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.

The 25mm square bases can be turned diagonally to eke out a fraction of an inch extra move or charge (once per game).

On the other hand, they're slightly more vulnerable to blast and template weapons.

On balance I'd say it was detrimental to the daemon player.

But you're still only moving your legal move range. Corner to corner or wherever you're moving and measuring from. If someone is eeking out extra inches for weird measuring then that's between the two of you to sort on on the table.

It's only a game and to try to say that 5mm is going to give you a huge advantage is just silly.

What's next? Insisting that cork cannot be used as rock on bases because you have nothing else to find fault and get angry about?

Play with what you've got. If they're painted, fine, at least you've made the effort, round base, square base, doesn't matter.

Nevermind waht i put a second agooo...

i was wrong ^^

WOW its gona blow your minds when i dig out my old GW hexagonal bases ......

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Elmodiddly wrote:But you're still only moving your legal move range. Corner to corner or wherever you're moving and measuring from. If someone is eeking out extra inches for weird measuring then that's between the two of you to sort on on the table.

When disembarking to measure to the BACK of the base, when you assault you measure to the FRONT of the base. the distance between the edges is added to the overall distance. Which means a round 25mm is 25mm and a square 25mm is 35mm. Now for the most part, Deamons are not disembarking out of transports, but if someone was using fantasy orks as trukk boyz, I would be concerned with square bases.

It's only a game and to try to say that 5mm is going to give you a huge advantage is just silly.

10mm actually, and a 40mm base gains 16.6mm and a 50mm gains 21mm.

And with pivoting in place based upon the mawloc base thread, you can pivot for 5mm on a 25mm, 8mm on a 40mm and 10mm on a 50mm.

If it is not a huge advantage then why can I move 6.5" for all my infantry? You cool with that? Can I add +1 to all my S&P rolls?

Opponents are usually in a better mood when you don't disrespect them by trivializing valid concerns they have on things impacting gameplay. It is easy enough to always measure as if the bases are round by doing flatedge to flatedge and never use corner to corner.

Mad4Minis wrote:Whatever gets your goat man. Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game. Sure, the square ones allow easier unit formation in WHFB but thats about all.

What annoys me is when people use the above phrase. It's COULDN'T! As in, you have reached a point where you are unable to care even 1 iota less.

OT: I really am not bothered. The 40k basing rules appear to be an unwritten rule of "don't take the piss". If you're going to put Gretchin on 60mm bases then people will get annoyed and veto it but simply mixing square and round is not something to get you knickers in a twist over. You could say you couldn't care less.

AvatarForm wrote:If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

That's just it, though... You're assuming that the player (a)is serious about having a good-looking force and (b)is going to agree with you that the square bases look bad.

Many players don't give a hoot what their army looks like... the miniatures are just markers to represent a bunch of stats. Many players don't have a problem with square bases, or a mix of square or round bases, because the base is just something to make the miniature stand up. And many players play their Daemons in both games, and don't want to take the time or effort (however much or little you may personally think it to be) or don't know how to make the bases interchangeable.

And that's entirely their right. It's their hobby too...

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

This, again, is expecting that your opponent is approaching the game from the same perspective as your own. Every player puts a different weighting on the different aspects of the 'GW hobby' ... If a player doesn't care as strongly about the modelling aspect of it as you do, that has no reflection whatsoever on whether or not they care about actually playing the game.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game

And while I'm on a grammar roll, I believe you 'couldn't care less'.

It's an Americanism... They say it backwards for some bizarre reason

Ordo Dakka wrote:To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

Nope, there is no rule stopping you from using square bases if they were supplied with the model.

nkelsch wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K.

That's not entirely true...

I said 'no real difference'... meaning it's not a particularly significant issue. Yes, it makes a small difference to movement and coherency if you get creative with model placement. But personally, I don't see it as that big of a deal. Particularly in a game that has never consistently and completely used round bases, up until the current edition freely allowed players to put models on larger bases if they wished, and has supplied the same models with a range of different size and shape bases over the time they've been available.

nkelsch wrote:When disembarking to measure to the BACK of the base, when you assault you measure to the FRONT of the base. the distance between the edges is added to the overall distance. Which means a round 25mm is 25mm and a square 25mm is 35mm. Now for the most part, Deamons are not disembarking out of transports, but if someone was using fantasy orks as trukk boyz, I would be concerned with square bases.

10mm actually, and a 40mm base gains 16.6mm and a 50mm gains 21mm.

And with pivoting in place based upon the mawloc base thread, you can pivot for 5mm on a 25mm, 8mm on a 40mm and 10mm on a 50mm.

If anyone starts to eek out extra inches because they're measuring diagonals I think that it is reasonable to assume that the game is over and it's time to pick another opponent. A square base is just a base and to measure front to back as always is fair. If in doubt discuss it with your opponent.

nkelsch wrote:If it is not a huge advantage then why can I move 6.5" for all my infantry? You cool with that? Can I add +1 to all my S&P rolls?

Now we are just being silly and turning a discussion into something else. It happens far too quickly on here when people stop discussing and starts being pedantic and sarcastic.

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

Personally, the only problem I would have with this is that a mix of round and square bases in a unit would look funny. Using square bases in a 40k battle just because it's easier? Makes sense to me.

whitedragon wrote:

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth).

For what it's worth, the rule allowing you to use a larger base was last edition. This edition, anything other than the base with which the model is supplied technically requires opponent's permission.

