Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it acceptable to use 60mm bases on space marine bikes?

60mm is basically the dreadnought base. I hate the rectangle calvary bases.

I heard that there may be restrictions to base sizes in 5th ed rules. Is that true?

Looking for general opinions on the matter.....

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Is it acceptable to use 60mm bases on space marine bikes?

Yes.

It's the same.

Please, use the bases that came with the model (with the usual problems that follow). You can use bigger bases for scenic/modeling purposes.

Please, note that scenic bases don't "count" when it comes to LOS.
How that is going to work out, I don't know.

"My GW Line Of Sight Marker (tm) clearly shows that I would have hit if that base didn't have a rock on it."

"I beg to differ."

*Picks up d6*

Steelmage99 wrote:It's the same.

Please, use the bases that came with the model (with the usual problems that follow).

lemme point out one obvious flaw of GW's 5th edition way of ruleing base sizes:

I have an ork battleforce, it has 3 bikes in it, but the only bases provided are regular infantry size round bases ...

nostromo wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:It's the same.

Please, use the bases that came with the model (with the usual problems that follow).

lemme point out one obvious flaw of GW's 5th edition way of ruleing base sizes:

I have an ork battleforce, it has 3 bikes in it, but the only bases provided are regular infantry size round bases ...

That wouldn't get you anywhere with most gamers.
In my group, you'd get a response something like, "Hey wow! You win! Congratulations. Want to play again? This time, nobody tries to cheat?"

Just because GW saves a few bucks by throwing everything into a bigger box doesn't mean the bikes "came with" round bases. You would go by what the actual KIT comes with.

Trying that stunt would get you nowhere FAST with most groups.

Eric

In response to Old Man Ultramarine:

I think 60mm would be a bit much (width wise).
For bikes the most reasonable means of basing I've seen was from a GW article:
SM Bike Bases

hope this helps.

5th ed apparently doesn’t give the 4th ed “you can use the base it comes with or a bigger one” endorsement, instead advising you to use the base it comes with, and that you can use a bigger one for modeling purposes if your opponent doesn’t object.

That said, the cavalry bases that bikes come with are pretty lame. Rounded ones look nicer, and there are a couple of good options for them out there (see links below). As long as you don’t make them TOO big, to the point where you gain a game advantage from it, you shouldn't encounter any problems.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/189946.page#189946

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=30712&highlight=bikes+bases

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=37378&highlight=bikes+bases

MagickalMemories wrote:

That wouldn't get you anywhere with most gamers.
In my group, you'd get a response something like, "Hey wow! You win! Congratulations. Want to play again? This time, nobody tries to cheat?"

Just because GW saves a few bucks by throwing everything into a bigger box doesn't mean the bikes "came with" round bases. You would go by what the actual KIT comes with.

Trying that stunt would get you nowhere FAST with most groups.

Eric

Pardon, how is that cheating? Do you mean if the Ork players insists that you measure to the edge of the (tiny) base? If that is the case, just tell the Ork player that he has to get the Bikers in base-to-base for real. Watch him cry.

Not really taking a stand here. My Bikers are unbased currently, but am thinking of basing them (For scenic purposes, I might add. Wheelies and such)

MM, did you miss the bit where nostromo said his kit came with no appropriately sized bases? Did you also miss the bit where he stated that his intention was to point out a flaw in the RAW? Your response is both obvious (people won't be too happy to face bikes on infantry bases? you don't say!) and irrelevant (this makes the flaw in the 4th ed rules not a flaw. . . how, exactly?).

Mannahinin:

5th ed apparently doesn’t give the 4th ed “you can use the base it comes with or a bigger one” endorsement, instead advising you to use the base it comes with, and that you can use a bigger one for modeling purposes if your opponent doesn’t object.

I wonder how that will work out for tourneys? I imagine each organiser will have to decide on a maximum acceptable base size and put that in the rules pack. Could be a big bother for players (like yourself?) whose bikes are already based in non-standard ways.

I expect that in practice people are going to be fine with bikers on nonstandard scenic bases, even a 60mm as long as it’s just for a character. But if you show up with large numbers of bikers on huge bases, and the intent to gain a game advantage becomes obvious, people can pull the rug out from under you by invoking that clause. A clear restriction to standard base sizes would be clearer, but harsh on the (many) players out there who have modeled stuff on bigger bases purely for aesthetic reasons.

I made all my bike bases using the cav base and the 25mm round base. Split round base in half and glue to either end and cover gaps with green stuff.

They work fine with SM bikes and are better than the 40 mm ones GW made in that article. Those are really too big but I will use one for my Chaplain (to help make him stand out).

I don't anticipate anyone having any problems with the bases at a tournament. What I expect is, "Cool! Custom bases!"

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I think the rule is really in there so poeple who show up with drop pods on 12" dia bases, can be penalized for trying to pull a fast one.

