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.

FratHammer wrote:
Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... .

What 'validation' are you talking about?

And, just for what it's worth, my username is not 'isnak'...

FratHammer wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

FratHammer wrote:
Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.

Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... So I'm back on my band wagon of being right. Read all the back pages and provide evidence, don't say "RAW you're wrong" because I can't refute an incorrect statement without knowing the evidence you're claiming to stand on. I've proven the rules state what I have said. The only evidence against me was that I might be taking model as unit, but as isnak has worded beautifully any problems with that theory. So...rebase your models. And qq to gw.

"Models" are defined as Citadel miniatures according to the rules. As in, the plastic miniatures that are created under the Citadel brand.

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with".

This can also be worded as:

"The rules in this book assume that the Citadel Miniatures are mounted on the base they are supplied with".

So, whatever came in the box with the Citadel miniatures is the bases you put them on. Rebasing them is against the rules since the Citadel miniatures did not come with those bases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Insaniak,
A possibility but I am not overly convinced given how long Game Workshop has been in business and how many opportunities they have failed to take. Stronghold Assault could have done for Terrain what Escalation had done for Lords of Wars, but was nothing more then a few Rule tweaks and a place to store the imperial Data-slates they had already created. What few additions they did add to the book where also, not surprisingly, imperial themed. Regardless of what occurs in the future, Scratch-built Terrain literally gives us permission to use every day objects as terrain, so the Authors clearly want us to use more then Citadel Scenery when it comes to terrain... for the time being at least.

Thecustomlime,
The Datasheet could have a Rule which states that it counts as Ruins, what then?

Well, then it counts as ruins but it would be fan rules instead of official rules.

"Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'

(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)


A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model." -isnack.

So it's a blood angels space marine, not an abstract piece of plastic. A model represents something, not nothing, hence why a model should be based on the base the model is currently supplied with. And then repeat all my arguments up until this point. When a model was just a plastic abstraction the argument held. It no longer holds if the model transcends anything other than a piece of plastic. Once it goes back to representing something, they all represent that thing, they are all models that represent the same thing, and are therefore not currently supplied with those tiny bases. They were once, but no more. And for validation it means current see 4 pages of previous comments on how the English language works.

Nope, sorry, you're clearly seeing some link there that you're not explaining.


The fact that a model is a model doesn't change the size base that comes in the packet.

Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.

I've rebased my Dark Angels (well, all those in bog standard power armour anyway) on 32s. Space Marines in general JUST ABOUT manage to fit on 25s regardless of their pose. On 32s they fit very comfortably on them. Same applies to Necrons
Does this make me a cheater? Hardly. It just means I've chosen to base them on a size that is appropriate for the model.

FratHammer wrote:
Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.

I'm still not following your logic here, because what you're saying has no connection to the actual rules.

You seem to be suggesting that the fact that the rulebook refers to Citadel miniatures as models proves that all miniatures that represent that model must be on the same base, and that base should be whatever is on the 'current' version of the model... But there is no link between the rule and your conclusion.

So, again, please explain what link you're seeing there.

FratHammer wrote:
"Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'

(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)


A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model." -isnack.

So it's a blood angels space marine, not an abstract piece of plastic. A model represents something, not nothing, hence why a model should be based on the base the model is currently supplied with. And then repeat all my arguments up until this point. When a model was just a plastic abstraction the argument held. It no longer holds if the model transcends anything other than a piece of plastic. Once it goes back to representing something, they all represent that thing, they are all models that represent the same thing, and are therefore not currently supplied with those tiny bases. They were once, but no more. And for validation it means current see 4 pages of previous comments on how the English language works.

A model doesn't represent anything. GW gives a very clear definition of what they consider a model to be: A physical miniature manufactured under the Citadel brand. Model does not refer to the Tactical marine the miniature represents. Nothing in the rules suggests that. More evidence for this:

"...starting with a guide to forging a battle-ready army from your collection of Citadel miniatures". (Under "Preparing for Battle")

People do not collect abstract concepts. They collect pieces of plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FratHammer wrote:
Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.

