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.

Ok here is why i'm a bit confused.

The current fiend uses a base that is twice that of the RT era version. Much like how old terminators use the old bases, the new terminators don't.

A cold one would be an ok proxy or "counts as" for the old RT version. But when you are using a counts as model for something currently in production, shouldn't you be required to use what is currently provided for the current model? I could see the argument of "what the original model came with" if he was using RT era models but he wasn't.

By the logic I am seeing posted here.. I could run a deathwing army using small circular bases with models from the fantasy line. Or I could glue a fancy looking space marine model to a small base and claim he's my avatar.

If you are using the old models, i don't see as much of an issue with using the old bases as much as I have a problem with using small bases on a counts as model.

If the cold ones were being used as fiends, they should have been on the larger bases. And frankly, they shouldn't have been used at all. That's just proxying some models from fantasy as part of an army you don't feel like buying, but want to use in 'ardboyz.

If they were used as seekers, there's a bit more leeway, as there is no seeker model available to buy, and they were on cavalry bases when available.

The thing that makes me sad is the number of stories I'm hearing about armies that are actually moving on to finals, that weren't wysiwyg, and the stores hosting the semi finals didn't bother to enforce it. This is just going to make for more drama at finals, either because it's enforced or it isn't.

Are you saying a Fiend comes with the 50mm square base, or the 40mm square base for fantasy. The one's I've seen have 40mm bases, with the 50mm bases being reserved for large monsters. If they really should have 50mm bases, then yes a cavalry base is too small, but a 40mm base, vs a cavalry base isn't nearly as large of a violation, I'd say, especially since 40k uses both cavalry and 40mm round bases for other "beasts" pretty liberally.

And derekatkinson, were they proxying fiends or crushers when you faced them?

Rules in 'Ard Boyz are strictly enforced (at least they should be, if they aren't then your TO is'nt doing his job)

Models are to be mounted on the bases they are supplied with, if you are using old 2nd edition terminators then they should be on smaller bases, if they are on larger bases then you are breaking the rules. most opponents and TOs allow it, but that is out of courtesy.

there are no "proxies" in 'ard boyz. you play the models you have, they dont even need to be painted, so the only excuse you have is being poor, which coincidentally is a poor excuse.

"counts as" IMO is a bit more lenient as many units do not have models, so counts-as is the only option. However, they should be very clearly represented on agreed base sizes with all options fully identifiable.

I use both new and old Terminators, and sometimes get complaints when I use the old ones for Deathwing Assault, and start with the new ones on the table. But I'm using the models with the bases provided, just using it to my advantage.

And I prefered the old rules which were that you couldn't use a smaller base, but could use a bigger base. But for like 90% of situations the current rule of "base supplied with" works well.

Tbh, no matter what the rules on "counts as", WYSIWYG, and basing. There will always be ways round it, unless you exclude all conversion and "counts as" models, and can only use GW models straight out of the box . . . which frankly would be lame, boring, and eradicate some of the greatest parts of the hobby.

Oshova

Hello,

I am the Demon player in question.

If I can sum up your concerns, it sounds like you had two problems with my army.

1) My Demon Prince model and base were too small giving me an unfair or illegal advantage
2) My Fiends of Slaanesh ( yes Fiends and only Fiends ) were on square cavalry bases giving me an unfair or illegal advantage

I don't think I will change your mind, but let me talk about my models and their basing.

For my Demon Prince of Nurgle I use the Fen Beast from the Albion Warhammer summer campaign of several years ago. I believe that they are large enough and menacing enough to clearly represent a Nurgle monstrous creature. I have tried to take a picture of one and attach it here:




next to it is my older Demon Prince that in no way looks Nurgle, for comparison.



Here is a picture with a couple of standard models next to it.



I do not believe that it is too small. Also I don't remember getting any cover saves for him unless he had been in base with a vehicle that he had attacked.

For his Base size I chose the 40 mm base because it looked right and the DP on page 57 of the Demon Codex is on a 40mm base. They also show the truly awful abortion of a Chaos Marine Nurgle Prince on page 72 on the larger 60mm base just below the same DP on the 40mm. So GW appears to allow either the 40mm or the 60mm depending on the overall size of the Demon Prince.


You also don't like the cav bases my field of Slaanesh are on. I chose to use the Cold One models as Fiends to avoid, oh please don't look, Page 68 of the Demon Codex where, wait I'm going to hurl, Fields of Slaanesh on 40mm round bases are shown. So wondering what size round base to use for Fiends is moot. But at the same time we have page 57 and 67 where the Flesh Hounds are featured on the SQUARE cav bases. even the special character Karanak is on a square cav base. So I think for basing purposes the square cav bases that the cold ones were already on are accepted by GW for Warhammer 40k.

