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.

insaniak wrote:

Necroshea wrote:lmfao, Idk about that. It think using old bases when the bases have been changed/updated is kind of underhanded. Also, I imagine it can be an issue in organized play.

Not only is it not the slightest bit 'underhanded' it's exactly what the rules say to do. Technically, updating them would be breaking the rules unless your opponent agrees to it.

It sounds more like a rules as written vs rules as intended.

Deepstriking termies on small basis gives an advantage because of size compared to deepstriking them on the bases they should be on.

It's like using a rulebook and ignoring the faq. Yeah, it's the way it once was, but things got updated.

Using your logic means you don't need bases for some of the larger things that once had no bases. Ergo you can deepstrike right on top of something but if it doesn't land on them everything fine. Yeah sorry that's underhanded and I won't play someone who tries to pull gak like that.

I think he didn't mean as in mount them on the bases they used to come with, just that if they came back then with those bases it is technically against the base rule to take them off of the base they came with and put them on a new base.

It doesn't make much sense, but that's the way it is written.

n0t_u wrote:I think he didn't mean as in mount them on the bases they used to come with, just that if they came back then with those bases it is technically against the base rule to take them off of the base they came with and put them on a new base.

It doesn't make much sense, but that's the way it is written.

Exactly, trying to pull a rules as written instead of doing it as they intend it.

GW intends for you to put termi's on large bases. If you say otherwise you are fooling yourself, if you agree to it then there is no argument. Update your bases.

Edit - Not directing that last part at you Not_u. Just felt I should add this, I feel like I came across overly aggressive.

Salted Diamond wrote:

Sasori wrote:Bases would be a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer them to be on an appropriate sized circular base.

Not saying that I wouldn't' play with you, but I'd really not like the Square base aspect, even if it's only one model.

juraigamer wrote:I would prefer that 40k demons were on round bases, and since you can find round base specific movement trays for fantasy for very cheap, I see no reason why you shouldn't use round bases.

What about models that have no round base at all? I field 2 squads of rough riders with my IG and they don't even make round(ed) cavalry bases.

Errr, they do make rounded cavalry bases. They are called biker bases and they are available on the GW website. They just don't appear in many boxes yet.

Currently my Ork Dreadnought & KillaKan's do not have a base as they never came with one (the old Metal ones) (3rd Edition?), I have no problem playing them as they are (besides them occasionally falling over), but if I wanted to put them on bases and used the relevant size for the new Deff Dread & Killa Kan models, would you guys disagree with that?

Nope, if anything more would likely have a problem with it if you didn't.

I have 2 HWS for my Guard, Mortars and Lascannons also my Heavy Bolters are an individual model with no base.

I play the lascannons loose with 2 Guardsmen, as they were sold.

And the Heavy Bolter is also separate to the Loader, no extra bases, same applies for my Steel Legion Missile Launcher teams.

I play them on the Bases or lack of bases, they came on.

now say you were a TO, would you rule illegal to use other than round bases?

sudojoe wrote:now say you were a TO, would you rule illegal to use other than round bases?

I would allow to use whatever the bases the box came with. I would also require you use the most updated bases.

As for the HW models, using two seperate bases and models practically violated the codex rules. The model became a single 2 wound creature on a large base. I liked the old way of doing it to but the game changes and so we must adapt. I do not understand why people can be so stubborn about this.

Obviously if you never play in tournaments, none of this applies to you. Casual play with friends you can do whatever you want.

Sharkvictim wrote:

Justus wrote:My friend told me that on page 3 it states that your model must be based on the base that comes with it. Naturally, that means it's my choice. Thanks guys!

Well, maybe not. Leaving daemons on square bases to play in 40k is just an easy way to dual purpose your army, and it's the only army in the GW line (really odd fan fluff notwithstanding) that can be played in either setting out-of-box.
Naturally, that means that it's your choice which setting you want to run them in. want to dual purpose your army? Buy LotR movement trays. Easy fix.
It's the only army that comes with square and round bases. That doesn't mean you "get to choose" and your opponents just have to deal with it.
So on the soapbox I think it's a no-go.
Personally I'd play you anyway, regardless of bases.

Justus wrote:Frankly, I don't give a gak about his opinion in particular...
I'd like to hear your opinions...
Naturally, that means it's my choice. Thanks guys!

You did ask, bro.