No, the rules refers to the base the actual miniature came with. I am not following your logic here.

Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread. As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.

Also I agree with you Custom, on the we collect plastic. But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something. If it's just plastic, that model does indeed "need to be based on" the base it came with, which is what Hawaii it's saying. Though if the model represents something, then that is not in fact true.

Btw I see no evidence to suggest you can base non BA Space Marines on 32mm bases (yet)

So the rule as I've quoted a million times... No, ya know what, if you care to read English properly, just look up one of my previous posts on how their language states in plane English, that we must base our models in the currently supplied base. I'm sick of cherry pickers.

FratHammer wrote:
Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread.

No, we're saying your newest posts are making some sort of logical leap that you're not explaining.

As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.

Indeed you don't. But you're not being asked to supply previous information. You're being asked to explain the current argument.

You claimed that my presenting the rule that 'models' refers to 'Citadel Miniatures' somehow 'validates' your claim that you have to use the base a model is currently supplied with, regardless of what came in the box. But you have yet to provide any logic that actually links those two things together.

But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something.

There is nobody participating in this thread named 'isnak'.

The rules in this book assume that a model is mounted on the base it is supplied with...

That is what the rule says when changed from plural (models) to singular (a model). It clearly shows your position is wrong and does not concern itself with what base any other model was supplied with.

FratHammer wrote:
Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread. As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.

Also I agree with you Custom, on the we collect plastic. But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something. If it's just plastic, that model does indeed "need to be based on" the base it came with, which is what Hawaii it's saying. Though if the model represents something, then that is not in fact true.

Btw I see no evidence to suggest you can base non BA Space Marines on 32mm bases (yet)

So the rule as I've quoted a million times... No, ya know what, if you care to read English properly, just look up one of my previous posts on how their language states in plane English, that we must base our models in the currently supplied base. I'm sick of cherry pickers.

Please try to keep this civil. Please don't imply that people who don't agree with you or don't follow your logic can't read English... particularly when your posts are riddled with grammar and spelling errors. There is a saying about pots and kettles that seems appropriate.

You also keep changing the wording of the rule in your posts, which does really make your logic harder to follow. The rule book doesn't say "currently supplied base". You're adding the "currently" bit yourself. The rule in question ACTUALLY says "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." If I have an old metal Terminator in my army, the rule assume my old metal Terminator is mounted on the base it is supplied with. What base was it the old metal Terminator supplied with? It's supplied with a 25mm base. I defy you to find me an old metal Terminator, new in package and supplied with a 40mm base.

For you to be correct, you'd have to demonstrate that when GW uses the word 'models' in the above rule, they aren't referring to the actual, physical... well, models. Otherwise, you can demonstrate that my old metal Terminator is supplied with a 40mm base (good luck with this one). I'd even be OK with you demonstrating how a currently available for purchase old metal Terminator (links provided to multiple new in blister eBay auctions previously) that is supplied with a 25mm base isn't being currently supplied with a 25mm base.

Alright, Frat, I'll address your other arguments if you still stand by them.

"If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater"

No, it is not cheating to buy old terminators just for the sake of getting smaller bases. Is it a jerk move? Probably not. But it is perfectly legal rules wise as these miniatures are being used with the bases they came with.

"Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater. "

Those people are wrong since those are still valid models under the model definition. There is no expiration date on Citadel Miniatures.


"Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made."

Okay, so, the term unit is not a substitute for the term "Model". They are both distinct terms in the rulebook with their own definitions.

"This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there."

Models are not the abstract rules idea of what they represent. A model of a Tactical Marine is not the WS 4 BS4 Superman of Death. The model is the actual miniature. As in, the chunk of plastic. If that chunk of plastic was supplied with a 25mm base in 2001 then it doesn't matter if a different chunk of plastic in 2014 with the same name was supplied with a 32mm. Under the rules, they are different entities.

