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.

Maybe I'm not having an issue with this, and maybe there's no loophole in the rules. I'm just throwing that out there, you know, as a hypothetical you may not have considered. Just maybe.

As Blackmoor has helpfully pointed out, the biggest base size you might get in a box of GW merchandize is 60mm. Therefore, as the rule applies, when you get a box of models on 40mm bases you can put them on 60mm bases (as I've down with my Chaos Spawn, for example), but you cannot put them on 25mm bases.

Arguing that you could mount these models on 80cm bases is like arguing that Orks standing in for Space Marines can't use the Bolters they are carrying because they are not WYSIWYG, or arguing that a model carrying a Bolt Pistol can fire its Lascannon twice if it does not move: pretty straightforwardly wrong.

The rule, as written:

"you can mount them on something bigger if you wish, but not something smaller".

Thats it, thats the whole rule for how big your base can be.

I do not see why you would interpret this to mean "something bigger, so long as it's not bigger than a base we produce". Maybe there's somewhere else in the rules that supports this. Otherwise, you can make your base as big as you want.

I've actually only encountered this once, as a friend has a bike model who's base is slightly longer than the width of the small blast template, so it doesn't fit. I guess we should just have him re-base it, since this can't actually happen!

Nurglitch wrote:The only things that are too large to be completely covered are vehicles, and different rules apply to them than models mounted on bases. Hence if we are to complain that some bases are too big to be automatically hit by Blast weapons, then we have invented a problem with no basis in the rules.

Incorrect, because there is no upper limit to how large a model's base may be. The rules say I may increase the model's base size without restriction.

Therefore, Grots may be validly mounted on CD-sized (5.25") bases which are too big to be automatically hit by any Blast weapon.

This is not an "invented" problem. This is an actual problem tied to the basing rules in the rulebook.

Nurglitch wrote:As Blackmoor has helpfully pointed out, the biggest base size you might get in a box of GW merchandize is 60mm.

Arguing that you could mount these models on 80cm bases

The largest "base" that GW produces is either the WFB Chariot Base or WFB Giant Base, approximately 2" x 4".

But that doesn't matter, because the basing rule does not specify that the base must be round or GW-sourced. So that is irrelevant.

So one can legally mount models on 130mm bases if one so desires.

Nope, Warhammer 40k uses round bases, of which there are only small bases, large bases, and extra large bases: http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301080&orignav=300810&GameNav=300810

Since the rule addresses basing, and 60mm is the largest base available for Warhammer 40k, your arguments that the rules specify no upper limit have no merit.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, Warhammer 40k uses round bases,

Care to provide a rule to back that up?

Because page 9 of the rulebook would appear to disagree...

Nice of you to ignore the Bikes, which are on rectangular Cavalry bases...

Also, are we to interpret your argument that the lack of a specific model or bit as somehow invalidating rules?

By extension of your flawed logic, one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store.

insaniak: Let me get this straight. I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases, and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

Asking for a rule to back that up is like asking for the rule in the English version of the Warhammer 40k book that says we should read the text as English rather than in a superficially similar language called Anglach. The fact is that the rules are to be understood in the framework of material they are presented in.

The fact that there are square bases in the pictures on page 9 is about as relevant to the discussion as pictures of a Falcon's flying base used to prove that vehicles have bases. Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook and I'm talking about the referents of those rules, but also because those pictures show bases small enough to fit within the area of a Blast marker. Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

The fact is that within the framework of products provided by GW, there is no situation in which something is too large to be fully covered by a Blast weapon. As positive proof the rules involving Blast markers requires that they hit before they are place and any additional hits are counted, and as corroborating evidence we have the fact that no Warhammer 40k base is larger than a Blast maker.

If you want to move outside of that framework into home-brew where rules are selectively applied and you can base models on any old plate you have lying around, don't expect the problems you encounter to be a property of the rules. Expect them to be made-up problems, just like silly buggers with proxies and WYSIWYG or selective reading of the ranged weapons rules. Of course the rules are going to have problems if you just make up about them.

Nurglitch wrote:Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

I have purchased SM bikes in the single Marine kit, the CSM single bike kit, and the Dark Angels three pack. All included square cav bases for mounting.

If you are looking for an official GW picture of a 40k model on a square base, try these Rough Riders:

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301866&orignav=301304&ParentID=6363&GameNav=10

If you are playing with someone with a huge base, you have other problems than what do you do if you can't fit a blast template over it.

If you see across the board from you a grot mounted on a CD, or a model on a pie tin you should just walk away.

