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.

Do my jetbikes HEX bases bother you?

This is an annoying thread.

Athera wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious whiners should play 40K.

Corrected your typo?

I've got some daemons I use in 40k, and have just purchased some of these:
http://www.gf9.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=103

So I can play fantasy. Simple really

1: Both bases are supplied so you can use the models for 40K and FB
2: The use of square bases in 40K is legal.

That is it as far as I can see.
Have I missed something?

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). I like blues more. By the strictest rules of logic, the term OR can actually be used to imply that both conditions might be true in order to validate the statement proposed. What you're thinking of is exclusive or, or XOR. Even in my last sentence, the term I am thinking of is referred to by both expressions, thus making both sides of the or true. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square. Perhaps they give the option of the round bases for 40k only, and the square bases are for either? Maybe the round bases aren't for basing at all. Maybe they're shields? Maybe hats. Maybe delicious delicious candy. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

I did. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/320234.page#1992557 you can put a model on either base and it's legal.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

You are arguing that GW said you are supposed to use the base(s) provided. I am not arguing that. I am taking the next logical step and explaining why GW provides two different kinds of bases.
In regard to your post: putting a model on a square base when it should be round does not qualify as a "scenic base" any more than a really nice car qualifies as a truck.

Oh yeah, well you're breaking TMIR! GW clearly intended for that rule to mean that I win the game on a 1+ and got to smash your models with a hammer when they were removed as casualties. They also intended that we need to wear capes and masks and stand on our heads while we play. Srsly, a redshirt told me.

The fact remains that even if they didn't now, AT ONE TIME, SM bikes came on rectangular bases, Avatar came on a square base, daemons only came with one base and it was square, not to mention any others that have been pointed out. I'm never told by the rules or the diagram in the box which base to use, so either is appropriate. End of story. Square bases are not unreasonable. I'll happily play against a square base daemon army. I'd happily play against a square base CSM army.

This thread is silly and has more than run it's course.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: I originally was referring to models on 25mm round bases, knowing that my claim was accurate at least on that point. he assumed I meant the rules type infantry

Yes, what is defined by the rules as infantry. The only description that matters.

Okay, congratulations you got me on the bloodcrusher thing. I don't own a daemon codex, the only guy around here that plays a daemon army in 40k doesn't use them, and from looking at the model I would have never guessed it was an infantry model. So kudos you got me on a technicality.
My argument that GW intends for players to put 40k models on round bases where supplied has yet to be refuted.

And has yet to be proved either.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

The website has text written by someone in marketing, it's not part of the rules. Trying to argue that a rule means the opposite of what it says because a marketing guy thought '40k or fantasy' looked better on the page than '40k and/or fantasy' is what is preposterous. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument when the absolute best you can come up with is 'well, the marketing text says OR, not AND/OR, and clearly marketing is never sloppy with language!'

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on? It's not false characterization if it's true, whether you said it or just implied it.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

No, this is a case of someone claiming that RAI is the opposite of RAW for no good reason. Text descriptions written by the marketing department are not rules, they're marketing materials. The rule is clear, and the obvious intent of the rule is that 'if you base a model on what it came with, you're fine, control-freaks have no basis to tell you to rebase'.

daedalus wrote:

Oh yeah, well you're breaking TMIR! GW clearly intended for that rule to mean that I win the game on a 1+ and got to smash your models with a hammer when they were removed as casualties. They also intended that we need to wear capes and masks and stand on our heads while we play. Srsly, a redshirt told me.

The fact remains that even if they didn't now, AT ONE TIME, SM bikes came on rectangular bases, Avatar came on a square base, daemons only came with one base and it was square, not to mention any others that have been pointed out. That's not really relevant to my argument. I never argued that you should use a base other than what was included in the box/ blister or that you should rebase older models. I'm never told by the rules or the diagram in the box which base to use, so either is appropriate. Here is where I disagree, but... End of story. Square bases are not unreasonable. I'll happily play against a square base daemon army. I'd happily play against a square base CSM army. ...I wouldn't either although as everyone else likes to point out the CSM player would be breaking the rules since his models came with a round base.