In practice, at least from my experience, very few players actually care. Particularly veteran players, who are used to GW changing their bases every time you turn around.

It would be easier to mount them all on round bases and kit them out with movement trays for Fantasy...

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

puma713 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, the Avatar is on a square base. He's 40k only.

You mean in the above example or what? Because the Avatar comes with a round base now.

Mine came with a square base. My eldar dreadnought did too.

And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Chaos Daemons do come with square bases. Are they clearly meant for Fantasy? Yes.
Are they producing new sets with square and round bases? Yes.

But if you want to pull the strict "that's what they came with", then it's okay for Daemons. Heck, some of my Flesh Hounds ONLY came with square bases, yet they are usable for 40k.

There are movement trays for Fantasy that have round holes so you can use your 40k demons.
Show him them.

insaniak wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Me, I could care less since the base has little actual effect on the game

And while I'm on a grammar roll, I believe you 'couldn't care less'.

It's an Americanism... They say it backwards for some bizarre reason

Oh, it is not either! Just because someone in the U.S. uses incorrect grammar doesn't all of a sudden make the phrase an "Americanism." It's not like leaving out a frivolous "u" though, because when it comes to words like color and honor I couldn't care less.


As to the original post, I can understand the mixing of round bases and square bases in a unit might look kind of tacky, but other than that I see no problem. I don't have an issue with people using square bases in 40k. Now, if they start trying to turn bases and measure diagonally to get some extra bit of distance, that might be an issue, but as long as they measure flat edge to flat edge, it's not really a problem.

Just for giggles and way off topic I thought I'd just throw in that I believe 'I could care less' is a type of Americanism It's a sarcastic version, as pointed out by Steven Pinker in 'The Language Instinct'. Sorry, couldn't resist

Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

EmperorsChampion wrote:Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

And if the guy you are playing really needs that little bit of advantage that badly...he probably needs to find a hobby that he doesn't suck at.

puma713 wrote:

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy. Now, most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models, etc., etc. but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses. . .let's say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have (yep you guessed it!) circle bases.

As I said, we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like, "He plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy. You don't expect him to get duplicates of everything?!" But it's not about duplicates of stuff; it's about if you want to use the same model for both games, don't glue the dude on to a base or, at the very least, glue him on to one type of base. Then, when you use it for the other game, blu tack the other base on to the bottom so it's the right base.

Anyway, rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Fixed it for you ^

Whew.

Thanks, was about to rage post about people who can't type correctly.

I don't know why the bases are causing problems for you, technically square bases provide your opponents a small advantage if your using them in 40k. There is no problem.

Ordo Dakka wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Yup, rules-wise it's completely legal in 40k.

To use a mix of square and circular bases? I don't think so sir. The rule is the base provided I believe, and circular bases are now provided AFAIK.

Square bases are also provided with all Daemon models. That means they're legal. If you have a problem with it you can choose not to play against that person.

Otherwise, I guess you're just pounding sand.

Che-Vito wrote:

EmperorsChampion wrote:Well I used paint to see if there was any difference to it, and as you can tell, if someone turned the base on an angle then yes, you do 'gain' 21 pixels worth of movement. (21 pixels is the number i counted from corner to the edge of the round base.)

And if the guy you are playing really needs that little bit of advantage that badly...he probably needs to find a hobby that he doesn't suck at.

Yes very much so, I honostly don't care about it at all, oh well...

Questions of grammar and laziness aside, the big issue for me would be how many models can get in base-to-base with the models in question. It seems in 40k having a square base would be a disadvantage.

But in fantasy, having a round base (as pointed out by another poster) reduces the frontage of the unit, which I'd have a problem with if I were facing off against them. I'd at least ask them to put the square based models around the edge or something.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

Athera wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

There- I put in bold the part you should have payed attention to. Can you find it?



If your'e using them for 40k their bases should be round. Get it right.

Thanks!

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Athera wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
And you're allowed to use them because that's what they came with. GW said as much. But since 40k models haven't come with square bases in 5 or 6 years, they should be on round bases. However GW also said that it's okay to place your models on larger bases as long as it's not to gain an advantage (i.e. Canis or Seth) So if he's too lazy to make them interchangeable he can just put them on larger bases.

Daemons come with both. Period. Get over it.

Thanks!

There- I put in bold the part you should have payed attention to. Can you find it?



If your'e using them for 40k their bases should be round. Get it right.

Thanks!

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

Che-Vito wrote:

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

RAW is good but I'm a big fan of common sense.

Fact 1: The daemon box can be used for 40k or fantasy.

Fact 2: no other infantry in 40k come with square bases.

Fact 3: with the exception of goblin fanatics, no fantasy models come with round bases.

Logical conclusion: 40k daemons are meant to be on round bases; fantasy daemons on square.

P.S. I wouldn't really care except that it would look bad and a little lazy. It's not that hard to do it right.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

No. You put them on the bases they come with. If they come with both, you can put them on both.
Isn't RAW beautiful sometimes?

RAW is good but I'm a big fan of common sense.

Fact 1: The daemon box can be used for 40k or fantasy.

Fact 2: no other infantry in 40k come with square bases.

Fact 3: with the exception of goblin fanatics, no fantasy models come with round bases.

Logical conclusion: 40k daemons are meant to be on round bases; fantasy daemons on square.

P.S. I wouldn't really care except that it would look bad and a little lazy. It's not that hard to do it right.

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?