So, yes, this does mean that you can have a unit of Terminators with differing base sizes.

Kris, in always posting during a break from work on my phone and cannot control how awful swipe's auto correct is. The extra periods and incorrect words really grind my gears, but I'm not willing to constantly fix words while on a time schedule. Also I have stated why I believe it means current several times, to include the use of the dictionary. It is not the past tense WERE it is the present tense ARE that is used in the rule we are discussing. So the rules say currently supplied with via the English language. Your only leg to stand on is the argument that current can instead mean packaged with 20 years ago, but unopened. Which has been a hard argument to refute.

Custom, great argument, break is to short but I'll hit you back after work.

And Ghaz, no changing words in the book when we talk RAW.

The only thing that I changed was from plural to singular. It is still RAW.

FratHammer wrote:
Kris, in always posting during a break from work on my phone and cannot control how awful swipe's auto correct is. The extra periods and incorrect words really grind my gears, but I'm not willing to constantly fix words while on a time schedule. Also I have stated why I believe it means current several times, to include the use of the dictionary. It is not the past tense WERE it is the present tense ARE that is used in the rule we are discussing. So the rules say currently supplied with via the English language. Your only leg to stand on is the argument that current can instead mean packaged with 20 years ago, but unopened. Which has been a hard argument to refute.

Custom, great argument, break is to short but I'll hit you back after work.

And Ghaz, no changing words in the book when we talk RAW.

Fair, but unless you're buying new models everytime you start a game, you have to assume a certain amount of past tense.

Again, what's the limit? Are the models I bought earlier today ok? Are the models I bought yesterday ok? A year ago? A decade ago? The rules assume we're basing are models on the bases they are supplied with.

Again, I ask... what base IS supplied with the old metal Terminators? Until the end of time, the answer to that question will be a 25mm base. They may not be easy to find, but if you can find them, those models are CURRENTLY supplied with 25mm bases.

If you asked me "What size bases do Terminators come with?", I might assume you mean the current models and say 40mm. I might also ask you, "Which Terminator models are you referencing? They've come with a variety over the years."

Until such time as the army list entries have a required base size (this will most likely never happen), we should continue to buy models, open the box, assemble them and stick them to the base that was also in the box. How long we subsequently retain the model is irrelevant.

As seen below a model has characteristics.
How can plastic have characteristics? Because that plastic represents something. An intangible something. Some would use the word unit, as Hawaii suggested.

Models have attributes. So you want to believe model doesn't have any link in time to its current form, fine. Buy a second or third ed book and use your old cost, your old starts, your old wargear.

As you can see from the below, model, refers to an orc boy, a space marine terminator, a blood angel. Not just a piece of plastic. It represents it in its current state. So as I said, I'll allow you to claim your 25mm bases on models that should have larger ones if you use the proper "models" cost and statistics from the codex it was sold with.

By that logic, nobody should be using old models at all.

Can you please quote the part of the rules that refers to 'current' models?

I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"

If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I'm going to bed. I'll post a retort during break because I'm sure someone will have something. LOL

FratHammer wrote:
I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"

If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I'm going to bed. I'll post a retort during break because I'm sure someone will have something. LOL

Please demonstrate how the model in the attached link IS CURRENTLY supplied with a 40mm base. To clarify, I'm not interested in one of the several kits currently sold on the GW website. I'm interested ONLY in the specific model in the link.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40K-ROGUE-TRADER-SPACE-MARINE-TERMINATOR-THUNDER-HAMMER-oop-Metal-/181705913905?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e843631

FratHammer wrote:
I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"

If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?

No. None of that post makes any sense at all. I would recommend spending a little more time proof reading before hitting the 'post' button.

This is also the last time I point out that my username isn't 'isnak'. I'm going to just assume you're deliberately trolling from here on out.

FratHammer wrote:
As seen below a model has characteristics.
How can plastic have characteristics? Because that plastic represents something. An intangible something. Some would use the word unit, as Hawaii suggested.

