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.

LordofSteel wrote:Pure logic. I don't understand why people hold their ground to defend their square bases when choosing a circle base for a 40k game is the obvious solution. Deliberate misinterpretation of the rules only digs the foul-play hole deeper.

From my experience, it's largely because people don't see that the in-game issues with it are big enough problems to warrant the time and expense of re-basing their models.

It's only in the last few years that the 40K model range has moved to entirely round bases. People with older models are (justifiably, in my opinion) often reluctant to waste time rebasing their models when there is no clear reason to do so, and it shouldn't be that surprising that telling them that they have to without actually having some valid reason (as in an actual rule) for it can raise some hackles.

Personally I think the advantages of clearer and more consistant measuring and movement, and better aesthetics, are good reasons.

But I can see where people are coming from.

Mannahnin wrote:Thank you, but I have to call foul on that argument.

I don't think they're deliberately misinterpreting the rule at all. I think their reading is a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and casting aspersions of "foul play" has strong shades of an Ad Hominem attack/argument. Poor form.

Come on. Even someone with sub-par metacognitive capabilities could conclude the rule was made for the intention of setting brand new players on the right track. It is there so new players don't start playing with their miniatures baseless. Its one of the very first rules, it is not there for the argument of Square bases vs Circle bases and their legitimacy. If it were referring to this specifically then it would be much more direct and involve this sole example.

I was a bit unclear, I'm not saying using square bases is foul play. Over interpretation of a rule is extremely deliberate, it is also superfluous because one only needs to ask their opponent humbly to allow it. One who would try and prove their opponent has no say in the matter would be contrasting strong shades of an Ad Hominem attack/arguement. This would indeed be poor form.

I think the tone of your last few posts has been insulting to the people on the opposite side of the debate.

First by implying dishonesty/cheating (foul play), now by bringing "sub-par metacognitive capabilities" into it, and saying that the conclusion you draw is the only one which makes sense.

The tone is needlessly antagonistic and hostile. Your argument would be better off without it, as that kind of tone makes people automatically discredit your position.

insaniak wrote:

LordofSteel wrote:
It's only in the last few years that the 40K model range has moved to entirely round bases. People with older models are (justifiably, in my opinion) often reluctant to waste time rebasing their models when there is no clear reason to do so, and it shouldn't be that surprising that telling them that they have to without actually having some valid reason (as in an actual rule) for it can raise some hackles.

I'm not telling anyone they have to use circle bases. Most players including myself would allow this. I am just strongly defending the fact that their is no rule specifically for this scenario. Their is in fact an actual rule that they must ask their opponents consent to use different shaped bases. If one would tell me I have no say because of the rule on page 3, instead of asking me. I would tell them to read the paragraph below it, and then tell them they have my consent to use them.

LordofSteel wrote: Their is in fact an actual rule that they must ask their opponents consent to use different shaped bases.

...to those provided for the models.

The rule does not say that you need opponent's permission to use anything that isn't round. It doesn't even hint at it. Nowehere in the 40K rules will you find even a suggestion that 40K models must be on round bases.

Mannahnin wrote:I think the tone of your last few posts has been insulting to the people on the opposite side of the debate.

First by implying dishonesty/cheating (foul play), now by bringing "sub-par metacognitive capabilities" into it, and saying that the conclusion you draw is the only one which makes sense.

The tone is needlessly antagonistic and hostile. Your argument would be better off without it, as that kind of tone makes people automatically discredit your position.

You are right, I could do with a better tone. I'm not sure if you read every post. People were hostile towards me as well for what seemed like the sole reason of being on an opposite side of the question. This affected my tone.

I must be more clear, I don't doubt your metacognitive capabilities or those of anyone else here. I think they are just sticking to the notion that they firmly believe they are not over interpreting a simple and almost needless rule. When I firmly believe they know they are.

What is so difficult to misinterpret as: base it on the base it is supplied with?

I was supplied square bases. I have used square bases. I am in 100% c ompliance with the rules.

Regardless of your insults you have NOT got any rule which states, anywhere, that the bases in 40k are exclusively round. Thus your argument is not based on rules but on a personal and biased opinion.

Square bases are 100% unutterably legal if they were supplied with your model - and nothing you have presented contradicts that.

Well, there is legitimately an ambiguity in being supplied two different types of bases.

The rulebook does not give you any specific guidance for what to do in this situation.