There is a story about some Ork trukks at the UKGT a couple of years ago that were modeled to be 2' long. That way when they pivoted they started out an aditional 1' forward. I do not need to tell you that the judges banned those vehicles.

JohnHwangDD: Well, I suppose if I was using that "flawed logic" stuff you're babbling about, it sure would be stupid. I mean, after all, "flawed logic" sure sounds like it would involve fallacious reasoning, and fallacious reasoning is stupid no matter how smart its user is. Fortunately that's simply a straw-man you've pulled out of your rear-end. On the bright side, you are no doubt more comfortably having divested yourself of such an irritation.

So let me help you out here. I'm not saying that models are rules. That would be slowed. I'm saying that where the rules reference specific GW products, they are limited by those products.

So naturally saying that "one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store" misconstrues my point about how models and rules interact (you gotta have models, for one thing), and thus draws a ridiculous conclusion.

Since my actual argument is that Blackmoor has a good point. GW sells these things called "bases" and none of them are larger than a Blast template, and since the rules refer to these "bases" which can always be completely covered, then situations where a model won't be entirely covered lie outside of the rules.

Alpharius Walks: Thank you. Now, given that some Warhammer 40k models are sold with square 'cavalry', does that mean that any Warhammer products come with bases that cannot be fully covered by a Blast Marker?

For what it is worth, below is an example of a GW article encouraging you to build custom bases with dimensions of approximately 80x40mm:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/darkangels/painting/bases/default.htm

The genesis of this article being that bikes look silly on the provided cav bases.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases,

And I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40K models don't all come with round bases.

and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

Exactly. If round bases are what is being referred to by the rules, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide a rule that does so.

Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook

So... the rules refer to round bases, but don't actually do so in the rules...

That's seriously the point you're trying to make?

What that's worth is the same as making your own base of any dimensions: kind of irrelevant to the point that GW's rules refer to GW's products. Of course you can make your own base that won't fit completely under a Blast Marker, you just can't attribute any problems resulting from that home-made base to be a problem with the game as published.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: I'm pointing out that Warhammer 40k models come with round bases, and that is the basing referred to by the rules. And you're asking for a rule to back that up?

The fact that there are square bases in the pictures on page 9 is about as relevant to the discussion as pictures of a Falcon's flying base used to prove that vehicles have bases.

Mostly because I'm not talking about a rule in the rulebook and I'm talking about the referents of those rules, but also because those pictures show bases small enough to fit within the area of a Blast marker.

Show me that Space Marine bikes are sold with square bases and you might have something relevant.

The fact is that within the framework of products provided by GW, there is no situation in which something is too large to be fully covered by a Blast weapon.

As positive proof the rules involving Blast markers requires that they hit before they are place and any additional hits are counted, and as corroborating evidence we have the fact that no Warhammer 40k base is larger than a Blast maker.

Wow, you get awfully snippy when you're trying to defend an opinion that has no basis in the rules whatsoever...

I think insaniak is well within his rights to request you to provide a rules basis for this additional modeling condition that you're conjuring out of thin air. The fact that GW doesn't happen to sell a large round plastic base is no more relevant than than the fact that they don't sell a Drop Pod model. In either case, it would be up to the player to construct what they consider appropriate. If that means a 130mm base or a Drop Pod, so be it.

The fact that square (25mm) bases are being used is illustrative because a square 25mm base is indeed larger than a round 25mm base, therefore it is a valid and legal basing option. That means that the whole range of GW bases are available, which includes Chariot and Giant bases.

Unless, of course, you can point to an actual rule that says that 40k bases must be round, and specificially created for 40k, ignoring Bikes and Cavalry.

And I'll have you know that, back in the day, the RT-era SM Dreadnoughts; the RT-era Chaos Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes; Eldar Avatar, War Walker, and Wraithlords; Ogryns, etc. and other large models *all* were shipped on square bases, usually 40mm squares. These models are still valid, and by the letter of the rule, use the bases that were supplied with them. Square-cornered bases are now Fantasy bases; therefore, by extension, WFB square-cornered bases would remain valid for upgrades.

The fact is, you haven't got a leg to stand on. You are treating personal opinion as unsupported fact.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And I'll have you know that, back in the day, the RT-era SM Dreadnoughts; the RT-era Chaos Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes; Eldar Avatar, War Walker, and Wraithlords; Ogryns, etc. and other large models *all* were shipped on square bases, usually 40mm squares.

Ogryns, the Avatar, Killa Kans and Big Gunz were all still shipping with 40mm squares during the first couple of years of 4th edition, in fact...

