not otherwise possible, because you wont be able to paticipate in tournements otherwise eventually.

And maybe even skirmish battles will be affected, as ones friends will eventually not wanna play with someone who gets base advantages.

Beardedragon wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

Take it easy. It's just a friendly saying where I come from (Australia).

Gayzus people are easy to offend these days!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:
I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.

Odd considering you would have been 3 times more accurate with exactly the same time & effort.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

I honestly don't think GW give a toss about people re-basing anything nor do they give a toss about the balance of the game. I believe that when it comes to base-sizes the only thing they consider is what will look the best on the box art. And I can't blame them for that. As I said before, If I chose to play 9th or whatever with the big models, I'd go with the 32mm bases that fit those scaled-up models the best.

But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm just going to start with 5th edition and just not expose myself to all the GW price gouging.


.

I rebased by Chaos Marines from 25mm up to 32mm. At first, I didn't care, but then as I started to see more models on 32mm, I thought they looked a lot better and more in-proportioin. Plus, my old basing scheme was quite basic, so this was a way of giving a new lease of life to old models.

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
This is a game that needs balancing, and eventually certain things will be balanced out differently than what it was 10 years ago when it was created.

10 years ago? Try 35 years ago young son.

It's never going to be balanced because GW don't seem interested in making a balanced game. They seem interested in releasing a new set of rules and codexes and models for everyone to rush out and buy every two or three years, which is nowhere near long enough to iron out such a complex game. And they will keep doing that while everyone keeps rushing out and buying them. I probably would too.

By most people's accounts, the game was at it's best at fifth edition, or perhaps even earlier. Everything since has just been an excuse to release more gak that everyone "needs" to buy to stay current.

Young son even? could you be more condescending.

Take it easy. It's just a friendly saying where I come from (Australia).

Gayzus people are easy to offend these days!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:
I could have said 30 years too, i simply chose not to.

Odd considering you would have been 3 times more accurate with exactly the same time & effort.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
Perception of balance is almost as important as balance itself. If the advantages of smaller bases are wrongly believed to sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages therefore, they can still feel unpleasant to play against. Mechanical behavior inconsistent with current expectation could also feel off putting.

However, I do not see GW suggesting players should rebase existing miniatures. I do see GW strongly suggesting that a new miniature should be bought to augment their collections and anyone declining to do so is irrelevant due to not contributing to the revenue stream.

I honestly don't think GW give a toss about people re-basing anything nor do they give a toss about the balance of the game. I believe that when it comes to base-sizes the only thing they consider is what will look the best on the box art. And I can't blame them for that. As I said before, If I chose to play 9th or whatever with the big models, I'd go with the 32mm bases that fit those scaled-up models the best.

But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm just going to start with 5th edition and just not expose myself to all the GW price gouging.


.

im not really offended "mate" i just didnt understand the reason to be condencending in the middle of no where. Being an aussie or not.

Ive mostly talked about troops choices going from 25mm to 32mm, and that wasnt done 30 years ago so there was no reason to mention 30 years. Tournement creators have been more adamant about having 32mm bases for most troop choices as this is a fairly "new" change. So going back even 10 years werent even needed. Sure there are bigger changes than that, but i mainly talked about troop choices and maybe elite infantry.

I consider increasing base size primarily an inevitability that follows scale creep. Scale irregularity and creep had been a GW constant since the beginning and at some point the bases were going to follow suit if only to accurately stabilize models in a game that is played on an irregular surface.

I'm not saying it isn't also a cash grab, but its one of margins. All minis and their provided bases may be legal but GW knows that any change will get a segment of the community to buy the "new" even if its not necessary. They know also that their will also be peer pressure to confirm to the new.

Scale creep is simply one of the most obvious signs of this since it's an unnecessary change.

Put simply base increase is less of a cash grab (though it is a little one) than an inevitability following 30 years of scale creep for profit.