While I believe the instruction given is sufficient to allow the use of the square bases, I really don't think that they're in the box because they're supposed to be an option for 40k.

While we collectively agree that if your Captain somehow comes with a 40mm or a Dreadnought base in his box, that technically it is within the letter of the law to use him on it, we all accept that it is obviously not GW's intent for him to be fielded on a Dreadnought base. So why pretend that there is a bright and shining line between that situation and the square vs. round issue?

LordofSteel wrote:I must be more clear, I don't doubt your metacognitive capabilities or those of anyone else here. I think they are just sticking to the notion that they firmly believe they are not over interpreting a simple and almost needless rule. When I firmly believe they know they are.

I'm confused. People believe they are not misinterpreting a rule, while at the same time they know that they are misinterpreting the rule?


For what it's worth, people often get riled when they're accused of deliberately abusing the rules just because you don't agree with their interpretation. Quite a lot of the time, the people who disagree with you aren't doing so purely to gain themselves some sort of in-game advantage... they're just doing so because they disagree with you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:What is so difficult to misinterpret as: base it on the base it is supplied with?

I was supplied square bases. I have used square bases. I am in 100% c ompliance with the rules.

Regardless of your insults you have NOT got any rule which states, anywhere, that the bases in 40k are exclusively round. Thus your argument is not based on rules but on a personal and biased opinion.

Square bases are 100% unutterably legal if they were supplied with your model - and nothing you have presented contradicts that.

First off, I did not have the intention to insulted anyone. I have just been unclear with my blunt statements, and matched my inpatients with the inpatients of others. Even after I acknowledge my tone was "hostile", you still match it with your tone.

I honestly feel like no one reads my posts thoroughly because I am repeating myself. They are supplied with both square and circle bases.

Their is no rule specifically for the use of square bases in the rulebook, people are using the rule that models must be based as a rule that they can use square bases. This is superfluous as I said before and is an unnecessary interpretation of the rule. You only have to humbly ask for your opponents consent, and if you do it the right way then he/she wont say no. However Circle bases avoid the entire possibility of them feeling cheated.

Fine I take it back that you would you have a hard time letting square bases slide in an official tournament. I personally would not use square bases in a tournament, and I certainly would not have the audacity to try to prove to my opponent he has no consent about it.

I have given many reasons that the rule does not state that square bases are 100% legal. It is apparent to me that people are unwilling to understand my logic, only because of my tone.

Humor me with this. Can I use Scarab Swarm bases for my Necron Warriors because those bases came in the box? Their is no rule saying I cannot so I must be able to.

I have permission to use the bases that come in the box.

That is all that is needed. Why do I need to ask consent for something perfectly allowed by the rules? Do you ask for consent to field 2 HQ selections?

This is the same thing. There is no misinterpreting of the rules going on. None. Your contention that "only" circular bases are allowed is not only completely untrue, it also manages to disallow Trygons and Valkyries, as well as old dreadnoughts from being allowed to play.

The basing rules are very, very, very, VERY loose, as the number of old models with varying bases is something GW dont want to make illegal.

insaniak wrote:

LordofSteel wrote:I must be more clear, I don't doubt your metacognitive capabilities or those of anyone else here. I think they are just sticking to the notion that they firmly believe they are not over interpreting a simple and almost needless rule. When I firmly believe they know they are.

I'm confused. People believe they are not misinterpreting a rule, while at the same time they know that they are misinterpreting the rule?

I was saying that people were pretending that they were not misinterpreting the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule being all models must be based. Mainly because it takes more cognition to over interpret the rule than it does to understand its basic purpose. As well as the basic purpose of supplying both circle and square bases in a kit. I can see it was a bit insulting the way I put it, only because to deny its truth would be to grant yourself sub-sub-par metacognition.

Anyway, my apologize to anyone who was insulted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have permission to use the bases that come in the box.

That is all that is needed. Why do I need to ask consent for something perfectly allowed by the rules? Do you ask for consent to field 2 HQ selections?

This is the same thing. There is no misinterpreting of the rules going on. None. Your contention that "only" circular bases are allowed is not only completely untrue, it also manages to disallow Trygons and Valkyries, as well as old dreadnoughts from being allowed to play.

The basing rules are very, very, very, VERY loose, as the number of old models with varying bases is something GW dont want to make illegal.

My point is being missed. It is more courteous to ask your opponents consent than it is to prove to him that he has none. Although it is a far superior solution to just base them with circle bases. That is all.

