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.

My question is simple; Can I use a dreadnought base to base a Daemon prince and still be a playable model in official games or events? My scratch built model is so top heavy that it doesn't want to balance on the terminator base.

The official ruling is you must use the base the model would have come with.

You could try adding metal slugs to the bottom of the base (Dimes work wonders with my fantasy standard bearers) But as long as it can't be claimed "Modeling for an advantage"

I don't really see a problem.

Either way I'd talk with the TO about it.

daemon princes are confusing because the generic ones are on termi bases but the nurgle one is on a dreadnaught base i would talk to your LGS if that matters to them but for the most part dreadnaught bases are fine with em

deffskullz wrote:daemon princes are confusing because the generic ones are on termi bases but the nurgle one is on a dreadnaught base i would talk to your LGS if that matters to them but for the most part dreadnaught bases are fine with em

I am only aware of GW making one daemon prince. I know FW makes a nurgle one but on a side note, are FW models officially sanctioned for use by GW?

GW also made a nurgle DP when that awful global tourney 'battle for medusa' was launched

Check the GW website they have one shas. Yay i hate when they do this dreadnought base is the appropriate size as they are a MC.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:The official ruling is you must use the base the model would have come with.

You could try adding metal slugs to the bottom of the base (Dimes work wonders with my fantasy standard bearers) But as long as it can't be claimed "Modeling for an advantage"

I don't really see a problem.

Either way I'd talk with the TO about it.

Funny Enough, five quarters and a couple of dimes can't hold this model up, I put them on the base to see how top heavy it really was.

Rockheart wrote: Funny Enough, five quarters and a couple of dimes can't hold this model up, I put them on the base to see how top heavy it really was.

Damn but yea if GW is using a dread base on the nurgle one then it shouldn't be a problem. thanks everyone else for the answers.

Thanks everyone, I will talk to one other person I know. But I think that I will go ahead and use a dread Base! Look at my gallery here in a few weeks and I will try to post pics of it if you're interested.

As a TO, or shop owner, I'd have absolutely no problem with using the larger base. GW has already had a DP on that size, so there's precedent, and I don't see any advantage to it in gameplay. You're doing it for modeling purposes. Good enough for me.

Upsizing Advantages:
1. When disembarking a transport, the back edge of the base needs to hit the 2" area. If you go from a 40mm to 60mm you are gaining an extra 20mm of distance for your assault

Example: A mega Armored Warboss or Ghazghull is expected to be on a 40mm base. When on a 60mm base he gains close to an extra inch of distance for his unit when disembarking which can make or break assaults with that difficult terrain movement. While it is cinematic, it is a huge rules advantage.

2. Larger based models may still have the 2mm coherency which means it is possible fore more models to spread out to avoid templates.

Example: I have a unit of Nobs on 40mm instead of 25mm. If I put the 40mm at a full 2" coherency spread out, if I replaced each model with a 25mm base, that would be about an extra 7.5mm distance on each side of the model for a total distance of (7.5mm + 50.8mm + 7.5mm= 65.8mm coherency) Which means ducking wounds/hits from templates.

Of course there are disadvantages. You expose more of your models to CC and *could* be easier to get into base contact.

A single-footmounted model on an upsized base is probably not going to gain any advantages. so a DP is probably OK in most situations, but there are real reasons why upsizing has a game impact.

My howling banshees suffered from the same problem until I glued some small, flattened lead shot to the bottoms of their bases. If the base can accomodate coins, you might want to try fishing-line sinkers flattened by a hammer. The lead is significantly heavier than a coin and is malleable enough to hammer-sculpt it to fit the bottom of the base.

A larger base would give it a better center of gravity, though, but make sure your opponent is okay with it. My exodite dragon riders count as jetbikes and are mounted on 60mm bases, the equivalent of large flight bases. However some eldar jetbikes are mounted on the smaller 30mm flight bases and I've had some players tell me that my bases are too big. While I can point out that my dragon riders wouldn't fit on a 30mm base and that jetbikes can come with either base, it still comes down to what my opponent is comfortable playing against.

You can also get a bag of small lead bird shot, say number seven shot or smaller. I green stuff rare earth magnets into all my bases, then fill the rest of the base with shot, add super glue and a shot of accelerator. The bases are well weighted against tipping, and the magnets are very secure. You could use the termie base, put a big magnet in it, say quarter sized or larger, then make a 60mm base with a big magnet underneath as well. Run with the 60mm till somebody complains, then pop it off for that game.

I load my whole army into a Kobalt plastic toolbox with three steel drawers. There is room in the top compartment for 6-8 vehicles, and easy access to any of my infantry without pulling foam trays out of a case. I can get 2500 points of most armies besides orcs and guard into one box.

Check it out here http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=156760-56096-HP2331-KB&cm_mmc=microsite_kobalttools-_-Kobalt-_-ProductCatalog-_-buyatlowes_156760-56096-HP2331-KB

Not to hijack the thread, but on the subject of bases, I have a question.

I have a Bloodthirster, and an old Tyranid Lictor. They both came with square bases, not circular ones when I bought them (from GW). The Bloodthirster in particular is a very delicate model now (the leg has a small crack running through it after an accident with it), so I'm paranoid about removing the base incase the whole model breaks.

Are those models with the old square bases legal to use, or does it HAVE to be a circular base now? Using the logic of 'use whatever it came with', I should be able to use them, but they're not even circular bases... (for anyone wondering, the Lictor was from around 1999, and the Bloodthirster was maybe 2000-2001?)

Nice that is stupid that the lictor came with a square base. His situation is why GW should have rules to cover bases included in the codices or on their website for appropriate sizes for respective models. Well my if the lichtor is an MC then dread base if not then termie base i cant remember what the lichtor looks like. The bloodthirster i know is an MC and can also understand why that one came with a square base since it is also used in fantasy.

If you find a model/rc shop which does boats the they should have bottles of ballast. This is very fine lead shot which fills space well. Mix it with epoxy and fill the base with it.

Neith wrote:Not to hijack the thread, but on the subject of bases, I have a question.

I have a Bloodthirster, and an old Tyranid Lictor. They both came with square bases, not circular ones when I bought them (from GW). The Bloodthirster in particular is a very delicate model now (the leg has a small crack running through it after an accident with it), so I'm paranoid about removing the base incase the whole model breaks.

Are those models with the old square bases legal to use, or does it HAVE to be a circular base now? Using the logic of 'use whatever it came with', I should be able to use them, but they're not even circular bases... (for anyone wondering, the Lictor was from around 1999, and the Bloodthirster was maybe 2000-2001?)

Those are the bases the models came with and hence, are completely "legal".

If you find a model/rc shop which does boats the they should have bottles of ballast. This is very fine lead shot which fills space well. Mix it with epoxy and fill the base with it.

While square bases are legal with the 'what your model came with' rule, they can be exploited in regards to assaults and such out of transports.

Being square, corner to corner is much longer and when disembarking you can put the corner of the base at the tip for the 2" disembark. For a 40mm round, if you used a square and put the tip of the corner at the deployment zone edge for disembarking you would have a 56.5mm long base for an extra 16.5mm of distance for assaulting. I know some people like to use 25mm square for some units, and that becomes a 35mm corner to corner which can help for assaulting... i.e.: fantasy orks on square bases out of a squiggoth.

Of course I can think of a number of current models that legitimately could be based on square bases on one hand and none of them are piling out of transports anytime soon, but still, Square bases can be used for shenanigans.

You will usually know if someone is trying to exploit a base size or not. It isn't that hard to figure out.

doubletap