PieInTheSky wrote:
First of all, it's contradictory to say, "GW are not leading the way on this" and then try and claim it's not actually happening, or "only for centerpiece models". That's demonstrably not true. For example, this bloodbowl lineman is clearly not a "special character and/or centerpiece model" and it looks like an ogre compared to older one.

Second, GW are clearly leading the way on this. If you say things like, "don't try and tell me GW are leading the way on this", I can only assume that you're simply not very active in the miniatures hobby outside of GW products. And there's nothing wrong with that btw, I don't mean to sound condescending or snarky. But it's just an obvious and widely known fact that GW are driving the 32mm choo-choo train. In fact, nearly all of the other miniature manufacturers that produce miniatures in this scale do so only so they will be compatible with GW products. I don't have a single miniature in that scale that is not a GW product. I'm sure they exist, but GW are most certainly leading the way.

Thirdly, it is price gouging. How do we know? Well because miniature war-gaming and board games such as blood bowl has got along just fine for the past ~five decades without requiring gigantic miniatures. They're that big for multiple reasons, but the sum total of those reasons is that GW thought they would sell more miniatures if they were that big. In fact, having huge miniatures on huge bases is actually detrimental to any game where space is a premium. But their goal is not to produce the best or most convenient game, their goal is to sell as many miniatures as they can.

What I mean by GW not leading the way is that most miniatures companies were already putting their miniatures on bases large enough that their toes were over hanging the base. I was very active in miniatures game before GW did their 25mm to 32mm change. Other companies were placing their models on undersized bases well before then.





You notice how none of those models have their toes over hanging the base becuase the base is large enough to allow them not to. That's what I am talking about. All of these models were out long before GW made any mention of changing base size. I know because I started getting GW models just before the news of the base size was happening.



Note how most of those Chaos Space Marines are just barely on top of their bases. Often hanging just a little over. The rest of the miniatures industry had moved past doing that, and gave their models enough base to comfortably be positioned on them.

These larger bases just look better proportionally than smaller bases where the model is barely able to stand on them. Games Workshop was well behind on this by the time they actually made the decision to change. That's what I mean by them not leading the way. They were clearly trying to catch up to the rest of the industry. I have been less involved with other minitures games since starting GW ones. Just the same, I am pretty sure Dust Tactics, Bolt Action and any Mantic Games increases the sizes of the bases in respeonce to GW doing it with a few of theirs. Because they had already had better proportioned bases to the models being placed on them and didn't have to.

You completely lost me on your third point. Games Workshop hasn't been around for 50 years. Most of the games prior to Citadel I am aware of were rank and file games where units were placed in groups on a single base. But I am certainly not versed on miniatures from the 20th century nor the games they were used in except D&D. I don't see how making the decision to change bases to something that looks more proportional is price-gouging. It isn't like GW started raises prices in excess of what they were during those times. In fact, I remember that it was during those years the prices remained pretty flat as GW had lost momentum due to the lack of popularity in 6th/7th editions.

Games Workshop hasn't even came out and said player has to use the new base sizes. As far as I know, they are still on the, 'the base the model came with is fine' except maybe with Age of Sigmar. Which I think is more a response to the player base wanting that size chart. Even tournaments requiring uniform base sizes is a creation of that player base not GW. Even the base size taking up more of the table seems like that would curb the total points for games. Games Workshop hasn't been the leading the bigger and bigger games charge. It has been the players. Warhammer 40k works fine at 1500pts which some saying it also is great at 1250pts maybe even 1000pts. Yet, the gold standard for games is 2000pts. Brought on more from tournaments than GW saying that is where they design games to work best at. I believe if anything GW has taken the customers' desires for 2000pt games and are designing 40k to work there because that's where the demand is. I think it is more likely the rules designers try to keep the game working for smaller games as to not scare away new players (which really keep GW in business).

