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.

@ Ibushi

Flying Dire Avengers sounds cool!

I suggest you use the 30mm round bases (Terminator bases) because that is the same size as a small flight stand!

Plus they would look awesome on your 30mm bases with wings and such, neat idea!

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Niccolo:

I know this is Fantasy, but the example still holds.

How on earth could it "still hold?" This is a 40k v5 rumour; you are talking about Fantasy rules. Worthless analogy.

-

Woah dude. I was just saying that I got a box of GW product with the wrong bases, you think that only happens in Fantasy? OK, if you cant follow that, pretend "night goblins" in my example really said "gretchin".

I'm not sure if this is the best time to try and standardize sizes, but it should happen eventually. Perhaps, they thought a new edition would be the best time, so everyone had the same headaches. This is related to the "how big is a battlewagon?" question, or the functional table top size difference between the new and old rhinos, but in troop form. I hope common sense prevails, I mean this is the dice it off company, right? Of course, I'd have to replace all my old Sallie termies and vehicles if strict standardization came to fruition, which I bet GW wouldn't be opposed to.

Niccolo wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Niccolo:

I know this is Fantasy, but the example still holds.

How on earth could it "still hold?" This is a 40k v5 rumour; you are talking about Fantasy rules. Worthless analogy.

-

Woah dude. I was just saying that I got a box of GW product with the wrong bases, you think that only happens in Fantasy? OK, if you cant follow that, pretend "night goblins" in my example really said "gretchin".

I'm not sure if this is the best time to try and standardize sizes, but it should happen eventually. Perhaps, they thought a new edition would be the best time, so everyone had the same headaches. This is related to the "how big is a battlewagon?" question, or the functional table top size difference between the new and old rhinos, but in troop form. I hope common sense prevails, I mean this is the dice it off company, right? Of course, I'd have to replace all my old Sallie termies and vehicles if strict standardization came to fruition, which I bet GW wouldn't be opposed to.

when I bought my wind rider host from gw I got it in the mail and it came with the huge ass speeder bases, and on top of that some of them where incomplete (morphed wierd etc). if they do have standardized bases it'll be in the codex, not on the box. it even say's "products may very from those shown"

Niccolo, your post was less than clear. You went on to ask, "Would I be required to put them on the big bases? Especially true if I only field one of a unit and had nothing to compare base size with." Clearly that is a question that has bugger all to do with the topic at hand, which is about the implications of 40k v5 rules.

Nothing that couldn't be solved by an erratta...oh, wait, I just remembered who we're talking about. Never mind my crazy talk.

ha ha, funny!

You go get him TC!

Alert a Mod!!

Cool, another GW fix on something that was not broken (TM) I can see oggles of fun for rules lawyers.

M.

I played a person once who based his demon prince on a compact disc, and the rest of his army on larger bases. If the new edition uses base size for line of sight issues, they absolutely must be standardized. It should have been done a long time ago.

If I have to rebase a few models to meet the rules, it's not the toughest thing I've ever done to get ready for a tournament.

@ the people that answered my questions:
thanks for the feedback, that gives me a lot of confidence. Its true that I should be considerate to the people i'm playing against, but if i do All flying dire avengers for jetbikes, flying dire avengers with spears for shining spears, and flying dire avengers with swords and shields for warlock councils, all mounted on 30mm with wings and such, without Any swooping hawks in the army list, it should be pretty legit i think. Once my opponent gets their head around the basic concept they would be fine.

As for the whole standardization thing, they hover around it but never say it. I wish they would just bite the bullet and standardize everything. It would take almost no time at all, and they could put it online as an official pdf for each codex. it would solve So many problems, or at least make these kinds of long-winded discussions redundant.
Like Krak-Kirby said, if people have to rebase a few models...big deal it could be worse, your army still exists. I spent years making my samurai Ulthwe Strike Force, and the year i finished it I played one tournament and then it was made illegal. I would　Much rather have rebased all my illegal war walkers....!!!

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Niccolo, your post was less than clear. You went on to ask, "Would I be required to put them on the big bases? Especially true if I only field one of a unit and had nothing to compare base size with." Clearly that is a question that has bugger all to do with the topic at hand, which is about the implications of 40k v5 rules.

