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.

Dracheous wrote:The question of GW's intent is invalid at this point because they have not come out with a full fledged announcement of requiring round over square bases.

You misunderstand. I agree that they want to allow players to use older models, so they are unlikely to make such an announcement. That being said, I DO believe it is their intent that players buying a new box of daemons use the appropriate bases for the game system they play. I know lots of people have based on squares for use in both games in the past (I'm one of them). But I'm explaining why that is not the best choice. It's better (for me as a player using daemon models in both systems) to put them on the rounds, and make juggers and greater daemons swappable.

Dracheous wrote:But even if it was their intent to completely RID the 40k universe of square bases and say they were no longer legal in play, why does NEW gaming material from them still have square bases both included with kits AND illustrated in the rule books and codecies?

Because its not a rule to have either or, only to have the one supplied.

Again you misunderstand. Obviously they package daemons with BOTH bases so stores only need to stock one box of each daemon kit for both systems. It saves money on packaging and space for stock. What I pointed out was that the rule as written doesn't mention kits like this which come with two options. So it's making an assumption for people to conclude that the rule, which doesn't mention multiple bases, is giving them a choice.

Dracheous wrote: There are also MANY references in the BRB to models on square bases being fine as there are many illustrations shown of games in progress with them in use.

Ah, no. This is not true. There are no diagrams or rules illustrative photos showing square bases. And very few photos.

There are exactly two photos in the AOBR version of the rulebook, and one more in the big version. One/two pictures of bikes on rectangular cavalry bases on page v (and xi in the big hardcover), one picture of a flesh hound on page 4. Both of which, to my recollection, were ONLY supplied with those bases when 5E came out, as the new bike bases hadn't been released yet.

If you're going to take pics from the rulebook as conclusive, are you going to stop putting bikes on bases at all? The large version of the rulebook has 7 pictures of bikes on NO bases at all.
Page ix, 187, 190, 205, 213, 237 and 239.

But if we're taking pictures of figs in action into evidence, one might note that every single picture of daemons in the book (except for that lonely flesh hound) is on a round base. See pages 200 & 201, 236, 254, 275 and 279.

When I bought my old Avatar many years ago he came with 40mm square. But he's on a 60mm round in the single picture of the model in the rulebook, on page 244.

Dracheous wrote:... that we would deny people the ability to play because their model is supplied with a square base rather than a round base....

What are you talking about? In literally every post I have made I have asserted, repeatedly (for the people with poor reading comprehension), that the rules allow using square bases.

What I am saying is that:

A) It's not a good idea. From my experience using such models myself, I've learned there are approaches which work better both for the Daemon player and his opponents.
B) It's probably not GW's intent that anyone base new daemon models on squares if the player intends to use those daemons in 40k.

@ MOD, think you took everything I said as being directed at YOU when it was not entirely.


"Illustrations = images" there are MANY illustrations of different models not just bikes on square bases in the BRB, including Def koptas and Khorne Blood hounds, and yes there are many images of bikes with out bases ((if they were not supplied with base, then where is the ruling stating the required base size to be square or round? Since they too have changed, though I prefer bikes to HAVE a base if they wish to assault me otherwise they can't Because you have to get into "base contact" to assault, though I guess that might get thrown out of wack with the idea of a defiler...))



Still there are many illustrations in the book that show square bases in use, and pictures of models like the Khorne blood hounds as examples of models ((pg. 4)) where its not shown in game but an example of a useable model in the game.


As for Pg. 244 I refer back to pg.3 which states that some modelers like to use larger scenic bases for important models, so if your model CAME with the 40mm then you are NOT breaking the rules as per pg.3 as it states to use supplied, if you choose to use a larger one for making the model more impressive you require your opponents permission.


As for the choice of square versus round, 40k has no direct rule against a square base, and as I said in a LOT of images supplied to you by GW in the rule book, DEPICT a lot of models using such bases; so the choice becomes yours, use the square or the round one as you see fit. But really the choice becomes null if you don't play Fantasy, because square bases always stand out on a 40k game table ((least they do to me )) But its YOUR choice as the rule states to use the base supplied; I guess to be silly you could put one foot of the model on each base .