Games Workshop is in the business of selling miniatures. Bigger miniatures, in the case of Primaris, look nicer due to details and are easier to paint. Primaris certainly captured my adoration because of it. As for centerpiece models, they can be displayed as the crown jewel in a collection as much as on the tabletop. Neither of which directly ruin games by virtue of just being big. Space is less of a premium in 40k/AoS than you make it out to be. If player doesn't like those models there are a host of other options. Funny enough, 9th edition has largely been shrinking of tables to the minimums due to widespread tournament adoption. If that is still too much area, there's smaller point games or even Kill Team. None of which that I have played have been adversely affected by some models going from 25mm to 32mm or 40mm.

The biggest model I have built is Teclis for Age of Sigmar. Even that model's base only takes up a tad more area than my Chaos Land Raider. There are bigger models available in 40k and AoS. And while GW would like you to buy them, they aren't sending goon squads around to make anyone. I think it is more that there is a demand for these larger models and GW are simply providing them. You might not like them, but clearly other people do. It is hard for me to see this as price gouging (in the colloquial use of the term) over just being a product customers want.

Scale creep isn't really an inevitability.

At one point, they actually _shrank_ models (particularly in fantasy), because their plastic designs had actually improved to the point it was practical and within their skill cap. [The post monkey-skaven era was like a dream finally realized]

For a lot of models (necron warriors and old space marines in particular) the base size increase solved a problem that had been around for decades. The models overwhelmed the bases to the limit, to the point there was overhang- not just with dramatic weapon poses, but with the _feet_.

It also helped with stability for a lot of 'dynamic' poses they became obsessed by in the last decade or so.

All my WHFB stuff is still on squares.

Because warhammer fantasy battle isnt officially supported anymore so no one really cares

Beardedragon wrote:
Because warhammer fantasy battle isnt officially supported anymore so no one really cares

Don't go cutting yourself on that edge there mister...

WHFB the Old World is on the way back, and outside of tournament play, IME nobody really gives a hoot about what bases your AoS model are on so long as you don't take the piss, just like 40k.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What I mean by GW not leading the way is that most miniatures companies were already putting their miniatures on bases large enough that their toes were over hanging the base. I was very active in miniatures game before GW did their 25mm to 32mm change. Other companies were placing their models on undersized bases well before then.

...

You notice how none of those models have their toes over hanging the base becuase the base is large enough to allow them not to. That's what I am talking about. All of these models were out long before GW made any mention of changing base size. I know because I started getting GW models just before the news of the base size was happening.

...

Note how most of those Chaos Space Marines are just barely on top of their bases. Often hanging just a little over. The rest of the miniatures industry had moved past doing that, and gave their models enough base to comfortably be positioned on them.

...

These larger bases just look better proportionally than smaller bases where the model is barely able to stand on them. Games Workshop was well behind on this by the time they actually made the decision to change. That's what I mean by them not leading the way. They were clearly trying to catch up to the rest of the industry. I have been less involved with other minitures games since starting GW ones.

...

You completely lost me on your third point. Games Workshop hasn't been around for 50 years. Most of the games prior to Citadel I am aware of were rank and file games where units were placed in groups on a single base. But I am certainly not versed on miniatures from the 20th century nor the games they were used in except D&D. I don't see how making the decision to change bases to something that looks more proportional is price-gouging.

You're a bit confused I think.

Just forget the bases. The bases are bigger because the models are bigger. It looks better with bigger bases, I get it. I'm on board with that point. If I play 40K, I will use the giant models and their giant bases. No, I don't want my gigantic model to have it's feet hanging off a relatively tiny 25mm base. I get it. So forget about the bases.

Why did the models get bigger (necessitating the bigger bases)? One of the reasons was certainly so that everyone who had collected an army in the past was now stuck with miniatures in "the wrong/old" scale and has to now go and re-buy everything in order to stay current. If you don't think that was a consideration you're being willfully naive.

