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.

Now post some of those models so we can ew and ah!

Trench-Raider wrote:I just got this PM from a member here. (typos and poor formatting left intact for increased humor) Since he was afraid to actually post his comments to the thread it relates to, I'll post it for him.

i have some oldterminators with a 25mm base, bt i just don't use them. i just get proper ones. so i say stop whining and buy the new ones! "

I'm tempted to state the screen name of the clown who typed this, just to open him up to the scorn of his peers.

Anyway, every so often when I talk about the use of old models I get some fool who makes some sort of "buy the new models and stop using the old one" comment. It's hard for me to express my contempt for this sentiment without being disicplined by the site staff for "flaming".
"Proper ones"? Please.
Son (and I call him this because I supect he is a very young person) those ARE the proper models. I'm sorry that you have bought into the GW company line that we should all throw out our older figures and run out and buy the "cool" new stuff!

TR

I'm not a big fan of posting private messages. They were sent in private for a reason, and frankly don't advance the discussion much. There's also no verification that it was an actual PM, not something you fabricated.

Look, comments like this are a part of the hobby, and yes it's a burden, but I'm not exactly impressed that you've decided to heap scorn on somebody anonymous boor. Although mocking a person's typos while having misspelled words in your own post does take you the extra mile from average cranky blowhard to getting close to Internet Tough Guy. Kudos!

Also, for the record, there was a thread in which you were using old Tinboyz as Killa Kans, and those were not the proper models. There was a prima facie case for using them as proxies, but the size and armament differences made them questionable enough to not be clearly cited as "proper models."

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thing is, although you are absolutely not actually breaking any rules, as the models are indeed upon the bases supplied therewith, I can't help but feel that for the sake of a fe quid and a little bit of work, you are going to face a lot of circular, soul crushing arguements about whether or not it is to the rule....

Well, we'll see what the rule is when it arrives. This will be a first for GW, though, making a core part of a core army illegal. IG have always had weapons, they've had weapons teams for over 15 years, and a total changeover to large bases would force players to convert models they already own, simply to be legal. Not for maximum effect, or for an advantage, but simply to be usable in a game. I mean, I have like 27 heavy weapon teams in my Praetorians, and another 5 in my Tallarn auxiliary. At even $1 a base, that's over $30 and hours of time before I can even field a legal IG army.

No, it's not the end of the world, but it's a first. And for the record, I've railed against the elimination of options (like the IW basilisk) and lists (Lost and the Damned), so I think my credentials are pretty solid. One aspect of the social contract between players and GW was that the models you buy will always be usable as something. There was relaxing of that rule for sublists, campaign lists, and the old Journal lists, but the thinking I had was that if I buy a blister off the wall for a unit that's in the main army list of my codex, that model will always have a home on the tabletop.

You can make them yourself though.

Circles of Cereal packet. Don't even need to glue them on, just pop the Heavy Weapons on them during the game to simulate the appropriate footprint.

Circles of Cereal packet? I'm guessing that's some British thing that I know nothing about?

enmitee wrote:

LunaHound wrote:What about using forgeworld greater demons on
the GW monster base D":

i would like to know the answer to this as well, i plan on purchasing zaraknyel for a KoS. what would a base her in? her one foot on a monster base?

o_o where does it display their names? Didnt see any when i looked at the website.

Cereal Packet? The box your Breakfast Cereal comes in? Thin Card?

Thats really just one of the materials you could use. I mentioned it because it's free (Assuming you already eat Cereals) and readily available.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You can make them yourself though.

Circles of Cereal packet. Don't even need to glue them on, just pop the Heavy Weapons on them during the game to simulate the appropriate footprint.

So? How does that change my argument? The question isn't how onerous the obligation is, I've already copped to the fact that it's only going to be that hard. The fact that the obligation even exists is the annoyance. My army isn't pro painted or a GT winner by any means, but I take some pride in it's appearance, and I'm simply not going to use cardboard circles. I'm going to get the appropriate bases if I have to rebase. That's my choice, as was collecting 8000points of IG in the first place, but this is still a first.

Until you can explain to me how this doesn't affect me in a negative way at all, I'm going to be a little annoyed by this. The fact is, you know it does, you know it's a step farther than what GW has done in the past, and there's really no counter to that. If these new bases are mandatory, it's a another incremental change in the way GW treats it customers.

I feel like I should be shouting at a rally. "They came for sublists, but I played codex so I didn't stop them. They came for lost and the Damned, but that was a campaign list anyway, so I didn't say anything. They came for IG weapons teams, but that's only rebasing." What will they take next?