Ork bikes and killa kans at least the old ones didn't come with bases at all. I mounted all mine on flying bases

Bases for Bikers started off as a convenience so the bike wouldn't fall over. Bikes were originally vehicles with really lousy armor. And the first bike models were kinda small and completely fit on a cav base.
Second edition was the time of the, "Wanna see my chaplain die quick? Watch the gas tank explode under his crotch from bolter fire."

Oh, and quick question about Eldar Jetbikes.
Flying bases: which one, large or small? I can't remember what came with mine and I have a convoluted collection of bases.

What base size do you use for characters that have no models? As they don't exist, they're not able to come with anything.

Tegus Chromis-MM, did you miss the bit where nostromo said his kit came with no appropriately sized bases? Did you also miss the bit where he stated that his intention was to point out a flaw in the RAW? Your response is both obvious (people won't be too happy to face bikes on infantry bases? you don't say!) and irrelevant (this makes the flaw in the 4th ed rules not a flaw. . . how, exactly?).

Mannahinin:
5th ed apparently doesn’t give the 4th ed “you can use the base it comes with or a bigger one” endorsement, instead advising you to use the base it comes with, and that you can use a bigger one for modeling purposes if your opponent doesn’t object.

I wonder how that will work out for tourneys? I imagine each organiser will have to decide on a maximum acceptable base size and put that in the rules pack. Could be a big bother for players (like yourself?) whose bikes are already based in non-standard ways.

Yay, you got him!!! Great correction, if it wasn't for you, I would be alerting a MOD.

Thanks TC, for your corrections.

PS, what did you think about the topic at hand?

My opinion on the topic at hand is found in the second half of the post you so pointlessly quote. Cheers.

P.S. Where in your post do you address the topic at hand exactly? Pot to kettle etc.

@tegeus-Cromis- Touche Sir.

I wonder if GW will make a FAQ of suggested base sizes on their site. They could then update it as convenient. They could even be especially clever and give a range of sizes for some odd shaped things.

I personally use the larger bases for my bikes, because using rectangular ones ruins the whole aesthetic for me.

Likewise, I've been using the 60mm bases for my bikes just because they look better...





Haven't run into any problems so far...

I'm not doing to gain an advantage. I really dislike the calvary bases for bikes.

Since 5th is using true line of sight. Does it matter what bases is used?

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:I'm not doing to gain an advantage. I really dislike the calvary bases for bikes.

Since 5th is using true line of sight. Does it matter what bases is used?

Very little. It's kind of funny that when GW finally makes it clear that bases have no bearing on LOS (as I've always thought they intended) they go ahead and make the rule to reign in base sizes, when it really doesn't make much difference in v5.


Sure there are a few situations where it can be an advantage but they are very, very unlikely to happen.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Pardon, how is that cheating? Do you mean if the Ork players insists that you measure to the edge of the (tiny) base? If that is the case, just tell the Ork player that he has to get the Bikers in base-to-base for real. Watch him cry.

Not really taking a stand here. My Bikers are unbased currently, but am thinking of basing them (For scenic purposes, I might add. Wheelies and such)

Regardless of what was actually IN the box, what bases are supposed to be the right size, per GW, is known.

You would be conveniently ignoring that bit of information, simply because of the way GW boxes a large group of minis together.

I'm referring to RAW for measurements. By basing your bikes on a 25mm base and expecting your opponent to measure to the base, you're hobbling him, as the base is not the appropriate size for the model (it's like putting a Daemon Prince on a 25 mm base).
That being said, if you want to put them on 25mm bases for appearance sake only, and are willing to do measurements to the model, you wouldn't get much complaint, I'd imagine, even though you are still cheating your opponent out of a little bit of measurement, technically. You would probably not be allowed to use them in a tournament with those bases, though.. If you ever wanted to.

Also. if you're thinking about mounting them to 25mm bases for appearance, you'd better be sure to weigh those bases heavily. Otherwise, you'll have a lot of toppling models. The cavalry bases are superior for this, as well.

Eric

Insaniak...are those Fighting Tigers I see?

Hrm, hopefully my Rough Riders on round medium bases will be ok.

On a similar subject, would it be acceptable to mount a weapon's team on the second smaller base, (The one in between regular infantry and dreadnought) with the second crewman on a regular base? I can't fit my teams into cover on the full-sized bases and that doesn't seem right. As long as the two are together, they occupy about the same amount of space (a little more, actually.) and people using the older guard don't have to mount them any particular way.

whitedragon wrote:Insaniak...are those Fighting Tigers I see?

Nope. They're my own 'Betharin Hunters' Chapter. More here

To add another suggestion to the mix, you could try the GF9 ovel bases. I have them on my bikes.



I have no idea why GW doesn't do something like this. I think that they look cool.

Another plus (kind of), is that they are magnetic. What makes them not as cool is that the magnetic bond is not that strong.

Really? I based my kasrkin models on the 25mm mag bases and they were absurdly hard to move off my fridge, car, etc.

Wehrkind wrote:I wonder if GW will make a FAQ of suggested base sizes on their site. They could then update it as convenient. They could even be especially clever and give a range of sizes for some odd shaped things.

You so crazy!



60mm FTW

- Salvage