But apart from whether it is allowed or not, you also think that the square bases give an undue advantage during deep striking and game play. A cav base is 25x50 mm for a total area of 1250 mm square. The 40mm round base has a total area of around 1256 mm square. So from a total area standpoint I'm not really gaining anything. During game play the "squareness" the bases is a great disadvantage because template and blast markers are more likely to nick the squares rather than the rounds. The rounds also have the minimal radius possible for their area, so You actually can get quite close to an edge without going over it.
Here is a diagram I mocked up:



You see, with round bases you can get up to the radius of the base close to an edge and still be ok, the set model for the deep strike can be up to 15mm close ( which isn't very much ) and the whole unit will still be ok. This only works because I only have 6 models and the full loop for the first circle isn't closed. So, yes I agree. I was close enough that if I had had 7 models in the unit it was have been a mishap. But I did not. It is quite shocking how close you can get to things when you have less than 7 models in the deep striking unit.

I hope that I have been helpful in this discussion. Please give me feedback.

Some people toss out "what ifs" of modeling a Wraithlord to be lying on its belly in a sniper position or a Trygon slithering across the ground in order to get easy cover saves, but I've honestly never seen or heard of this done in actual play.

Well, it happened to my brother in the 'Ard Boyz semis, playing against a Space Marine player using rifleman dreads with sentinel legs instead of dreadnought legs. Combined with the several other shenanigans being pulled (like slow playing) it made for what sounded like a pretty crappy day.

You can say that using GW models out of the box makes the game "boring" and "lame" or whatever, but it really annoys me to see someone clearly and without shame, modeling for advantage. It's the same as cheating in my opinion, only you're using the "hobby" as an excuse to get away with it, and most usually do because no one wants to look like a douche and tell them not to play with their conversions (or at least play with them like they were at the "proper" height, but people usually don't like being asked to do that, either). Unless you're going to tell me that the guy with the dreadnoughts built purely for long-range shooting was unknowingly giving them a significant height advantage and the ability to see and shoot at things they might not have been able to before when he gave them sentinel legs.

I know one thing, you'll never convince me it was done for looks...



As for the issue here with the DP and fiends...I think a metal 40k daemon prince would probably be able to get cover from Marines as well, I don't own one so I'm not sure. Square bases in 40k annoy me, but if he were at least using the equivalent square base I'd probably be okay with it...using cav bases, not so much. I'm not buying that "total area" crap, the cavalry bases are noticeably narrower than the 40mm round bases the fiends are supposed to be on, and I believe it would in fact give you an advantage when Deep Striking.

I don't think you quite get the idea of "counts-as", either. True, models are supposed to be mounted on the bases they came with, but when you're playing "counts-as" then it should be modeled on the base that the actual model would come with, and should have all of its options clearly modeled on, etc.

Also:

So I think for basing purposes the square cav bases that the cold ones were already on are accepted by GW for Warhammer 40k.

IIRC that was before GW made a round base for bikes/cavalry in 40k. I'd be curious to know what bases the models are sold with now.

If you look at the GW product pages for 40K demons, Half of them are on square bases, MCs and Princes included.

kb10r wrote:I hope that I have been helpful in this discussion. Please give me feedback.

David..

I brought this discussion up so I know what is legal and what isn't. I wasn't accusing you of breaking any rules but I really want to know what to expect in the finals. My plan was to discuss this with you once I had enough knowledge to make a constructive criticism rather than bitching for no reason. I have your email and your handle on ordo so I knew i'd be able to. I didn't want to make a big stink about it.

The issue at hand is whether or not using a proxy should be put on the bases that are currently available for the actual model and whether or not it's allowed by GW. Should fiends of slaanesh be based on calvary bases, the square bases or the circular bases? Are you allowed to pick any base for a proxy? Could I put a horse on medium circular bases (smaller than what comes with the current model but consistent with the old juggernaught models) and call them blood crushers? GW hasn't provided any clarity on these issues. If I proxied an avatar, could i put it on a small base since the original model came with that?

I know you don't think it really mattered but the only reason why one of your units didn't fall off the table was because you were able to turn the calvary base sideways. Then again with your second unit of fiends almost landing on another squad. I could foresee other players complaining about this so it's in your best interest to see what the actual rules are.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is an example of the 3 types of bases.. The 1st 2 are the ones supplies by GW and the 3rd is the one being used.







IMO.. there is no question that being able to turn the base is an advantage for avoiding a mishap during deepstrike.

Just for the sake of two cents.... I remember the semis for the 40K 'Ard Boyz a few years back. They were held in Media at Mikhaila's fine store. There was some guy who brought in an 'ork' horde. He was using fantasy orc proxies, like arrer boyz as shootas. And he had dozens of models that were feet glued to bases. It was ridiculous. It was the only time I have seen Mikhaila get mad. He bounced the guy and rightly so. Turns out he had bought the proper models from Mikhaila's store 2 weeks prior to the event, but just hadn't glued them together. The whole thing was so sad as to be funny.
But to remain on topic, I think if you are going to proxy for 'Ard boyz, the models should be on appropriate and current base size, and the models should fit a theme, not be transplants from a different system. Just my thoughts.

i have arrow boyz as my shootas, but htey are painted and based on round bases. i love em, and people always compliment them. they are the perfect example of a workable counts as.