Please note, IF this is mandatory. Perhaps it isn't. I've heard the rumour mentioned only in this thread (though to be fair I'm not exactly up in IG rumours).

And at the end of the day, this will only be an issue if you come up against a partiuclarly anal opponent, who see's some kind of advantage in spending 20 to 30 minutes arguing the toss.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Please note, IF this is mandatory. Perhaps it isn't. I've heard the rumour mentioned only in this thread (though to be fair I'm not exactly up in IG rumours).

And at the end of the day, this will only be an issue if you come up against a partiuclarly anal opponent, who see's some kind of advantage in spending 20 to 30 minutes arguing the toss.

Also note that I advocated waiting to see what the rule was in my earlier post. I know it's a little silly to comment on rules that may or may not exist, but we clearly all have the time.

As for your second point, that's simply not true. Legal is legal, counts as is counts as, and proxying is proxying. I go to tournaments, and I don't want any army that anybody can find fault with. If I have to spend even five minutes of my life defending my army, then this change has inconvenienced me.

So, feel free to try again to explain to me how this change, if it were to occur, would in no way be a hassle or a bother to me.

Ermmmm....I didn't say it wouldn't be a hassle or bother.

What I did intimate is that it's a fairly easily overcome hurdle, without having to spend much money.

The "few quid" comment I'll buy, but a little bit of work? What rubbish. You have no idea what re-basing might entail for someone's army. There are people out there with some truly elaborate bases that took a lot of time and a large diversity of materials to create. And they should just snip all that away and put together yet another mini-diorama simply to please The Powers That Be? Puh-Leez.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cereal Packet? The box your Breakfast Cereal comes in? Thin Card?

Thats really just one of the materials you could use. I mentioned it because it's free (Assuming you already eat Cereals) and readily available.

Ahh, the way you phrased it and capitalized it made me think it was the proper name for something. So you were just saying to cut circles out of a box of cereal? Got ya.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ermmmm....I didn't say it wouldn't be a hassle or bother.

What I did intimate is that it's a fairly easily overcome hurdle, without having to spend much money.

And I still think you're wrong. Rebasing models is time consuming and difficult, particularly to large bases that generally get more attention to detail. I guess my question to you is this: have you rebased large amounts of models in the past? By that I mean popping them out of their current base, cutting the metal tab off, priming a new base, pinning the old model to the new base, adding basing material, painting, highlighting and shading, and then adding flock? Have you then done this to 10-30 heavy weapon teams? Or are you just guessing at the amount of work involved?

What you intimated was that "a little work" was all it entailed, and that was either misinformed or just insulting. It's a PITA when done right.

Polonius wrote:...This will be a first for GW, though, making a core part of a core army illegal...

Not really. Buddy of mine used to have a Chaos army that was the most imaginative concept I'd seen to date when he played it. It was a Slaaneshi Cultist army. It was called the Hentai Cult. Little school girls for cultists. The Greater Demon was the Principal. Yellow Land Raider complete with little Bluebird painted on it for the School Bus. Hysterical army that just made you feel dirty for looking at it. And it got axed. Now, you make a point in that this was not a "core" army, but how many people have heard stories like this?

grizgrin wrote:

Polonius wrote:...This will be a first for GW, though, making a core part of a core army illegal...

Not really. Buddy of mine used to have a Chaos army that was the most imaginative concept I'd seen to date when he played it. It was a Slaaneshi Cultist army. It was called the Hentai Cult. Little school girls for cultists. The Greater Demon was the Principal. Yellow Land Raider complete with little Bluebird painted on it for the School Bus. Hysterical army that just made you feel dirty for looking at it. And it got axed. Now, you make a point in that this was not a "core" army, but how many people have heard stories like this?

That's a neat idea for an army, but what list was used? If it was LatD I mentioned that under campaign lists. Also, unless they were heavily converted, has GW ever made japanese school girl minis?

Seriously though, I'm against cutting armies, lists, and units. I think that it's too easy to simply throw up a PDF with rules were everything erred on the side of too expensive or too weak (making sure that the army isn't overpowered) to justify not having some of the old options still available.

This is different, the models are still legal I just need to put some combination of time and money into them. That's a little new. Previously, if you owned a certain critical mass of models for an army, you could always pull something legal together from what you owned. It might not be optimized, and you might want to convert/add/rebase/etc your old models, but it wouldn't be necessary. Now, I suppose the counter is that I could just field my IG without any heavy weapon teams. That's a true statement, and I could indeed do that.

