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.

Sid, there's no need to be so negative.

Square bases ARE more vulnerable to templates in general; you have the same coherency rules, but a square 25mm base covers a larger area. The only exception is big mosters/bloodcrushers, where the large square base is only 50mm, but the 40k equivalent is a 60mm round.

It's an easy and common mistake to make, and one I've only recently started kind-of crusading against.

The difference is that the larger a base is, the larger the overall footprint for a unit can be, which means that each blast covers a smaller chunk of it.

Hrm. Okay, thought about it some more, and yeah, if you go full coherency with the corners of 25mm squares pointed at each other, you can actually spread out more. Ugh.

I'd put them on circle bases and for fantasy make a custom tray with some plasticcard or try to fit on the GW ones

either way it wouldnt matter much

Mannahnin wrote:The only exception is big mosters/bloodcrushers, where the large square base is only 50mm, but the 40k equivalent is a 60mm round

Ah! This is what I was thinking of. I was confused when I saw this in-person, since for the smaller bases the circle fits inside the square, but for the largest size bases it's the opposite. Now it makes sense

Edit: Also, as far as rotating the bases to diamond-shape and going corner-to-corner for coherency... well, I just wouldn't play that person again. That'd be a sleazy tactic, and it doesn't seem to be what the OP had in mind doing at all. There are lots of ways to play with movement in 40k (starting a vehicle sideways, getting the free rotation, and moving forwards what amounts to extra distance from where you could've been on turn 1 otherwise is a common one) and this is one. Technically legal as well, since the bases come with the models... so what you're really complaining about is WAAC-type strategies, and again, that doesn't seem to be what the OP had in mind.

If he wasn't pulling shenanigans with them, I wouldn't have a problem playing against it. And if he was, I probably would end up not wanting to play him for other reasons that would become apparent during the game, as well.

I detailed my thoughts on the subject exhaustively in that other thread.

Not sure yet I'll rebase all those 80 Orks - a damn lot of work, especially since most of them are posed running and stand on a single foot... high risk of breaking. Still have to think it through...

ph34r wrote:Honestly you'd be much better off going with round bases. Round bases can be inserted into square bases and movement trays with slots, making them 100% correct and legal for all games.

I agree with this observation. They should consider this along with the special basing trays; Brilliant!

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

PS. All of the GW Noobs will follow the Brain washing rules, however, most are Veteran GW people pretty passive as long as they're GW Models. Although, Sanctioned events are a No-No and you are stuck with the required basing...

Excuse me, "brainwashing"? Those are the rules.

You know I wouldn't be so "negative" if you guys would stop presenting your opinions in the most douchey way possible...

Sidstyler wrote:Excuse me, "brainwashing"? Those are the rules.

You know I wouldn't be so "negative" if you guys would stop presenting your opinions in the most douchey way possible...

Lighten up Francis...

Douchey? Come on, who you crappin? How many times have you been assaulted at the door by a GW Noob? Especially, when it comes to the rules. OK, they are rules Lawyers and yes, they are the rules. But in the spirit of the Game, the Models should be playable.

Remember, Opinions are like Arseholes; we all have them and they all stink...

Should I be "Negative" to you for using the word Douchey? (SP) Excuse me?

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

My daemons have square bases and no one at my club has complained, in fact most of them comment that it's a good idea. There will always be some people who complain but most don't care.

But in the spirit of the Game, the Models should be playable.

The models are playable. The only reason there's a problem now is because the OP tried to design one army for use with three game systems, and his love for extensive converting made them unplayable in one game system, which I'm assuming he knew full well the limitations of when he set about his work to begin with.

I just don't see why he couldn't have done modular basing. He already went through the trouble of magnetizing every single model in the army, would it really have been that difficult?

Should I be "Negative" to you for using the word Douchey? (SP) Excuse me?

If you want, but do keep in mind you started it with "brainwashing rules". Speaking of which, is it "brainwashing" to insist that I dribble the ball when playing basketball, instead of just running around with it in my hands?

Oh boy...youth...



Yours Truly,

Dr. Douchey

lol, oh wow.

Oh, how I long for the day when I can post complete and utter bs, and still win every argument by throwing my venerable status around.