And if you truly believe that it's not GW are driving this new jumbo-sized 32mm miniature scale thing then I just don't know what to tell you. If you have chosen to believe that bizarre bit of fiction then I doubt I'll be able to say anything to convince you otherwise. But the plain fact is that it's been entirely driven by GW and independent manufacturers seeking to make their miniatures compatible with GW games. It wouldn't surprise me if some other game designers are starting to adopt it too, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Bigger miniatures, in the case of Primaris, look nicer

That's totally subjective. I think they look like toys.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
due to details and are easier to paint.

... and that's just wrong.

The details didn't get any bigger or easier to paint when the models got bigger. There's just more of the details. As a result, each model takes longer to paint and is more difficult to paint. I'm sure, "they're easier to paint" is the false-narrative that GW are pushing however.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It is hard for me to see this as price gouging (in the colloquial use of the term) over just being a product customers want.

It would be literally impossible to price-gouge on a product that customers did not want. That's what enables price gouging.



.

PieInTheSky (changed your name?),

You've said this a couple of times, but I am finding your statement that the up-sized miniatures are harder to paint a little odd. It's certainly not my experience. Maybe because I have 50 year old eyes? I went back and repainted some old 2nd Ed plastic Space Marine recently. It certainly wasn't "easier" than the latest Intercessors/Eradicators I painted. Bladeguard were a challenge, but so were some models back in the day. The Intercessor/Gravis aesthetic is rather clean. From the designer's comments this was intentional.

Still, if you find them harder to paint I guess they're harder to paint for you.

Primaris are easier to paint because they're cleaner, not because they're larger.

If the change from small marines to primaris makes them look like toys then what clasic miniatures of Ogers and Trols look like? Toddler teddies?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Primaris are easier to paint because they're cleaner, not because they're larger.

So we can agree at least that they are easier to paint? Absolutely no argument from me that the clean design helps painting. My point is that making the miniatures larger on its own does not make them harder to paint.

You can cram "hard to paint" detail into an old-school 28mm figure.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
PieInTheSky (changed your name?)

No ... was the some other fellah on this forum easily triggered by the huge scale creep?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
You've said this a couple of times, but I am finding your statement that the up-sized miniatures are harder to paint a little odd. It's certainly not my experience.

I guess it depends on what sort of quality you're going for.

That's not meant to sound condescending or snarky, it's just that increasing the surface area of a miniature does demonstrably not make it easier to paint. It just means it takes longer to paint because there is more "stuff" to paint.

If they were taking the same designs as the old models and scaling everything up, including scaling up all the detail, then it would be easier to paint. But they're not doing that, they're just cramming more and more detail into a bigger model. If you're skipping over the detail and just blocking in with blobs of paint to make them look okay from 3 feet away, then okay, in that case then maybe, depending on the model, it might be easier to paint.

But for the most part, being bigger only means there is most junk and more detail to paint, i.e. "harder" to paint. If you take five halfling miniatures and stack them on top of each other and call it one model, it's not suddenly easier to paint than one just because it's bigger! Do you get my point? It's actually harder because there's five times the detail to fuss over.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
maybe because I have 50 year old eyes?

My eyes are not as good as what they used to be either. I use a magnifying lamp AND (for really fiddly detail) a magnifying lenses. Not only does it provide excellent light quality with the built in lamp but the magnification is invaluable. Especially as I've gotten older, but tbh, I don't know how I ever painted anything without them.


.

PieInTheSky wrote:



Second, GW are clearly leading the way on this. If you say things like, "don't try and tell me GW are leading the way on this", I can only assume that you're simply not very active in the miniatures hobby outside of GW products. And there's nothing wrong with that btw, I don't mean to sound condescending or snarky. But it's just an obvious and widely known fact that GW are driving the 32mm choo-choo train. In fact, nearly all of the other miniature manufacturers that produce miniatures in this scale do so only so they will be compatible with GW products. I don't have a single miniature in that scale that is not a GW product. I'm sure they exist, but GW are most certainly leading the way.

If you don't own any miniatures at a 32mm scale that aren't GW products, then how can you say that it's "clearly" GW who's leading the way on this? Warmachine's models have been all over the place scale-wise since the beginning, and a lot of those are definitely a heroic 28mm scale(ie more like 32mm). And Warmachine first released back in 2004.