The really interesting part to me is that Eldar have the exact same style of weapon teams, and they seem to work just fine.

Which would suggest that the rumour is liable to be false or misunderstood.

And as for the sublists etc, well, you can still use them. They are still there. GW didn't lead a crusade to track down and destroy all copies.

If they aren't allowed in a tournament, well, thats a tough break. But then, in friendly play (the vast majority of games are such) only a complete bell end would turn down a game just because the list is old and no longer available.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Which would suggest that the rumour is liable to be false or misunderstood.

And as for the sublists etc, well, you can still use them. They are still there. GW didn't lead a crusade to track down and destroy all copies.

If they aren't allowed in a tournament, well, thats a tough break. But then, in friendly play (the vast majority of games are such) only a complete bell end would turn down a game just because the list is old and no longer available.

did you enroll in the JohnHwang school of how to avoid facing arguments that disprove your point? If you did, you might be his prize pupil.

You didn't respond to my questions about basing, so I'm guessing you haven't actually done the legwork to see how tough rebasing heavy weapons is. I have rebased a few models, found it a lot of work, and decided against it. So, until you can show me how I'm not going to be out $30 and a long weekend because of this rule change, I'm going to simply assume you've decided to change what we're arguing about and have abandoned this one.

You can also use 2nd edition, Home brew codices, or the rules for Fireball Island outside of tournaments. Outside of close knit clubs, everybody uses what's current, legal, and supported so they don't have to spend 30 minutes explaining their army to some guy at the store. This is a tired old argument that needs to go away. The reality of the situation is that most gamers have very little choice in using only those lists that are currently legal. False options aren't actually options.

And again, I've mentioned several times that the rumor is just that: a rumor. I'm not sure why you keep repeating it, as if I'm unaware that it could turn out to be nothing.

Allow me to reiterate my point, and feel free to comment on it how you wish:

If I have to rebase my IG heavy weapons teams for them to be fully legal, then I will be spending around $30 and many hours, at the end of which all I will have are the same units I had before that time, effort and money was spent. That is a net loss for me, and it will be the first time I can recall core units of a core army being treated in such a way.

Polonius wrote:That's a neat idea for an army, but what list was used?

Don't remember off hand. Maybe Codex: Armageddeon? It was a legal list about 7 years ago that got axed a couple a years afterward. I know that doesn't help much, sorry.

Polonius wrote:..., has GW ever made japanese school girl minis?

feth no. This guy wasn't a big tourney go-er, and we aren't too particular about what GW says in some respects. </heavily understated sarcasm>

As far as the rest of your post, I did acknowledge that this was a little different. Well, more than a little different if it's your army that gets junked by some seemingly reasonless change in a codex.

Mad Doc-

Thing is, although you are absolutely not actually breaking any rules, as the models are indeed upon the bases supplied therewith, I can't help but feel that for the sake of a fe quid and a little bit of work, you are going to face a lot of circular, soul crushing arguements about whether or not it is to the rule....

"soul crushing"?
Please. I don't engage the kind of fool that would have a bog issue with this long enough for it to bother me. Not that it would bother me all that much in the first place. I thrive on conflict and can certainly take it.
In any event in the mirror post I made on Warseer someone brought up a very valid point. This sort of minor basing quible is a very good "jerk detector". If they gripe about something of this sort, then they are without a doubt the sort of person you want to avoid playing with in the future at all cost.

Polonius:
Ah....someone wants to play. Ok, point by point...

I'm not a big fan of posting private messages. They were sent in private for a reason

That reason is usually cowardice. If you don't want to say it in public, then it should not be said at all in many cases. In any event, PMs are much like emails. Once sent, they become the property of the reciever to be done with as they please. The kiddie in question (his profile says he's 12) should have thought about the possibility of his words being made public before he pushed that "send" button. This might actually have the positive effect of being a leanring experience for him.

There's also no verification that it was an actual PM, not something you fabricated.

As I said in a previous thread, I get annoyed when people imply that I am being less than thruthful. I have a reputation for being alot of things...some of them not too nice and many perfectly true. But I don't have a reuptation for lying. Even Mad Doc would have to admit this.

Look, comments like this are a part of the hobby, and yes it's a burden

Yes, but they should be fought when they occur and those who engage in such foolishness should be educated.

but I'm not exactly impressed that you've decided to heap scorn on somebody anonymous boor.