Models have attributes. So you want to believe model doesn't have any link in time to its current form, fine. Buy a second or third ed book and use your old cost, your old starts, your old wargear.
As you can see from the below, model, refers to an orc boy, a space marine terminator, a blood angel. Not just a piece of plastic. It represents it in its current state. So as I said, I'll allow you to claim your 25mm bases on models that should have larger ones if you use the proper "models" cost and statistics from the codex it was sold with.

Admittedly, I think GW's definition of a model is asinine for that very reason but here is the problem with your argument: Models do not have inherent characteristics. Those characteristics are assigned to them by Games Workshop and are subject to change. A power armored marine armed with a boltgun can have different characteristics depending on what chapter tactics you use, which codex you have or even what unit you assign it to.

Thus, a model does not inherently represent anything. Their representation is assigned. Plus, there are no assigned bases to specific types of models. A Blood Angels tactical marine is not required to have a 32mm base anywhere in it's rules.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Those characteristics are assigned to them by Games Workshop and are subject to change.

And can also apply to multiple different models.

An old metal terminator, an old plastic terminator, and a current plastic terminator all have the same characteristics.

The size of their base is not a characteristic. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents you from using all three of those models, even though the models themselves are different sizes and they have different bases.

I read this thread. I laughed, I cried (figuratively). I was in doubt whether to add my own story. I will.

I had a question on other fora. I custom picked my Imperial Guard models. Using Ebay, my bits box, and bits sites I gathered Kromlech Kilted legs, GW bodies and arms, Scottish heads from yet another company, weapons left and right. I never bought a complete kit, and also not a complete model. Then it came to using these parts for a heavy weapons team. What bases to use? The problem?

These models were custom picked bits from different manufacturers. No bases were supplied.
The rules assume you use the bases supplied. This would, of course, mean I had to look further.

Those same rules then add you can use different bases. When no bases were supplied, one should look to models of a similar type.Here is another problem.
"Heavy Weapons Team" is a special rule from the codex. It is not a model type. The heavy weapons team is typed "infantry". Infantry is based in 25mm, 32mm, 40mm, and even 60mm. So, what is appropriate? I mentioned just basing the models on their own 25mm bases, and then putting those on a scenic 60mm base. This way, I could even simply remove the loader as some sort of wound marker.

By this time I had already been called a cheater, someone who models for advantage, and even some less friendly things. Even pointing out that the newest Astra Militarum models in the Astra Militarum codex follow type-rules, and not special rules-rules, was in vain. I mean, look at the picture on page 70 in the Codex: Astra Militarum. About three-quarters to the bottom right, there is a missile launcher guardsman in the front row, on a freaking 25mm base. Right there, in plain freaking sight! His "heavy weapons team" loader is behind him, on his own freaking 25mm base! Page 86 shows them again, this time next to eachother, no doubt as to them being two separate models. I shouldn't look at those pictures, and the model type was mentioned in the rules, and the rules don't state you should look at pictures. The heavy weapons team rule treats the two members of the team as a single model, but treating them that way also implies they aren't such. Those pictures don't lie.

So, in the end, in my opinion the rules aren't that clear at all. GW gives guidelines and assumptions within the rules. Hard and fast base rules would be, when they start printing codices with a standard base size per model. It is not that difficult. Look:

Guardsman (infantry 25mm)
Guardsman Sergeant (infantry character 25mm)
Guardsman Heavy Weapons Team (infantry 60mm)
Space Marine (infantry 32mm)
Space Marine Sergeant (infantry character 32mm)
Space Marine Terminator (infantry 40mm)
Chaos Space Marine (infantry 32mm)
Necron Immortal (infantry 32mm)
Space Marine Dreadnought (Vehicle, Walker 60mm)

Until such time as GW releases a rules appendix with a comprehensive list like my examples, I found out every thread about this subject tends to get heated, as there is too much room for interpretation, and even GW doesn't consistently provide examples (such as those Astra Militarum models with the missile launcher).
While many people would probably moan and whine the moment GW makes such a list (as they then officially have to re-base their models) I do think it would provide a whole lot more clarity.