It's a problem with some people as they base measurements off of base edges.

Personally, I don't care. I have a bunch of DE wyches made from converted DE corsairs and they all have square bases.

If anyone bugs you about it, just take a round base, trace it on some paper, and cut out a bunch of round base outlines to glue onto the bottom of the square base. Presto, instant round bases.

Austragalis wrote:If anyone bugs you about it, just take a round base, trace it on some paper, and cut out a bunch of round base outlines to glue onto the bottom of the square base. Presto, instant round bases.

Well, instant round base that you can't actually see due to being completely covered by the original square base... but whatever works for you, I guess.

Dracheous wrote:@ MOD, think you took everything I said as being directed at YOU when it was not entirely.

Understood. That said, if you're going to argue the opposite position from me, you should try to address my points, not just argue against bad arguments from people who stopped posting two or three pages ago.

Dracheous wrote:@ "Illustrations = images" there are MANY illustrations of different models not just bikes on square bases in the BRB, including Def koptas and Khorne Blood hounds...

No, there aren't. There are no diagrams whatsoever showing square bases in either version of the 40k rulebook. There are only 1-2 photos in examples of play (the chaos bikes). One more photo of the flesh hound on page 4. And I just spotted the Deffcopta scratchbuild on page 225 of the big book, which is mounted on a rectangular cavalry base. Unlike all the other Deffcoptas in the rulebook, which are on large round flying stands.

Dracheous wrote:@ As for the choice of square versus round, 40k has no direct rule against a square base, and as I said in a LOT of images supplied to you by GW in the rule book, DEPICT a lot of models using such bases;

2-4 (depending on which rulebook you look at) is a lot? It's a miniscule percentage. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that GW expects you to use the round ones. As every picture of a daemon model except that one on p4 makes clear. There are ~140 or so daemon models pictured in the big rulebook, and all but one of them (including all the juggernauts and greater daemons) are on rounds.

Just to keep my streak alive ( ), I will reiterate that I agree the rule on basing makes a square base provided in the package legal to use. But I still don't think GW means for you to use it in 40k. And in my experience it's not the best way to go anyway.

insaniak wrote:

Austragalis wrote:If anyone bugs you about it, just take a round base, trace it on some paper, and cut out a bunch of round base outlines to glue onto the bottom of the square base. Presto, instant round bases.

Well, instant round base that you can't actually see due to being completely covered by the original square base... but whatever works for you, I guess.

I dunno what you're talking about. You can clearly see the round cut-out under the square base. Trust me, I've done this. If it didn't work then I wouldn't have said anything.

How does that work? A 25mm square on top of a 25mm circle totally covers the circle. That's just math.

Edit: Ah, I figured it out. You're fielding fantasy models in 40k using 20mm square bases. Yup, a 25mm round will be clearly visible under that. But fielding fantasy models on 20mm squares is not going to fly, most places. And certainly not in any tournament.

The Chaos Deamons came with square bases. I dont mind if someone does. I think its pretty brilliant and frugal to use chaos daemons for both fantasy and 40k.

Mannahnin wrote:

BuFFo wrote:The rules allow for square bases in 40k, so refusing to play a person who fields square bases would be the same as refusing a player for playing by any other rule, for example moving a unit 6" or firing a bolter 24".

I'm sure you're a nice guy, Buffo, but this is just rude, as was your first post in the thread.

I am sure you are a nice guy as well, but you are just being rude to me because I misread a poll question.

I even went back and edited my post to show how 'unrude' I was, but I guess you didn't see it.

First off, the Poll did not ask "is it legal". Nor did it ask "will you refuse to play". It asked "would you MIND" playing against an entire daemon army mounted on squares in 40k.

I don't mind playing some one with square bases in 40k just like I don't mind playing someone who moves his Rhinos 6" in the movement phase. Why anyone would mind a player playing by the rules is beyond me.

The question has been answered, and now I've got a pretty good idea of how much douchery can be crammed into a six-page thread.

(Turns out, it's more than I can comfortably handle).

Locking thread.