It really does mean you "get to choose". Nowhere in the rulebook does it dictate what shape of base is legal, and this is intentional. You mount them on what they come on, and if they come on square AND round bases then you can use either. There is no tangible advantages or disadvantages to using square bases over round, so there's no reason for anyone to argue the point.

sirrah wrote:It really does mean you "get to choose". Nowhere in the rulebook does it dictate what shape of base is legal, and this is intentional. You mount them on what they come on, and if they come on square AND round bases then you can use either. There is no tangible advantages or disadvantages to using square bases over round, so there's no reason for anyone to argue the point.

It's not hard to imagine a situation where a square base would be an advantage. For example, a Greater Daemon's classic square base takes up less space on the table. If I use all square bases on my Greater Daemons, they will be less likely to Deep Strike mishap. Voila, tangible advantage. Legal too.

There are plenty of examples of legal modeling for advantage. The classic Avatar of Khaine (25mm base, I believe, and about the height of a Guardian) is another controversial example.

Necroshea wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote: like old style terminators on the 25mm base, it's legal to keep them on those.

lmfao, Idk about that. It think using old bases when the bases have been changed/updated is kind of underhanded. Also, I imagine it can be an issue in organized play.

While this is true, I rebased the old terminators I got second hand on 40 mm bases (from their original 25 mm bases).

DeffDred wrote:Hey! That plastic warboss doesn't have a squig model with him! You can use his extra attack!!!!

Actually, that one would be an actual rule. Characters are required to have any wargear represented on them, as per the commonly misunderstood WYSIWYG rule. Also, getting a squig bit for your warboss is really easy, you'd actually have a point when giving someone a hard time about it.

monkeypuzzle wrote:

Salted Diamond wrote:

Sasori wrote:Bases would be a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer them to be on an appropriate sized circular base.

Not saying that I wouldn't' play with you, but I'd really not like the Square base aspect, even if it's only one model.

juraigamer wrote:I would prefer that 40k demons were on round bases, and since you can find round base specific movement trays for fantasy for very cheap, I see no reason why you shouldn't use round bases.

What about models that have no round base at all? I field 2 squads of rough riders with my IG and they don't even make round(ed) cavalry bases.

Errr, they do make rounded cavalry bases. They are called biker bases and they are available on the GW website. They just don't appear in many boxes yet.

But the biker bases are longer than the cavalry bases and do not have the slots for the models (and the horses need them). Wouldn't putting larger bases on assault units qualify as modeling for advantage? I also shouldn't have to modify the models/bases to be able to mount them.

The way I see it is if you pay for i,t then do what you want with it. Anybody that would have a problem with it is really not worth playing against. Tell anyone that has a problem with it that if they want to pay for your models you will put them on what ever base they want. Remember "the most important rule" trumps everything else, have fun its a game and get over it.

What about Daemon Heralds on Chariots?


If you buy a chariot from Fantasy to mount your Herald on, you get the Chariot Base (50x100) They don't have anything like that in 40k.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:What about Daemon Heralds on Chariots?


If you buy a chariot from Fantasy to mount your Herald on, you get the Chariot Base (50x100) They don't have anything like that in 40k.

Strictly speaking, there is no legal model for a Herald on Chariot. And there is no legal base size for that non-model. Indeed, there is no "legal" way to play with a Herald on Chariot or any other unit with a codex entry but no existing model. You are entirely dependent on your opponent or a TO's permission in these cases.

This sounds like a bigger problem than it really is. In my experience, most people won't bat an eye at your scratchbuilt/converted/custom models so long as they are reasonable. A Herald on Chariot on a Fantasy Chariot base is reasonable to me. A Herald on Chariot on a 25mm base...? Then you might start getting funny looks. Neither is "legal" without an opponent or TO's permission, but one is more likely to be denied than the other.

Necroshea wrote:I would also require you use the most updated bases.

Man, I would have a real problem with someone who rebased his models from the bases they were supplied with (25mm terminators) to new, larger bases. It gives a tangible benefit that a deepstriking unit would have a larger threat radius for their weapons. Instead of them having a threat radius of 24"+12.5mm (for bolters), they would have 24"+20mm. That's a tangible benefit and totally against the spirit of the rules.

For those that didn't catch it, this is sarcasm.

Necroshea wrote:Deepstriking termies on small basis gives an advantage because of size compared to deepstriking them on the bases they should be on.

They're (slightly) less likely to mishap... but wind up in a smaller grouping, which means more vulnerable to blasts and templates, and leaves them further away from wherever they were going to be headed next.