God, this argument again? Older Avatar came with a square base. It has no function in Fantasy. Ergo, square bases aren't OMGBAD in 40k and have precedent. Does it mess with the game? Probably not as much as this continued argument does.

A lot of older models came with square or no bases before GW started producing round bases to fit them.

I agree that allowing older models to continue to be used is a good thing, though personally I find that it causes SOME (albeit minor) issues in play, and doesn't look nearly as nice.

While I'm sympathetic to people using their older models, speaking as an avid WH and 40k player (which I don't think most of you are), I really would like to disabuse folks of the notion that basing on squares gives you maximum cross-compatibility.

That was the reason I originally did it, but I have since realized that I made a mistake, and it leaves me with quite a number of square-based old metal daemonettes which I no longer want to use in my 40k army, out of unhappiness with the bases. Eventually I'm going to go ahead and rip those suckers off, but I'd rather other gamers didn't make the same mistake I did.

LoS - so a rule that is entirely about putting the models on the base supplied ISNT a rule about putt ing the model on the supplied base, but is about just basing the model at all?

Then why didnt they say that? Oh, thats right. Because thats NOT WHAT THEY MEANT.

The entire context on page three is about basing *correctly*, hence the paragraph either.

I have not misunderstood you: I just believe that you are unutterably incorrect in your assertion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LoS - so a rule that is entirely about putting the models on the base supplied ISNT a rule about putt ing the model on the supplied base, but is about just basing the model at all?

Then why didnt they say that? Oh, thats right. Because thats NOT WHAT THEY MEANT.

The entire context on page three is about basing *correctly*, hence the paragraph either.

I have not misunderstood you: I just believe that you are unutterably incorrect in your assertion.

Sigh, I cannot continue to argue this. Yes you are still misunderstanding my point... You are more interesting in being right than you are in finding common ground which is the only way this debate could possibly end. Honestly, how can I not be antagonistic. You might want to consider the notion that you are under the Dunning-Kruger effect and thus it is clouding your ability to see my point.

I Would Have No Problem Playing Against Anyone Using Square Bases. Although the common approach here is to prove to your opponent that he has no consent even though square bases can cause differences in game terms. The approach I have been trying to suggest is the courteousness of asking your opponents consent to avoid any contradictions of legitimacy during the game. That is providing you insist on using square bases. The much more viable option is to just use the circle bases and use the compatible movement trays for fantasy.

Forget the whole argument on how the rules are interpreted, we are passed that already.

LoS, the flaw in relying upon opponent's consent is that when it comes to a unit or entire army, there is often no convenient option if consent is not given.

I've heard of tournament situations where a character on a 40mm scenic base was simply substituted for a model on a normal 25mm for game purposes, but it's not really so easy for a whole unit or army of daemons.

It's better to have a clear standard that we can rely on from game to game, particularly when we're talking about the time, cost and work of building/basing a whole army.

Up to this point, AFAIK, the common standard has pretty much been "you are within your rights to base your daemons on either", but I rarely hear anyone talk about the drawbacks.

Speaking as someone who's encountered the drawbacks, I think I'd rather see the default setting be "you are within your rights to do so, and we definitely include and support people who want to use their older models on their old bases, but if you're assemblying new models we don't recommend using the square ones."

Mannahnin wrote:LoS, the flaw in relying upon opponent's consent is that when it comes to a unit or entire army, there is often no convenient option if consent is not given.

I've heard of tournament situations where a character on a 40mm scenic base was simply substituted for a model on a normal 25mm for game purposes, but it's not really so easy for a whole unit or army of daemons.

It's better to have a clear standard that we can rely on from game to game, particularly when we're talking about the time, cost and work of building/basing a whole army.

Up to this point, AFAIK, the common standard has pretty much been "you are within your rights to base your daemons on either", but I rarely hear anyone talk about the drawbacks.

Speaking as someone who's encountered the drawbacks, I think I'd rather see the default setting be "you are within your rights to do so, and we definitely include and support people who want to use their older models on their old bases, but if you're assemblying new models we don't recommend using the square ones."

In my experience, courteousness has a ton of success. Playing a friendly game usually means no one is going to be so particular about simple things. Like I have said many times so far, I would have no problem. If its a tournament, then it is up to the judge. You can try to prove to the judge that page 3 is crystal clear about the use of square bases. Or you can be courteous. I am only suggesting the latter option from my own personal experiences.