The only real problem with square bases in 40k is that it allows a single model to charge 2 models at once which is virtually impossible to do on a round base due to the shape of a sphere (Note this is just the initial charge of closest point to closest point)

Its a fairly minor detail, but thats about it

4M2A wrote:My daemons have square bases and no one at my club has complained, in fact most of them comment that it's a good idea. There will always be some people who complain but most don't care.

Well Square-based daemons are game legal because of the 'base they came with'... And they also don't disembark out of open-topped transports so they really don't gain any extra distance when assaulting. As long as you don't corner-to-corner for coherency, daemons are going to be pretty mucht he exact same play experience with square or round.

As long as you know how it impacts and don't exploit it, you should be fine regardless of your bases.

Personally I would mount my fantasy on round and use movement trays with holes if I had access to a 20mm round for gobbos. Ranking up my orks is like solving a puzzle because the multi-piece fantasy ork kit the arms go on all willy nilly then they never rank up. I think being able to rotate in place on a round base may help with this problem.

Kirasu wrote:The only real problem with square bases in 40k is that it allows a single model to charge 2 models at once which is virtually impossible to do on a round base due to the shape of a sphere (Note this is just the initial charge of closest point to closest point)

Its a fairly minor detail, but thats about it

The rules actually only allow a single model to contact one model. Base shape doesn't enter into it. You can only declare a charge against one unit, and the first model in an assaulting unit is only permitted to contact that assaulted unit. You need multiple models in the assaulting unit to contact multiple enemy units- see p.34.

nkelsch wrote:ll Square-based daemons are game legal because of the 'base they came with'... And they also don't disembark out of open-topped transports so they really don't gain any extra distance when assaulting. As long as you don't corner-to-corner for coherency, daemons are going to be pretty mucht he exact same play experience with square or round.

The first part is debatable. Pretty much everyone accepts that it's legal to use the square bases because of that rule, although the rule actually doesn't explicitly cover models which come with more than one. I believe the intention is for you to use the right base for the system you're playing, and the rule is phrased that way so as to allow people to use old models without being forced to rebase them, even though rebasing them is usually a good idea.

Any time they disembark from a transport you can gain distance, unless you specifically are careful not to. Open-topped has nothing to do with it. As pointed out above, you can also spread out more against blasts by orienting corner-to-corner for coherency. And cover more ground for holding multiple objectives, or being ready to move/assault in multiple directions. You can compensate by deliberately keeping your models oriented with the flat sides toward each other and the enemy, but it's kind of a PITA, and if you're not careful about it, may wind up gaining an advantage at some point during the game.

nkelsch wrote:As long as you know how it impacts and don't exploit it, you should be fine regardless of your bases.

Overall this is still largely true. If you're conscientious about it, you can largely avoid gaining advantages (with the exception of 50mm squares vs. 60mm rounds, which break Bloodcrushers a bit). Most casual, and even a lot of competitive, players don't care that much about it. I just learned the hard way with my own daemons, and I prefer to avoid the possibility of causing headaches for myself or my opponent at this point, so I don't field the square bases in 40k anymore.

Well, I've played in a few Indy GT, and LOTS of RTTs all over, and my square bases on my Daemons has never been a question. I'm a Fantasy player at heart (and for 16+ years), so there's no reason for me to convert my models over. I've never taken advantage of the fact that you can be a bit "janky" with movement using the square corners to gain some distance from time to time, but the larger bases also allow templates to hit you more often (as there's no parials). But, being a bit larger also means not as many models can get hit if you spread out your models to the max 2" seperation.

All in all, it's really how you play them with the square bases. If people or tournaments have a problem with it, just don't play with them. There's plenty of us who don't mind!

W/Daemons I don't have a problem and never would. With orks as long as your getting out of the tank the right way we can still be friends

And I'm a hardcore, crazy, powergaming, bastard....Ask anyone

Oh, and the above poster doesn't count towards this argument cause all he does in a game of 40k is yell blood for the blood god and run right at you. He couldn't cheat if he tried

As long as he places his daemons in a 6-surrounding-1 formation instead of an 8-surrounding-1 box, he's mostly okay. The only significant issue then is the blood crushers.

TDG- I'm not surprised no one's said anything. I suspect that most of them are simply clueless that there's any impact on play at all.

To clarify a few matters (as the OP); In regard as to why I went with square bases...

I'm new to the big GW wargames and always played games with friends, never in tournaments. I never imagined round bases'd be an issue - in fact IMHO square bases line up more easily and are much easier to do in plasticard.


