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.

Not quite a rules question, and indeed a bit premature.. but I am curious if anyone has given any thought to how cavalry bases will be handled when deep strking in the new daemon codex. It would be great if the new codex included guidelines for this, but somehow I don't see it happening..

Specifically, what would count as a complete ring of models placed around the inital model, thus allowing for a second ring to be begun? Would it be 4 models, one side-to-side with the initial model on each long edge, and one to the front and back, or more of a 3 x 3 grid?

I ask because it has some pretty major implications for the all important assault-after-deep-strike range.

Again, I realize that the best answer is probably "wait for the codex..." ..but I'm just trying to be realistic..

with the exception of one senario I played in an RTT a long time ago I can see no reason why flesh hounds would be deep striking. Also, unless specified otherwise I'd just follow the current deep strike rules and begin to make a circle in base contact with the original model in any way you wish(assuming the situation were to occur).

Edit: After reading the new codex, the entire army actually deep strikes.

Swize1- If GW are smart they’ll include 40mm or 50mm round bases for the bigger summoned daemons. Those usually work well for 40k. Even though it’s important and affects the assault distance significantly, I rather doubt GW will address the issue of square bases used in 40k and how they should be arranged, because it’s been an issue since 4th edition came out, and they haven’t said anything about it yet. So far I’ve just arranged my square bases to mimic the positions round bases would be in. This seems the most fair.

Dakkaladd, if you’ve never heard of daemon summoning and have no idea how it works, why would you post in this thread?

But has anything else in 40k that could possibly deep strike come with square bases since 4th edition? And on top of that, with the rectangular bases?

The preview pics make it pretty clear that the khorne dogs will remain on cav bases (and I imagine "seekers of slaanesh" have the same, if they are simply remaining the current mounted daemonette models for now), though you're right, larger round bases would make things much simpler.

It's the rectangular bases that I really see as the problem. I can imagine many different ideas on how it "makes sense" to arrange the bases in a circle, leading to many disagreements. And this would not be an insignificant debate.. it can affect the squad's assault range by almost 2 inches (the length of a cav base), which, for this type of army, could really make or break the game.

People (including me) have been using square-based and retangular-based Daemons in the 40k armies at least as long as I’ve been playing (1999). Rectangular-based daemons were in both 3rd ed Chaos codices. Daemonic Cavalry. It was a different issue until the new chaos codex came out, fitting onto the template as opposed to DSing in concentric circles, but it was definitely an issue considering you could take packs of 10 or 15 of the things.

As I recall, the current mounted daemonettes (I have a bunch of the old 3rd ed ones) came with both rectangular cavalry bases and 40mm rounds when I bought them a few years ago. I’m pretty sure GW mostly standardized having the daemon models come with both round and square bases a few years ago when they made the daemon blisters and boxed sets generic & multipurpose for WH & 40k. Unfortunately a lot of players [raises hand] play both games, and base their daemons on the square bases because exact base size/ranking is a big deal in WH.

Obviously the pictures we’ve gotten so far of the models from Codex: Daemons don’t make clear whether GW is going to continue including both types of bases. The pictures actually kind of contradict it. But what I think is actually the case is that the ‘eavy Metal team just painted up a certain quantity of models, they based them one type of base, and then just used them in the photos for both armies. Which is, no argument, dumb and confusing. I expect it will also encourage people to continue using bases which don’t necessarily match the game they’re playing. If we’re really lucky GW will start the FAQs rolling again soon, and they’ll have the smarts to cover this subject in the Warhammer Armies: Daemons and Codex: Daemons FAQs. Because it’s definitely going to come up a lot.

swize1 wrote:Specifically, what would count as a complete ring of models placed around the inital model, thus allowing for a second ring to be begun? Would it be 4 models, one side-to-side with the initial model on each long edge, and one to the front and back, or more of a 3 x 3 grid?

3 x 3 grid would seem to be the closest to a circle that could be made with square bases that have to be touching.

In that vein, is it beardy to take the daemons I currently have (which currently include 6x mounted daemonette on rectangular bases) and insert one of each into my summoned lesser daemon squads? When I put them into the summoned circle, I place them last, pointing at the unit I plan to charge. The extra range is significant.

Before anyone gets flame-happy, I only use the summoned lesser daemons in Apocalypse games, not normal games and definitely not tournaments.

Tiderian wrote:In that vein, is it beardy to take the daemons I currently have (which currently include 6x mounted daemonette on rectangular bases) and insert one of each into my summoned lesser daemon squads? When I put them into the summoned circle, I place them last, pointing at the unit I plan to charge. The extra range is significant.

It's allowed by the rules. Beardiness really comes down to your intention.

If you're doing it because you have old models, and don't want to rebase them, few people are going to complain.
If you're doing it, as you suggested, because it gives you a range advantage... that's a little off. It's edging into 'extended vehicle weapon barrel' territory.


GW really need to just bite the bullet and give each unit a set base size. While older players might complain about having to rebase some models, it's really not adding a great deal to the usual army rebuilding that happens each edition anyway. And would solve a lot of hassles.

Mannahnin wrote:
Dakkaladd, if you’ve never heard of daemon summoning and have no idea how it works, why would you post in this thread?

Because I have read the new Demon Codex and know that there is no such thing as "summoning" for them. So I guess I should ask you the same question.

insaniak wrote:
GW really need to just bite the bullet and give each unit a set base size. While older players might complain about having to rebase some models, it's really not adding a great deal to the usual army rebuilding that happens each edition anyway. And would solve a lot of hassles.

Yep, they really should. Works for Fantasy..............

except that there is no current chart for Fantasy either, now, and their base sizes (ref: giants and Dragons) are different than they should be, with no explanation. so, actually, GW is backsliding, not moving forward, in clarity on bases.

For the record, Karnak and the fleshhounds in the 40k spearhead came with calvary bases, so it is a reasonable concern.

It would seem to make sense that the first "circle" is going to be either 6 models (one in front, one in back, stagger two on each side) or 8 (just form a rectangle). Only real difference seems that you'd get slightly less partial hits with the rectangle method.

BTW, the rest of the spearhead bases were circular.