I am disagreeing that the rules are as solid as people here interpret them, this is whats created the debate. However this is the little picture, the big picture is just what I am trying to advise. Everyone is too interesting in proving me wrong, however my logic is just proof that you might find other players who don't see your logic. Thus relying on page 3 can be just as inconvenient as relying on consent.

-edit All in all, you have 2 options that might result in dispute. However circle bases and their compatible fantasy trays eliminate both possibilities.

LordofSteel wrote:
I was saying that people were pretending that they were not misinterpreting the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule being all models must be based.

And here we get to the heart of the matter. You failed to understand what the actual purpose of the rule is and every further post you made further compounded that failure. It helps to have a bit of history, since you obviously haven't played any editions before 5th. In 4th edition, the rule was the base that they came with or larger, never smaller. This seemed simple enough, but opened up the possibility of putting models on bases 1" wide and 1' long. It also did a poor job of dealing with models whose base side had changed over the years, such as terminators, who used to be on 28 mm bases but were now based on 40.

The current rules handles the supersizing issue by making anything nonstandard opponent's consent and settles all issues arising from models with variant bases. So it means old terminators don't have to be ripped onto new bases, marines bikes don't need to be ripped onto new bases, and if you want to have a FB/Daemon army without messing around with variant base-swapping or custom movement trays, that's explicitly allowed too.

I think it's a bummer if people take the basing rules as given as a reason to be complacent and not update. While I don't think people should be forced to, in general, I do think it's to their benefit to do so.

And you don't really need custom movement trays; you can use regular ones. Aside from the fact that to play fantasy in general you pretty much always need to custom-build/modify your movement trays.

Bookwrack wrote:

LordofSteel wrote:
I was saying that people were pretending that they were not misinterpreting the purpose of the rule. The purpose of the rule being all models must be based.

And here we get to the heart of the matter. You failed to understand what the actual purpose of the rule is and every further post you made further compounded that failure. It helps to have a bit of history, since you obviously haven't played any editions before 5th. In 4th edition, the rule was the base that they came with or larger, never smaller. This seemed simple enough, but opened up the possibility of putting models on bases 1" wide and 1' long. It also did a poor job of dealing with models whose base side had changed over the years, such as terminators, who used to be on 28 mm bases but were now based on 40.

The current rules handles the supersizing issue by making anything nonstandard opponent's consent and settles all issues arising from models with variant bases. So it means old terminators don't have to be ripped onto new bases, marines bikes don't need to be ripped onto new bases, and if you want to have a FB/Daemon army without messing around with variant base-swapping or custom movement trays, that's explicitly allowed too.

Rofl.. Fine, don't take my advice, say this kind of gak to your opponent if he questions its legitimacy.

I have played before 5th. Anyway, good chat.
.

Mannahnin wrote:It's not a good idea. The problem is that if you place the models diagonally in relation to an enemy (with one of the corners pointing at them), the corner to corner distance is ~1.4", not 1". You can gain movement this way, either deliberately or inadvertantly.

Even if you deliberately try not to, you can accidentally benefit, and opponents may be suspicious and unhappy even if you're NOT trying to get an advantage.

Square bases also are widely seen as less aesthetically pleasing in a skirmish game like 40k.

The far better alternative is to base them on round bases, and use movement trays in fantasy with round cutouts, to allow you to easily use them in that system. A couple of different companies make these, IIRC, though you can also make them yourself.



http://www.gf9.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=103

I NEED THESE FOR MY GREEN TIDE!!!!!!

Another quick point regarding the question in the original post, which is about a whole army of daemons.

Units on round bases take up considerably more space when placed in a Deep Strike formation (everyone based in concentric circles) than square bases do.

As anyone who's played daemons knows, one of the dangers of them is mishaps from landing on other units or impassible terrain. Anything which substantially reduces this risk can be a big game advantage.

Anyone feel like doing the math on how much table space a unit of 8 Blood Crushers takes up when DSed on 60mm rounds rather than 50mm squares?

How about 6 Fiends on 40mm rounds vs. squares?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I NEED THESE FOR MY GREEN TIDE!!!!!!

Aren't they awesome? They also make "skirmish" trays in an oval shape with the models spread out a bit, to be more in keeping with the 40k aesthetic. One of my buddies who runs horde IG uses them, and they're a huge help in deploying and moving the army more quickly.

Would anyone have a problem with these being used in a 40k game? if the orks were to them pile out of them when assaulted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Another quick point regarding the question in the original post, which is about a whole army of daemons.