I'm not a munchkin player by any lenght. I honestly don't care about competitiveness and will probably avoid tournaments, if only for the kind of arguments seen here. I've got enough controversy and confliicts at my job... (I'm in central government...)

Well, I've played in a few Indy GT, and LOTS of RTTs all over, and my square bases on my Daemons has never been a question. I'm a Fantasy player at heart (and for 16+ years), so there's no reason for me to convert my models over. I've never taken advantage of the fact that you can be a bit "janky" with movement using the square corners to gain some distance from time to time, but the larger bases also allow templates to hit you more often (as there's no parials). But, being a bit larger also means not as many models can get hit if you spread out your models to the max 2" seperation.

All in all, it's really how you play them with the square bases. If people or tournaments have a problem with it, just don't play with them. There's plenty of us who don't mind!

I am in agreement with you on this. I have my metal Daemon Princes on square bases. My metal Seekers and metal Fiends are on rectangular bases. That is what they came with and that is what I play. I've been playing this game for close to twenty three years and seen the disadvantage of using more often than not when using square bases, but I continue playing them because they fit the theme of my army. I have no problems playing against someone with square bases in casual play or in a tourney.

As requested, I've posted some pictures of my armies in progress (notably my Ork conversions), others are currently uploading.

After reviewing my plastic men, I finally won't bother to rebase them with round base - too much work, too high risk of breaking my delicate poses (you'll understand when you see, for exemple, the ork with a monowheel for legs, inspired by the Gorkamorma table of "Bad Dok Serjery"). Its missile launcher is a burnt-out chrismas tree light bulb...

Ork conversion gallery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-23691-12985_100%25%20Converted%20Ork%20Army%20Of%20Angelis%20%28wh40k%252Fgorkamorka%29.html

Other miniatures gallery
http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-search.jsp?u=23691

I'll remember next time to build a"multi-game army"!

Edit: links added

Crazy idea, but what about magnetic strips to base your bases? Put the squares on top of circles bases for picky tournaments. Just a thought. Very little input or time necessary to "fix," and no whiners.

The stigma of square bases all stem from mainly Daemons and how GW doesnt like multi-game-system armies. I'm guessing it's mainly one of the reasons why they left out the old rule of "the base they came with or larger" from 4th edition, As a player can collect one army of Daemons and effectively play both games now with the Codex: Chaos Daemons, as opposed to before, where you had to have some CSM in your army to make Daemons even viable.

GW and anything sanctioned by them will most definately NOT allow you to use round bases, apparently for any reason. There's no way to make money if they sold you one army and you can play both systems.

As for the general public, most shouldnt have a problem with it. Those that do point out the advantages of the square bases should note that the advantages are miniscule in size and shouldnt impact the game much more than about 1 casualty. Anyone claiming to be "playing by the rules" and using the rulebook can be soundly put down by simply asking them to quote where in the book did it say they must use round bases (since if you used fantasy orcs as the basis for the conversions, most likely they actually came with square bases).

It doesn't need to specify round bases. It's the Warhammer 40k rulebook, and all 40k models come with round bases, so...it's just kind of assumed that you'll be putting them on round bases.

Those that do point out the advantages of the square bases should note that the advantages are miniscule in size and shouldnt impact the game much more than about 1 casualty.

Is it a huge impact on the game? No. But it's worth pointing out that there is an impact and that it does matter to people, and making blanket statements like "No one should ever have a problem with this for any reason" is wrong.

Evidently you are nitpicky enough to care. However dont put words into my mouth. I said "most" shouldnt have a problem with it, not "No one should have no problem". In anything there will always be a small, miniscule amount of people complaining about every little detail just for the sake of complaining or drawing attention. A fraction of an inch is no different from human error misjudging the length of an inch by eyeing it. I personally only ever place my models 1 inchs away from eachother. That way I'm not even touching the 2 inch barrier, and certainly never incuring any extra distance for different base sizes (I have alot of weird bases in my army, namely a dread still on the old square bases and two Daemon Princes on 40mms).

As for playing by the rules, do note that if you go by assumptions, you are playing them as RAI, no longer RAW. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, for it is a lie.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was only a few models. The whole army is pushing it a bit, and I might be secretly annoyed, but I'd still play you. If the TO lets you into the event with them, there wouldn't be much gained by being pissy about it.