Thirdly, it is price gouging. How do we know? Well because miniature war-gaming and board games such as blood bowl has got along just fine for the past ~five decades without requiring gigantic miniatures. They're that big for multiple reasons, but the sum total of those reasons is that GW thought they would sell more miniatures if they were that big. In fact, having huge miniatures on huge bases is actually detrimental to any game where space is a premium. But their goal is not to produce the best or most convenient game, their goal is to sell as many miniatures as they can.

Nothing is stopping you from playing Blood Bowl with your older teams. Absolutely nothing at all.

And yes, Games Workshop is a business. A business that sells miniatures. If they were to suddenly stop selling miniatures tomorrow, they would quickly go out of business. I don't understand why people keep ragging on GW for ...being a business. If you owned an electronics store, your end goal would be to sell as many electronics to as many customers as possible. Why is GW any different for doing the same but with miniatures?

But don't try and tell us it's not happening or that GW made the decision to do that for reasons that were anything else than increasing their bottom line.

When you're a business that sells miniatures, it does tend to be the miniatures that make you money.

My main problems are that they take up too much room, they take longer to paint and it's just all round a kind of dodgy maneuver on behalf of GW for $$$. Even though I wasn't personally effected, I don't like their attitude towards long-term fans ("let's think up a way to make them have to rebuy all the stuff they spent the last decade collecting").

There's no Miniatures Police that goes around twisting people's arms and making them buy new miniatures if they're happy with their old collections. While my main avenue for gaming is my local friendly game store, I'm sure there are thousands of gamers who spend many happy hours in their living rooms getting games in with 20 year old armies.

 Mr. Grey wrote:

But don't try and tell us it's not happening or that GW made the decision to do that for reasons that were anything else than increasing their bottom line.

When you're a business that sells miniatures, it does tend to be the miniatures that make you money.

Yes, well, we agree then.

But there are people who seem to want to pretend that's not what's happening.

My main problems are that they take up too much room, they take longer to paint and it's just all round a kind of dodgy maneuver on behalf of GW for $$$. Even though I wasn't personally effected, I don't like their attitude towards long-term fans ("let's think up a way to make them have to rebuy all the stuff they spent the last decade collecting").

There's no Miniatures Police that goes around twisting people's arms and making them buy new miniatures if they're happy with their old collections. While my main avenue for gaming is my local friendly game store, I'm sure there are thousands of gamers who spend many happy hours in their living rooms getting games in with 20 year old armies.

Once again we agree. There's no way on earth I'm shelling out for the new up-scaled Blood-Bowl miniatures. In fact I've been buying up some of the old teams on eBay to stock up. They're becoming classic collector's items.

I haven't yet decided whether to start with 5th Edition and do as you say ... playing in the living room, or to start with 9th Edition and play a bit more socially outside of my own close family and friends. If I do go for 9th then yes, I will buy the up-scaled models and no, I will not be mounting them on 25mm bases for no good reason. It is what it is.

However that does not invalidate anything else I've said on the subject and I would certainly have preferred if they didn't upscale the models, but that horse has unfortunately bolted. But now that it has I'm not going to sit around pretending that it never happened or that they did because they're "easier to paint" or some such nonsense. They did it as a strategy to make as much money as possible, period (and I'm glad we agree on that). Not only because it will mean many players have to go and re-buy everything to stay current, but also because the models look more spectacular on the box and in books, which sells.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Because warhammer fantasy battle isnt officially supported anymore so no one really cares

Don't go cutting yourself on that edge there mister...

WHFB the Old World is on the way back, and outside of tournament play, IME nobody really gives a hoot about what bases your AoS model are on so long as you don't take the piss, just like 40k.

what i meant was, that its not officially supported because of AoS. theres a reason that "people" updated it to a new edition, and GW didnt.

Whether they bring it back officially (which i hope they do) is another story