Your opinion has been noted.

Although mocking a person's typos while having misspelled words in your own post does take you the extra mile from average cranky blowhard to getting close to Internet Tough Guy. Kudos!

Then it's a good thing that I didn't do that.
I fully understand that my spelling is awful and that I'm too lazy sometimes to run every post through a spell-checker before I post to a forum. I have also learned in years of posting to political forums that someone who is reduced to "spelling flames" has generally lost the argument..if they had one to begin with. What I did was provide the unedited pm for those who might want to aproach the messsage in that manner. I would certainly never do so.

"blowhard"?
"Internet tought guy"?
That's dangerously close to flaming, son.

Also, for the record, there was a thread in which you were using old Tinboyz as Killa Kans, and those were not the proper models. There was a prima facie case for using them as proxies, but the size and armament differences made them questionable enough to not be clearly cited as "proper models."

Apples and oranges.
In that case, the tinboyz were being used under the "counts as" rule. There was no claim that they were "the proper models" (whatever the hell that is) Not tyring to reopen that debate, but at least get your facts straight. The size issue could be a legitimate point of contention. However the armament one is not. According to the entry on "'Ere We Go", the Timboy is armed with a heavy bolter and a power fist, with that of the Killa Kan.

I would say "nice try" but that would be a lie.....and we have already established that I'm not known as a liar.

TR

And back to rebasing.

Yes, if you want to go down the route of entirely rebasing them on the proper bases bought from GW, clipping them off the existing bases, and modelling the new ones with the models glued on, yes, that is going to be a pain in the arse, cost money and take up a fair amount of time.

But as I demonstrated, there are far, far easier ways to do this. Circles of card to give the appropriate footprint, models placed on top. Now, as you correctly pointed out, this is far from the most aesthetically pleasing method. But it doesn't cost a bean, and requires the least work to make your army 'legal' again.

The middle ground would be to take the appropriate sized base (either homemade from plasticard or using the GW ones) and base them up fairly flatly, ready for the models to be simply plonked on them. It's a happy medium to my mind, as aesthetically you can keep to which ever theme you had in mind, and don't have to risk damaging your paintjob when removing the old bases.

In Warhammer Fantasy, many people create movement trays for their artillery with 'cut outs' for the crew bases. This would work just as well.

So I feel you may be deliberately attempting the hardest path to prove a point which doesn't really need proving. But hey, each to their own. Different strokes and all that, I'm just bouncing ideas off you and it's up to which you run with.

As for Trenchie being a liar. I honestly don't know. He may be, I mean, this is the Internet, the original home of absolute anonynimity (I know I mispelt that, but I can't think what the right way is) and having to take people at face value. I feel he may be prone to exaggeration from time to time, but as for outright lying, who knows?

Polonius wrote: I feel like I should be shouting at a rally. "They came for sublists, but I played codex so I didn't stop them. They came for lost and the Damned, but that was a campaign list anyway, so I didn't say anything. They came for IG weapons teams, but that's only rebasing."

Pastor Niemöller is indeed quite appropriate.

"Then they came for my codex, but by then there was no one left playing to say anything"

We don't need a big argument about whether rebasing is a PITA or not.

The only way it wouldn't be a PITA is if it were really simple, which it never is. Once you get past that point it's just a question of how much of a PITA it's going to be.

The more important issue is how strictly the BGB rule is going to be enforced and what models are affected.

As always, the organiser of any tournament is going to have the final say on what bases are allowed and should either provide the info in the application bundle or on request.

FWIW, if I was a TO I would not allow older models on smaller bases. That's not because I am a sticler, or think it's a good rule. It's because I think there will be too much moaning from people who think older models on smaller bases are getting an unfair advantage.

OTOH I would happily allow any base to be used as long as it was the right size. I mean, I would not disallow a model because it wasn't on a GW base.

I would happily allow sabot bases.

That's just my opinion about tournaments.

Trench-Raider wrote:

Look, comments like this are a part of the hobby, and yes it's a burden

Yes, but they should be fought when they occur and those who engage in such foolishness should be educated.

Its the internet. Good luck with that 'education'.

Trench-Raider wrote:
Polonius:
Ah....someone wants to play. Ok, point by point...

The implication that I "want to play," as if you are going to school me, is again pretty classic Internet Tough Guy behavior. It ain't flaming if it's a true statement using words and phrases that are meant to make a point and not overly induce an emotional response. I guess I could say that this is behavior that is indicative of a persona trying to influence debates not only through facts and reasoning but also through attitude, minor insults, and an aggressive approach that would indicate that I'm messing with the wrong guy. Internet Tough Guy is both shorter and easier to remember.