Homestly, I laugh at base size arguments. Put your models on any base you want. For every advantage for a larger base, there is a disadvantage. And in a game of random dice rolls a few mm making or braking a game is silly.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
I read this thread. I laughed, I cried (figuratively). I was in doubt whether to add my own story. I will.

I had a question on other fora. I custom picked my Imperial Guard models. Using Ebay, my bits box, and bits sites I gathered Kromlech Kilted legs, GW bodies and arms, Scottish heads from yet another company, weapons left and right. I never bought a complete kit, and also not a complete model. Then it came to using these parts for a heavy weapons team. What bases to use? The problem?

Well, there are two solutions to this problem. You could ask the supplier from what box he got the GW parts from and use similarly sized bases. Remember, it doesn't matter what type of model you intend to represent with this parts. Just what bases came with them originally. And it has to be the Citadel miniature parts. 3rd party miniatures aren't considered valid models.

The other solution is to look at similar models and see how they are based. And, you are right, this can vary. Basing a HWT on 25mm and a 60mm are both valid ways of basing them since, in this case, you would use official GW images as a rules reference.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Homestly, I laugh at base size arguments. Put your models on any base you want. For every advantage for a larger base, there is a disadvantage. And in a game of random dice rolls a few mm making or braking a game is silly.

The point of YMDC is to find the RAW. It is up to the players if they will follow it or not. Personally, I think the decision between 32 and 25mm is mostly an aesthetic one. I base my first company power armor vets on 32mm because it makes them look more badass and imposing.

Lord Xcapobl,
Lets make it a little more simple, the below scenario cuts out any third party questions and involves lacking a base:

I purchase a Box of terminators... don't know why, I just did
Due to a error in packaging I find that there are zero bases in the box
I legally supply the appropriate base from another source as per the Rule being discussed

My opinion on the matter is thus:
Bases are very important in this game, entire Rule-sets fall apart if they encounter a non-vehicle Model which is lacking a base. While I am sure Game Workshop would of been silent about what base to use, just as they are silent about which bolter in the kit you should put on a marine, this concept is so vital to the Rules that they simply had to address it. Their answer was one that was easiest for them, ensuring that Game Workshop will not have to keep track of all their previous products simply to update everything to a new Rule-set; Use whatever was supplied with the Model. Then they covered other situations of missing, deformed or otherwise clearly unsuitable bases by giving us a Rule grating substitutions for appropriate bases if we encounter these 'rare' situations.

Personally, I would rather a chart telling us what bases to use for each Model and supplying 'conversion bases' to update old models
A simple ring that the old base sits in, giving it more girth...

The Space Marine attack bike doesn't come with a base and it isn't a vehicle. Ain't GW's rules grand?

So we have permission to use an appropriate sized base, looking at other Bike type models, to compliment the requirement that it is based.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

The point of YMDC is to find the RAW.

No, it's not. It never has been. It never will be.

There are multiple ways to interpret rules. Says so in the tenets of YMDC.

We really need to squash this idea RAW is the end-all, be-all of rules discussions. The point is YOU make the call. YOU say how you interpret the rule. That might be RAW, RAI or HYWPI. Neither is superior to another, or inferior to another.

Anyway, the rules clearly state base sizes are merely an assumption. People have failed over 5 pages now to point me to something that utilizes a hard line rule that clearly, unambiguously states how to base models. That's because such a thing doesn't exist. If anything, this is kind of the ultimate YMDC discussion. HIWPI, this is a game played by and for people who collect, build and assemble models, so wiggle room in order to make things way cooler is necessary. Therefore, sure, using what is surely going to be the next size iteration from official GW space marine boxes pre-emptively is just gravy.