This thread is silly and has more than run it's course. Well you're free to stop posting.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:No one here has explained why GW states on their website that they include both bases so you can assemble them for 40k OR fantasy (note: not both). Unless you claim that they intend for you to put fantasy daemons on round bases (which I think we can agree is preposterous) it seems clear that 40k daemons should be on round bases and fantasy on square.

The website has text written by someone in marketing, it's not part of the rules. Trying to argue that a rule means the opposite of what it says because a marketing guy thought '40k or fantasy' looked better on the page than '40k and/or fantasy' is what is preposterous. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument when the absolute best you can come up with is 'well, the marketing text says OR, not AND/OR, and clearly marketing is never sloppy with language!'

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models or that I would refuse to play someone who uses square bases. All I'm saying is that 40k daemons should be on round bases. that's it.

So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on? It's not false characterization if it's true, whether you said it or just implied it. My car should get 22 mpg, I should get off work when I'm scheduled,and I should drive the speed limit. Does it bother me if these things don't happen? Not really.

This is another conflict of RAW vs. RAI.

No, this is a case of someone claiming that RAI is the opposite of RAW for no good reason. Text descriptions written by the marketing department are not rules, they're marketing materials. The rule is clear, and the obvious intent of the rule is that 'if you base a model on what it came with, you're fine, control-freaks have no basis to tell you to rebase'.

You two need to calm down. I am neither a control freak nor would I refuse to play someone who played 40k with square bases. It's as if you are making the assumption that just because I have a different opinion I must be the most unreasonable person ever. If some daemon player only had square bases and only played 40k I would think it was strange but I wouldn't refuse to play him.
My argument was that the GW website has oversight and they would not put that statement in for no reason. But, fine let's discard that point And I'll just argue common sense.Let me go back to basics and see if I can post something we should be able to agree on: It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases.

I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:You two need to calm down.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the guy who keeps ranting and arguing against people who use bases he dislikes is the one who needs to calm down. It's alright, the corners of the bases won't cut you!

It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases. I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

No, because you haven't defined what 'normal' means in the context, and it's obvious that you're going to use some unusual defintion of 'normal' to continue your argument that the ROI is the opposite of the RAW. You've already done that kind of thing in this thread, like in the exchange below, where you try to deny that you want people to rebase their models on what you say they should be on.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models

ME: So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on?

My car should get 22 mpg, I should get off work when I'm scheduled,and I should drive the speed limit. Does it bother me if these things don't happen? Not really.

The reason that most people are getting into chaos daemons is to cross play them. It's completely useless to have them unless that's possible.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:The reason that most people are getting into chaos daemons is to cross play them. It's completely useless to have them unless that's possible.

...Or they could like the fluff. Or they could like the play style. Or they could think the models look kick-ass. Not all people want to play Fantasy, and not everyone wants to play 40k. Why is it 'useless' to play daemons just because you prefer one system over the over? There are tons of perfectly good reasons to play daemons, and have no intention of playing the other system at all.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:You two need to calm down.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the guy who keeps ranting and arguing against people who use bases he dislikes is the one who needs to calm down. It's alright, the corners of the bases won't cut you! I don't know- I don't remember doing any ranting though certainly arguing; you seem pretty worked up about it...

It's normal for 40k models to be on round bases. I'm sure one or both of you will post something about how I'm a terrible person or whatever but when you do so let me know if you agree with the underlined statement.

No, because you haven't defined what 'normal' means in the context, and it's obvious that you're going to use some unusual defintion of 'normal' to continue your argument that the ROI is the opposite of the RAW. You've already done that kind of thing in this thread, like in the exchange below, where you try to deny that you want people to rebase their models on what you say they should be on.

And nice name calling and false characterization. I never said I wanted players to rebase models

ME: So you're seriously telling me that you think 40k demons should be on round bases, but that you don't want players to rebase models to what they should be on?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not such a prick that I expect everyone to tear up their army for the sake of compliance with every other army in 40k.

As to the definition of normal: when you go to your LGS and see people playing 40k, in what shape is the base of the majority of models on the table?

I couldn't help to notice my post was completely ignored, and that the "using the base supplied" argument was still being used.