I'm not a big fan of posting private messages. They were sent in private for a reason

That reason is usually cowardice. If you don't want to say it in public, then it should not be said at all in many cases. In any event, PMs are much like emails. Once sent, they become the property of the reciever to be done with as they please. The kiddie in question (his profile says he's 12) should have thought about the possibility of his words being made public before he pushed that "send" button. This might actually have the positive effect of being a leanring experience for him.

Or because they were meant solely for the person they were sent to, as it was assumed that if posted publicly they would derail the thread. Which it has, of course. Obviously PMs like that are lousy and the result of a juvenile sensibility. If you think this is going to scare the kid straight, then prepare to be disappointed. I'm also a fan of the concept of Nobless Oblige, in which the more powerful sometimes don't curb stomp the weak just because they can. Showing a little mercy is one of the hallmarks of the bigger man, as is letting the stale comments of a 12 year old go.

There's also no verification that it was an actual PM, not something you fabricated.

As I said in a previous thread, I get annoyed when people imply that I am being less than thruthful. I have a reputation for being alot of things...some of them not too nice and many perfectly true. But I don't have a reuptation for lying. Even Mad Doc would have to admit this.

WoW

Dude, I think you're good. Just bring a couple bigger bases for the footprint if it is indeed all on one. If it's not, does it need this much discussion for something that hasn't come out yet?

And post the pics!

I have no problems with the basing rule. What if I buy an ebay Eldrad that comes on a 40mm base. Well he was supplied with that base when I made the purchase. Also I have an IG army on Square bases to fully represent close order drill. That was done in 3rd edition and expanded the army further in 4th. Is it really an issue of cheating if I make an army to work thematically and in some cases counter productive to helping me win by making said army template bait? What if I want to buy some bases from epiccast or galeforce 9?

Part of what I dont like about 5th edition is the restriction of creative modeling via basing between that and TLOS because of TFG. I think we all have to consider TMIR (the most important rule).

As for Trenchie being a liar. I honestly don't know. He may be, I mean, this is the Internet, the original home of absolute anonynimity (I know I mispelt that, but I can't think what the right way is) and having to take people at face value. I feel he may be prone to exaggeration from time to time, but as for outright lying, who knows?

Fair enough. However people can and do get caught lying online all the time. We've "outed" alot of people over the years on some of the blogs I post to. My point is that in some 2000 posts on Portent and Warseer I never got caught lying to anyone and thus do not have a reputation for doing such. Like any wrongly accused person would do, I get irritated at being accused of lying.

Of course there is a simple way to put this one to bed. Shall I name the child who sent me that PM and ask him to take credit for it?

Its the internet. Good luck with that 'education'.

Negative consequences have a wonderful educational effect. If you makes someone look like a total fool and open them up to the scorn of their peers, even on the 'net, it will sometimes cause a person to look back and say "wow. I should not have done that.".

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread....

TR

MDG: I think you're starting to understand my point. I don't my army on the gallery, but I really do have hundreds of fully painted metal IG. I want them to look good, and I want them to be legal. Your suggestions are fine, but they wont' last me longer than a few games before I want to change to a real solution.

The larger point is that I only have so much time and so much money. Resources spent rehabbing my old models are resources not spent buying new super heavies, Valkyries, tanks, etc. It's not a zero sum game, but it's pretty close. With the money I spend fixing my army, I could buy a tank and with the time I spend I could paint up 2 squads of troops.

Kilkrazy wrote:FWIW, if I was a TO I would not allow older models on smaller bases. That's not because I am a sticler, or think it's a good rule. It's because I think there will be too much moaning from people who think older models on smaller bases are getting an unfair advantage.

Sadly, its always the whiners who win over reason...

*sees IG HW team and is agape with chagrin.*

"Muaaaaahhhhhhh... *lisp* You cant have your bases like that *lisp* thats illegal! It says here under page *slurp spit* 43 of the aforementioned codex that you must *wipes drool from lip* always have them based as a single model *lisp* on a 65.2mm base!"

*stares blankly at the 'illegal' army in front of him. Farts.*

"Clearly, *slurp spit* this army is in direct violation of this rule, and I call *scratches neckbeard* for a judge to come over and disqualify your army based on this *lisp* blatant and willful infraction."