Indeed, I may have played against a certain Moderator who had their Summoned Lesser Daemons on square bases at the 40k 'Ard Boyz a while back.

Sidstyler wrote:It doesn't need to specify round bases. It's the Warhammer 40k rulebook, and all 40k models come with round bases, so...it's just kind of assumed that you'll be putting them on round bases.

It doesn't need to specify because why exactly? It actually *does* need to specify otherwise it's not a rule. Daemons come with both and older models that are still legal came with square bases only, so technically it's illegal not to use them.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Evidently you are nitpicky enough to care.

Evidently, I'd surprise a lot of you if you ever had the opportunity to play a game with me. I'm the type of guy who probably wouldn't have said a word to you if your entire 40k army was mounted on square bases, other than out of initial curiosity as to why you would do that in the first place (though I think the myriad of WHF Orc bits would have been a strong hint). I wouldn't immediately start throwing accusations of cheating or modeling for advantage around like you seem to think...unless I actually caught him doing that crap in-game.

Sometimes when arguing online I like to play Devil's Advocate, and sometimes I just like to argue if it tickles me. I admit I'm kind of a troll like that (but obviously a good troll never comes out and calls themselves one ). The fact that someone said very matter-of-factly "No one should have a problem with this, for any reason" was enough to get me to bite and stay on this thread for this long. Yes, it's really that little extra bit, the crap someone tacks on to the end of a post as an afterthought which most people would just look over...

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:However dont put words into my mouth. I said "most" shouldnt have a problem with it, not "No one should have no problem".

Who said I was putting words in your mouth?

Mattlov wrote:If an opponent really complains about it, tell him you have larger bases to be covered with templates. There really shouldn't be a problem with it, by anyone, for any reason.

Emphasis mine.

I apologize if you thought I was talking about you, it was Mattlov who made the "offending" remark. I agree that it's a small point of contention and that most people likely wouldn't have a problem with it, but like I said, the fact that someone actually came out and told me that I "shouldn't have a problem with it for any reason" is enough to make me have a problem with it.

I don't care if someone wants to mount their army on the wrong bases, but if someone wants to be a dick about it, then I'll be a dick too and I suddenly I will have a problem with it. I don't like when people have the attitude that they can do whatever the hell they want and just "Why so serious?" everyone to get their way.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:A fraction of an inch is no different from human error misjudging the length of an inch by eyeing it.

Well, then people probably would think I was a dick then, because I almost never eyeball anything, even if it's an inch. The only time I will ever do that is if I'm firing a railgun, because I know the length of the table and the only way I'll ever be out of range is if I'm not actually on it. Other than that I prefer actually measuring. Maybe it's just because of my job, but I learned the hard way that you can't eyeball anything.

It's not that hard to measure though, ever since I bought the GF9 T.A.C. template with a 6" side, 2" side, and 1" side to help keep everything coherent. That thing is a must-have in my opinion.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:As for playing by the rules, do note that if you go by assumptions, you are playing them as RAI, no longer RAW. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, for it is a lie

Indeed. I never claimed to be a RAW player, because there are times when it's clear what GW intended but RAW makes it unplayable, like DE flickerfields for example. In order to enjoy this game at all you have to allow a little bit of rule interpretation, because playing strictly by RAW breaks the game...

When it comes to bases though, you seriously can't expect me to believe that there's any actual confusion as to what's "proper". Daemons are the only models anymore that come with both, and it's pretty obvious to everyone who's been into the hobby for more than a day as to why: because they were designed for both systems. They even have both 40k and WHF logos on the boxes. Ask a fething redshirt and he'll tell you the same thing. The rulebook may not come out and say "round base = 40k", but Daemons are the only instance in which that would actually be a point of confusion, and a quick flip through the rulebook will show you that almost every single 40k model is mounted on round bases, so common sense and reasoning would tell you which base is the "right" one. Especially if you have both 40k and WHF rulebooks and you can see which models are mounted on which side by side.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:It doesn't need to specify because why exactly?

Because I imagine GW doesn't think it's playerbase is that damn stupid. Maybe they're wrong.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Daemons come with both and older models that are still legal came with square bases only, so technically it's illegal not to use them.

Well then technically wouldn't it be illegal to mount them on one or the other? If they come with both then apparently you're supposed to use both of them...so you SHOULD be gluing one on top of the other.

Now which one goes on top and which one goes on the bottom, that's the real debate here...