Units on round bases take up considerably more space when placed in a Deep Strike formation (everyone based in concentric circles) than square bases do.

As anyone who's played daemons knows, one of the dangers of them is mishaps from landing on other units or impassible terrain. Anything which substantially reduces this risk can be a big game advantage.

Anyone feel like doing the math on how much table space a unit of 8 Blood Crushers takes up when DSed on 60mm rounds rather than 50mm squares?

How about 6 Fiends on 40mm rounds vs. squares?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I NEED THESE FOR MY GREEN TIDE!!!!!!

Aren't they awesome? They also make "skirmish" trays in an oval shape with the models spread out a bit, to be more in keeping with the 40k aesthetic. One of my buddies who runs horde IG uses them, and they're a huge help in deploying and moving the army more quickly.

I most certainly need some of these when i start my orks or guard back up.

I can't imagine someone having a problem with using the formation things in 40k, just as long as they don't have models more than 2" apart and you ignore it for all gameplay purposes.

There are certainly times when you'll have to pull your models off of it (CC or getting around terrain or something), but if you're in flat open areas, it's fine.

Back on topic: No, I have no problem with using square bases on Daemons. If you really want, paint or specially base the round base size onto the square base, so if you're opponent has an issue, just pretend it's the round base size.

LordofSteel wrote:.

Well, that's regrettable. I thought I'd be charitable and attribute your stance to simple ignorance, but if you're going to gleefully display that you have absolutely no excuse... My fault for giving you the rope, but I take no responsibility for you making a noose of it and sticking your neck through.

Since you've shown that in a rule discussion thread you're going to completely disregard or deliberately misunderstand the rulebook and aptly demonstrated that its not lack of experience to blame, there's really nothing else for you.

I'm pretty sure squares are no longer legal in 5th...

But what is the problem for simply making new daemons with round bases and rebasing your old ones,

theduncan wrote:I'm pretty sure squares are no longer legal in 5th...

They are legal. That part is explicitly allowed as per the rulebook, page 3.

But what is the problem for simply making new daemons with round bases and rebasing your old ones,

Because you play Fantasy Battles as well and don't feel like going the extra mile when square bases work just fine in both systems.

Mannahnin wrote:

Sol wrote:Also on kind of a side point. It hurts Daemon players far more being on squares, more hit by templates, more can get into base contact with you. While you can not increase or decrease being on square. There are no advantages to having them on squares bases. One last point the square bases are not winning or breaking games, and are still on 25mm scale. I always figured that is why GW made all the core Daemon square bases 25 mm.

If a flat side of the base is facing an enemy unit you wish to move toward and shoot or assault, and you pivot said base at all as you move, you will gain distance. A square is ~40% wider measured corner to corner than it is edge to edge. That's ~10mm, or up to 5mm of distance gained by a pivot with a 25mm base. More with a larger square.

In a game of inches like 40k, I have seen literally hundreds (if not thousands) of shooting, assault, and objective-holding measurements over the last twelve years be in range or out of range by that much.

Most of the time it's a disadvantage to the daemon player, sure. But if it becomes an advantage even ONCE, that's a game in which you may have inadvertently cheated your opponent and/or fostered some dissatisfaction/resentment in him.

It's just not worth it, IMO. Especially given that using movement trays is functionally mandatory in Warhammer Fantasy Battle anyway, and it's EASY to just mount them on rounds and put them on the trays when playing WH for proper movement and combat handling.

I agree that most players don't raise objections (though I got them a few times back when I was using square-based daemons in my Chaos Marine army), and will accept that the bases ARE the ones provided and thus fulfill the criteria on page 3. But why even let the possibility of an issue arise? If you mount them on rounds there is no chance of a problem.

If someone moved 6 inches then pivoted on center so that the corner gained movement then that is cheating because they have moved greater then 6 inches. That is in no way caused by a base being square that is a person not being nice, and cheating. Same goes if they pivot before moving you can not alter the model this way to gain movement, and I would call someone out right away that tried to pull this sort of stunt. I actually always just measure movement from the corners, and don't do any pivoting unless I am under my base 6 inch move. So please don't confuse someone cheating with the actual mechanics of the game. No matter how you measure it 6 inches is 6 inches. I will not re-base personally because it is my main WFB army and they need to be on squares, especially the bigger models, and I am OCD about how the army looks as a whole and do not or will not mix bases.