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.

so having my demons on square bases is that a problem?

Rules say bases they came with. and they came with square bases.

I was going to make the same point - all of my daemons are mounted on the bases they came with, which are similarly square.

Sounds like you're fine.


Really I think too many people are making a big deal about some of these rules GW finally got around to putting into the book.

They're clearly there to stop TFG who is obviously basing his stuff to gain an advantage. For all the rest of us, who may have one or two models on a scenic base just for looks, who in their right mind is going to make a stink about it?

yakface wrote:

They're clearly there to stop TFG who is obviously basing his stuff to gain an advantage. For all the rest of us, who may have one or two models on a scenic base just for looks, who in their right mind is going to make a stink about it?

TFG?

Greebynog wrote:

yakface wrote:

They're clearly there to stop TFG who is obviously basing his stuff to gain an advantage. For all the rest of us, who may have one or two models on a scenic base just for looks, who in their right mind is going to make a stink about it?

TFG?

Yes, because TFG are totally borken in 40K.

yakface wrote:
Sounds like you're fine.


Really I think too many people are making a big deal about some of these rules GW finally got around to putting into the book.

They're clearly there to stop TFG who is obviously basing his stuff to gain an advantage. For all the rest of us, who may have one or two models on a scenic base just for looks, who in their right mind is going to make a stink about it?

A lot of Nids players from another forum delight in putting their models on ruins, climbing walls, hanging out in trees, standing upright brandishing claws, etc. but I have yet to hear ANY of them mention that it would also make them better at TLOS measurements.

In fact the general consensus there is that it is the hobby, not game aspect of 40k which drives those conversions. Have a conversation before the game with any opponent who has unusually based models and you should get a clear idea from that how the basing will, if at all, affect the game. That way neither of you are crying foul if the situation comes up.

Don't be TFG !!!

In my case it's more for cost savings than modelling. I would like to have an army that I can use for both 40k and Fantasy, and as it uses the same models, just put them onto a square base. Just don't want to show up at a tournament and be told that I can't use my army since their on square bases.

I've found that the round bases don't matter in fantasy since, for the troop models, you use the movement tray so they easily rank up in them.

For the GDs I know someone that created a round scenic base for his GD, with a square base, to use in 40K

Bahkara wrote:For the GDs I know someone that created a round scenic base for his GD, with a square base, to use in 40K

So he's just being perverse in not using a regular round base for 40k?

No, Bahkara just has poor grammar.

He meant that the person made a scenic round base to use in 40k for a Greater Daemon which was mounted on a square base. Or something.

I am not sure that Bahkara knows what he meant. I think he works in the sun too much some times.

By the rules if they came with square bases, its fine. To the insistent it helps them about as much as it hurts; no harm.