Nurglitch wrote:Alpharius Walks: Thank you. Now, given that some Warhammer 40k models are sold with square 'cavalry', does that mean that any Warhammer products come with bases that cannot be fully covered by a Blast Marker?

As a matter of fact....it means exactly that, because there are several bases that cannot be covered by the blast marker.

- cavalry bases
- 60mm round bases
- 50mm square bases
- Chariot bases

Do you even read what you are writing?

JohnHwangDD: Oh, I don't know, you might get a little frustrated yourself if you had to deal with someone who insisted that you were talking about stuff that has a basis in the rules. I'm not. I'm not saying that I am. You are, but then you're not interested in

I'm saying, in regards to whether a model might be too big to completely cover with a Blast Marker, that given the materials referred to by the rules this problem will never arise.

Incidentally if you want something with a basis in the rules, see my earlier argument about how Blast Markers automatically hit at least one model.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Oh, I don't know, you might get a little frustrated yourself if you had to deal with someone who insisted that you were talking about stuff that has a basis in the rules. I'm not.

So... when you claimed that the rules of 40K refer to round bases, that wasn't actually talking about the rules?


That's a handy argument. I'll have to borrow it next game...
"Yeah, the rules of 40K refer to my Rapid Fire weapons shooting 17 times each phase. No, that's not actually in the rules, but it doesn't have to be, because I speak English. It's nothing to do with the rules, it just is..."

whitedragon: Sure I do. In fact I pulled out one of my Blast Markers and some bases and measured them. 50mmx25mm bases, 50mmx50mm, and 60mm round bases all fit comfortably under the Blast Marker.

Neither chariot bases nor regiment bases to, but since those are not 40k products, they can be ignored.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Well, I suppose if I was using that "flawed logic" stuff you're babbling about, it sure would be stupid.

So let me help you out here. I'm not saying that models are rules. That would be slowed. I'm saying that where the rules reference specific GW products, they are limited by those products.

So naturally saying that "one must conclude that SM cannot use Drop Pods because GW doesn't sell any such model in their online store" misconstrues my point about how models and rules interact (you gotta have models, for one thing), and thus draws a ridiculous conclusion.

Since my actual argument is that Blackmoor has a good point. GW sells these things called "bases" and none of them are larger than a Blast template, and since the rules refer to these "bases" which can always be completely covered, then situations where a model won't be entirely covered lie outside of the rules.

Agreed...

OK, now *exactly* where is the rule that limits the bases to those specific GW products you've referenced?

It is a fact that GW sold 40k models not using round bases, and by the initial part of the rule, choosing to use the original base, they are valid bases.

As for your point about models and rules, it makes no sense. You are artificially limiting the GW base selection where no limitation is stated or implied by the rules. Yet, by your own admission, GW's rules allow for players to create things (e.g. Drop Pods) in the absence of a specific model. Therefore, it is valid for a player to create an extra-large base in the absence of an extra-large base being sold by GW.

When we look at the full range of bases available from GW, there are at least 2 of them that are too large for a 3" Blast Marker to cover fully, and those bases are quite possibly too large for even the 5" Large Blast Marker to cover. The desire to exclude these bases forces you into all sorts of contortions to include Rough Riders but not allow them to upgrade to Chariot Bases.

While I wouldn't use the word "stupid", as you've done, when I look at your argument, I must conclude that it is fatally flawed.

insaniak: Quite correct. When I said that the rules referred to the bases sold by GW I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what the rules referred to.

However, your pathetic attempt at ridicule falls flat. Your opponent would rightly sneer in your face if you tried that without previously agreeing with him to play in that stupid manner. You fail, yet again, to understand the difference between making s*** up and applying the rules.

Just like there are Space Marine miniatures referred to by the rules, there are bases referred to by the rules.

JohnHwangDD: I'm not sure why you keep asking for a rule that doesn't exist. I'm not saying that there is a rule defining the maximum dimensions of a base. No such rule is needed, since the official bases exist to define their own maximum size.

Indeed, requiring such rules about rules is, as I've pointed out, really stupid because no such rules exist in the game. Saying that although a Warhammer 40k rulebook written in English has no rule in it requiring it to be understood in English places no artificial restraint on what language in which the rules are to be read.

One important difference between rules referring to bases and the rules referring to Drop Pods are referring to something that GW does not produce an official model for. The rules referring to bases refer to things that you can pick up in any GW store, online, and at independent retailers.

Now of course players can make extra-large bases just as they can make their own Drop Pods as they can make up their own rules. So what? And where they make their own Drop Pods and extra-large bases, and any other materials for which there is no official GW product that they reference, then any weirdness that crops up in the rules involving those home-made additions to the game is not a problem with the game.