Gobstomp420 wrote:Just for the sake of two cents.... I remember the semis for the 40K 'Ard Boyz a few years back. They were held in Media at Mikhaila's fine store. There was some guy who brought in an 'ork' horde. He was using fantasy orc proxies, like arrer boyz as shootas. And he had dozens of models that were feet glued to bases. It was ridiculous. It was the only time I have seen Mikhaila get mad. He bounced the guy and rightly so. Turns out he had bought the proper models from Mikhaila's store 2 weeks prior to the event, but just hadn't glued them together. The whole thing was so sad as to be funny.
But to remain on topic, I think if you are going to proxy for 'Ard boyz, the models should be on appropriate and current base size, and the models should fit a theme, not be transplants from a different system. Just my thoughts.

It was even worse, he bought them the morning of the tourney!

He had burner boyz with no heads, vehicles with no gunz and no drivers. Fantasy black orcs, most with no heads, on square bases for 'ard boyz'. Gun crews were forest goblins, etc etc. The two boxes of boyz he bought that morning were up to legs glued to bases for the first round. I'd made two other players make changes in their armies to make them WYSIWYG, I could in no way let this guy slide.

Sad thing was, this was at semi finals. His local store not making him do any work got him bounced from semis.

mikhaila wrote:Sad thing was, this was at semi finals. His local store not making him do any work got him bounced from semis.

Unassembled models shouldn't be allowed on the table.

Back on topic though...

I don't think the work required to fix this would be that time consuming. At the finals, I would hope this isn't an issue.

sigh... you know those terrible pictures are not to scale right? right?

In a six man unit as long as the primary dropper does not get within 15mm of impassible terrain, it is impossible to have a mishap. In no way would that unit have been off the board in our game. In a "friendly" game I would have placed the extra models in a poor way and allowed the unit to have a mishap. But I didn't have to. I was unwilling to force a mishap because this was immediately following your "forgetting" that you roll for the Red Thirst after deployment and not before deployment. That small edge of knowing which units are fearless and have Furious Charge before deployment was rather "gamy" to me and I did not feel charitable.

I'll ask Ordo about the cav bases, and whatever they decide, between rebasing them and leaving them alone, I'll do.

Kb10r-

I'd say the model you used for a demon prince is probably fine. The other one you show is from the fantasy line I believe, but regardless, I've seen it used a lot as a demon prince, along with Belakor and other similarly sized models, without a problem from anyone. The Demon Prince GW currently sells comes with a 40mm base I believe. Either a 40mm or 60mm would be fine for one.

As to the pictures of fleshounds on square cav bases - at the time GW was putting out the two demon books, the photographer screwed up a ton of the pictures every chance he got, round bases in fantasy adverts, squares in 40k, etc. I think for some models they only got one set painted up at all, and just used some units for both systems.)

I didn't catch whether you were moving on to nationals, but if so, I would definitely suggest using something other than Dark Elf cavalry on the rectangular bases for fiends. They just aren't fiends, aren't a conversion, and are just proxy models from a fantasy army.

mikhaila wrote:As to the pictures of fleshounds on square cav bases - at the time GW was putting out the two demon books, the photographer screwed up a ton of the pictures every chance he got, round bases in fantasy adverts, squares in 40k, etc. I think for some models they only got one set painted up at all, and just used some units for both systems.)

Prior to the Demon Book, demons were regularly shown on both square and round bases for 40k, as they were usually interchangeable for players playing fantasy and 40k chaos armies.

How about the page 4 definition of the Beasts unit type in the main rule book. To the left, the representative picture is of a Flesh Hound on a 25x50 square base. Was this in error?

As I said on Ordo, I think rebasing is the safe bet. If you have the time, I would 'Rule of Cool' it as well and find some way to Slannesh them up.

I dunno tentacles or extra mammaries or something. I do hate me some Fiend models though, so I certainly feel the change.

I get where Mikhaila is coming from on the Proxy vs Count As although it didn't bother me. Without modification, I can see people calling 'Proxy'. With mod, you can pretty easily go the Counts As route.

Would you agree, Mik? (Kinda an important opinion since Mik is a 'AB Finals TO.)

kb10r wrote:How about the page 4 definition of the Beasts unit type in the main rule book. To the left, the representative picture is of a Flesh Hound on a 25x50 square base. Was this in error?

My comments about the pictures in the demon codex and army book were just that, comments about the pictures in the Demon codex and army book.

Base sizes for GW models have changed quite a bit, especially as old models go to new models. If someone showed up with vintage fiends on old bases, I wouldn't have a problem. If it's a new model, and came with the appropriate base, then it should be on the correct base. If you make a conversion or do counts as, it should be on the correct base. If a demon model comes with square and round bases, it's to let you base your models appropriatly for two different games, not so that you can choose which you want for either game.