Really? I guess I should have said instead "What if the box of a generically named troop type is delivered with the wrong bases?" Fantasy has a pretty standard set-up, but if the 40k standard is what the unit is delivered with, how would these problems be resolved? Without a fully set standard going in, and there already being a mix of accepted bases for the same or similar unit types, there could be a bit of confusion. New players, or those inexperienced with new or unique unit types, might not be able to tell if there was a mistake made. Perhaps, if the standard is simply what it came with, then there is no issue and the odd bases can be used. With GW producing several sizes of round bases, flying bases, and even the calvary base, coupled with their purposfully packaging similar units with different bases, a less than strict standard does not seem to add much to the game. In fact, this may amount to the kind of vague guidline that tournament players and especially one-off players deride GW for relying on. I bring this up because one time I received a GW box that included the wrong sized bases. I'll try and be less figurative and more bureaucratic in the future.

Unfortunately I think that GW threw that line in the rules as a half-assed way to clarify an issue that has come up mostly because of people doing conversions.

There are a few occasions where base size does affect the game. One of which would be units who deepstrike. The larger their base, the greater the area the unit will take up, closer to targets, ect.

I imagine that GW should have base size be a game statistic for units, but I wish they would approach it in a more complete matter.

Until then, while it isn't an optimal solution, take a standard base for that unit with you to games for checks on distance and what have you if there is a large disparity.

ibushi wrote:@ the people that answered my questions:
thanks for the feedback, that gives me a lot of confidence. Its true that I should be considerate to the people i'm playing against, but if i do All flying dire avengers for jetbikes, flying dire avengers with spears for shining spears, and flying dire avengers with swords and shields for warlock councils, all mounted on 30mm with wings and such, without Any swooping hawks in the army list, it should be pretty legit i think. Once my opponent gets their head around the basic concept they would be fine.

As for the whole standardization thing, they hover around it but never say it. I wish they would just bite the bullet and standardize everything. It would take almost no time at all, and they could put it online as an official pdf for each codex. it would solve So many problems, or at least make these kinds of long-winded discussions redundant.
Like Krak-Kirby said, if people have to rebase a few models...big deal it could be worse, your army still exists. I spent years making my samurai Ulthwe Strike Force, and the year i finished it I played one tournament and then it was made illegal. I would　Much rather have rebased all my illegal war walkers....!!!

sounds like they wont have dire avenger weapons anyway so it wouldn't be a problem. you could really have fun with this making twin linked shuriken rifles and shuriken cannons mounted like a dark reaper.

Niccolo, I see now that your intended point is a good one. I only wish you had made it to begin with instead of hinting at it with a question that can only be answered with, "I don't know--what do the WHFB rules say about it?"

@ T-C, We understand that is how you feel, it is quite apparent. could you stop polluting a good thread with redundant posts now please?

@ wash-away, that is exactly what i had in mind, although the normal biker dudes will probably just be similar to normal dire avengers. Maybe i will give them all twin catapults like the exarch..who knows. It will be fun either way! thanks for the enthusiasm!
30mm bases should be fine, but bigger would start to make the models looked really odd and in the middle of nowhere..hopefully it will work out as it is.

Save the snark.

Post 1: I dismiss Niccolo's comment, then make my own wholly on-topic comment.

Post 2: I respond to Niccolo's response.

Post 3: I acknowledge the validity of the point he was trying to make, though wishing it had been better expressed to begin with.

If one rebuttal post and one wrap-up post constitute "thread pollution" in your eyes, Dakka must be a very distressing experience for you.

This is a very cool idea, a visual simulation of the fluff that the army list rules do not really allow for.

tim

Aduro wrote:One army I'm considering building is a Green Tide Ork list. The Ork fluff talks about Grots in huge numbers, I believe referenced as a carpet of them in front of the Ork advance. With no need to field them in that kind of numbers, I was thinking I'd put mine on the next side larger round bases (what the current termies come with) and putting ~3 per base, though having each base still count as a single guy. If this thing about base size issues holds true, I dunno about that anymore.