I bought directly from GW, not Wayland Games, directly from GW.

I was supplied with 6 square bases, and 4 round bases for a box of chaos space marines.

Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

Karon wrote:Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

Obviously. hence why it was ignored.

Karon wrote:Never mind, I should just go buy more round bases and consider it a mistake by them...lol

I assumed your question was rhetorical.

GW customer service are usually pretty helpful - I'm sure they'd bung you some bases if you give them a call.

Alternatively, if you PM me with an address, I'd be happy to send you some additional round bases, gratis. Not because I'm really an okay guy, but because I'm so obsessive about this that I'm now on a mission to FORCIBLY re-base everyone's minis. Ideally, of course, I'd like to come over and watch to make sure you really do it!

Sorry, but because I don't play fantasy I don't have any square infantry bases...

Not @karon: can we all please get a sense of humour and proportion back now, please?

Not, of course, that I've changed my opinion in the slightest...

If you need to argue over this, you have bigger issues.
Simple checklist:
Does it have one base?
Yes(DONE!) No(Go to next question)
Does it have a square and circular base?
Yes(Go to next question) No(What game are you playing, man?)
Do you intend to use it only for fantasy/40k?
Yes(Then use the appropriate base!) No(Go to next question)
Are you that nit-picky if the base is sharp on edges and sure you'll hurt yourself?
Yes(Get into a hobby like pottery/Stop being so nit-picky) No(Use the coolest base)

Look guys I may have came on somewhat harsh about this whole thing. I mean I will still play against the guy its just one of those things that just gets my goat when I see it, and I am almost certain that everybody has at least one little thing that can irritate them. Me I just don't like it when people form a unit of bloodletters etc that have both types of bases.

Anyway if anybody who does this got offended well I'm sorry but I can't help it I don't like to see it when units have different shapes of bases in them at the very least lets say I dislike it because its messy and in fantasy it can make counting ranks a bit more difficult.

Don't lose sleep over it - we all have our pet peeves.

Besides, that's part of what Dakka's for - when we're not fighting WITH our toys, we can fight OVER them.

Thanks man I was starting to feel like I was sounding like a over competitive

Everyone is entitled to get annoyed at something at some time or other but there are more important things to get annoyed about such as, oooh, I don't know, beerguts, those crappy little smart cars and body odours.

Elmodiddly wrote: those crappy little smart cars

And Nissan Cubes- those things are hideous!

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:And Nissan Cubes- those things are hideous!

I hate those too, but then again, they are SQUARE...

Sorry, guys, I just can't help myself...

Simple answer- No.

Doesn't bother me. I do like the larger round bases from an aesthetic point of view though, for years and years GW only did large square bases which is why some of my older greater daemons and the like are on square bases.

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Really don't know why you would care. It isn't really confusing and it doesn't really give them any advantage. On top of that it lets them play more games and save money.

Frazzled wrote:

Athera wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:Why the hell is this such a big freaking deal?

Because 40K is seriously only about winning and only serious whiners should play 40K.

Corrected your typo?

Well. It is what we've been seeing in this thread.

Thanks for the assist.

...Or they could like the fluff. Or they could like the play style. Or they could think the models look kick-ass. Not all people want to play Fantasy, and not everyone wants to play 40k. Why is it 'useless' to play daemons just because you prefer one system over the over? There are tons of perfectly good reasons to play daemons, and have no intention of playing the other system at all.
--------

I reread what I posted and I realize I didn't say what I meant. I meant that people should be able to cross-play them if they want to without worrying about the base changes, and if they aren't able to then it seems useless. Very few people would build two armies of the same thing if they wanted to use them for both games.

loranafaeriequeen wrote:
I reread what I posted and I realize I didn't say what I meant. I meant that people should be able to cross-play them if they want to without worrying about the base changes, and if they aren't able to then it seems useless. Very few people would build two armies of the same thing if they wanted to use them for both games.

Ahh, ok then. That makes much more sense then, and I'm totally in agreement with you there.

What absolutly amazes me is how big a freakin' deal this is.

And I'm surprised the rectangle bases that are supplied with the Bikes have yet to be questioned....