Of course, the interesting thing about all this is that even where one steps outside of the official rules and equipment to make a base that cannot be completely covered by a Blast Marker a single-model unit that is hit by a Blast weapon cannot be ret-conned as a model that is only partially covered.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: Quite correct. When I said that the rules referred to the bases sold by GW I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what the rules referred to.

And yet with all of your attempted sidestepping, you have yet to provide anything that backs up your claim that 40K only allows the use of round bases.

However, your pathetic attempt at ridicule falls flat. Your opponent would rightly sneer in your face if you tried that without previously agreeing with him to play in that stupid manner.

Of course they would. Just the same way they would if I tried to claim that their square-based Avatar was somehow breaking the rules...

Excellent job of missing the point there, by the way.

You fail, yet again, to understand the difference between making s*** up and applying the rules.

...says the guy claiming that the rules only allow round bases...

insaniak: I'm not sidestepping, I'm simply pointing out that, as Blackmoor pointed out, the bases sold as part of Warhammer 40k products all fit completely under a Blast marker.

Likewise I'll point out that I'm not claiming that the rules only allow round bases. Fortunately Alpharius Walks is more attentive than you have been so far, and noticed that. Perhaps, unlike you, he also noticed that I agreed some Warhammer 40k products included cavalry bases.

Nurglitch wrote:insaniak: I'm not sidestepping, I'm simply pointing out that, as Blackmoor pointed out, the bases sold as part of Warhammer 40k products all fit completely under a Blast marker.

Which is sidestepping, since what you were asked for is a reference that backs up your initial claim that 40K requires round bases.

Perhaps, unlike you, he also noticed that I agreed some Warhammer 40k products included cavalry bases.

No, I noticed that. Which is why I'm wondering why you're still sidestepping the point. Simply admitting that you were wrong would have been easier.


The simple fact is that the rules don't require round bases, nor do they require GW bases.

They state that the base supplied is the smallest base allowed, but that you can mount the miniature on something larger.

Anything else is simply you trying to make stuff up.

Except that I admitted that some Warhammer 40k bases were square (well, retangular) quite some time ago while I was replying to Alpharius Walks, so I'm rather confused why you can't get back to the topic I'm arguing about.

I'm not arguing about the rules, I'm arguing about the materials that they refer to. Asking me to refer to a rule when I'm not talking about rules is pointless. Taken out of context the Warhammer 40k rules concerning basing do indeed allow you to use square bases and non-GW products as bases.

Taken in context, the Warhammer 40k rules refer to the line of Warhammer 40k products that GW produces. The term "Space Marines" in the rules refers to little plastic objects sold as Space Marines and so on. Of those little plastic objects there are things called "bases", to which the rules refer. Of these bases none are larger than the Blast Marker.

In that context, the context to which the rules refer, given the fancy name of "universe of discourse" in them fancy logic-learnin' places, you'll never encounter the situation where some based model is too big to be entirely under the Blast Maker. It's, perhaps fortunately, a tautology to say that universal statements such as those made by the rules refer only to the entirety of their own universe, but it's what requires us to consider what the dimensions of these 'base' things actually are.

Anyone can go out there and check the assumptions I've made about the existence of bases, their place in the same product line as the Warhammer 40k rules, and the area of those bases in comparison to another product called a Blast Marker.

But hey, keep arguing the controversy, at least it's amusing to read.

Is a non-GW D6 still a D6?

Is a non-GW base still a base?

If your two answers do not agree, why not? Why does the BGB exclude non-GW products from its UD in one instance and not the other?

When is a door a jar?

Is a white horse still a horse?

Of course a non-GW D6 is a D6. If you want to know what GW rules are referring to when they blither on about D6 this and D6 that, go to a GW store and ask them to sell you a D6. You can find identical objects, usually for much less, at many non-GW retail outlets.

Does that mean that a non-GW base is not a base? In general terms, of course not. In the specific Warhammer 40k terms the base referred to by the rules are the objects that GW sells as bases. As with the GW-dice, if you can find identical objects sold by non-GW entities, those can also be referred to as bases by the Warhammer 40k rules.

The BGB does not exclude non-GW products, since the question of who produces such products is not relevant to a matter of what sort of objects the rules refer to. But if you want to know what the Space Marine miniatures referred to by the Warhammer 40k rules are, you go find the item in the product line that is labelled "Space Marine". Any item that looks exactly like that is a Space Marine, and, not incidentally, that is why certain intellectual property laws exist - because so far as things like the Warhammer 40k rules are concerned origin takes a back-seat to shape and size.