Swings and roundabouts.

It's like using a rulebook and ignoring the faq. Yeah, it's the way it once was, but things got updated.

The thing is, there is nothing in the rules that requires the use of current models. Yes, it's a fair assumption, but if GW really wanted everything to match the current model it wouldn't have been hard to work that into the rules. They didn't... probably for a couple of reasons. The first being that the guys writing the rules are gamers first and foremost, and I would suspect that they love seeing old models on the table as much as the rest of us. And the other being that in the vast majority of cases it's really just not that big a deal. The actual difference that it makes to the game whether you are fielding the current Terminator on a 40mm base or the old one on a 25 is really quite minimal.

Using your logic means you don't need bases for some of the larger things that once had no bases.

That would be correct. In the case of Walkers, the rules even cover how to use them without bases. Bikes are problematic... but the rules have always assumed they had bases, even when they didn't, and people have never really had any problem with it.

Ergo you can deepstrike right on top of something but if it doesn't land on them everything fine.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. If you deep strike on top of something, you're going to mishap base or no. If you didn't actually land on them, I'm not seeing how you're right on top of them...

I have no problems with square bases, for friendlys I don't care about the base, and for tourneys, meh, its your choice, but other people will make comments.

insaniak wrote:
It's like using a rulebook and ignoring the faq. Yeah, it's the way it once was, but things got updated.

The thing is, there is nothing in the rules that requires the use of current models. Yes, it's a fair assumption, but if GW really wanted everything to match the current model it wouldn't have been hard to work that into the rules. They didn't... probably for a couple of reasons. The first being that the guys writing the rules are gamers first and foremost, and I would suspect that they love seeing old models on the table as much as the rest of us. And the other being that in the vast majority of cases it's really just not that big a deal. The actual difference that it makes to the game whether you are fielding the current Terminator on a 40mm base or the old one on a 25 is really quite minimal.

But there's still a difference

Ergo you can deepstrike right on top of something but if it doesn't land on them everything fine.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. If you deep strike on top of something, you're going to mishap base or no. If you didn't actually land on them, I'm not seeing how you're right on top of them...

Why not magnatize the bottom of the model and make it able to hitch to both a round and square base? You might need to build up around the magnet to make it kind of hidden on both bases but it could be done.

Necroshea wrote:But there's still a difference

Sure. But the point was, that difference works both ways. It's not all advantageous using a smaller base. In fact, being able to fit your Deep Strikers into a smaller area is pretty much the only advantage of using a smaller base, and it comes with its own disadvantages, as I mentioned earlier. In just about every other situation in the game, you're either better off with a bigger base or it makes no practical difference.

If I saw someone doing that at a tournament, I would notify the TO about it.

And what outcome would you expect from that, given that the rules not only allow but in fact require them to use the smaller base if that's what the model came with?

Unless the tournament has a clearly published house rule about using the 'current' sized base for the appropriate model, the TO arbitrarily trying to enforce such a rule would accomplish little more than to annoy players with older models for no good reason.

I keep my bases updated, as do many other people.

Which is fine, so long as your opponents have no problem with you doing that.

If you want to bring older models to that game that's fine (I do it when I can), but at least have the courtesy to base them correctly.

But that's just the point: You're not asking people to base their models 'correctly'... You're arguing that people should be basing their models in a way that requires them to get their opponent's consent to use them.

If you just outright refuse to do that, then slightly glue your small base on a large base, and everyone's happy.

Well, everyone except the guy who now has a model that looks ridiculous on account of having a larger base stuck the bottom of the original one... And the guy who just realised that forcing his opponent to glue a second base to the bottom of the first has resulted in trading slightly decreased unit area when Deep Striking for slightly improved LOS... and increased immunity from Blasts... and increased charge range when disembarking from vehicles... and increased movement range when changing direction... and similarly increased weapon range... and... well, you get the point.

And for the benefit of those too young or recent to remember, here's an image from the 3rd edition Chaos Space Marine codex:


It's been 20 some years and four (or five, depending on how you count) editions, and GW has yet to specify in the 40K rulebook that the bases should be round.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necroshea wrote:[
Going back to what I said, using outdated bases on your own time is one thing, pulling something like that at a tournament is another. If I saw someone doing that at a tournament, I would notify the TO about it. I keep my bases updated, as do many other people. If you want to bring older models to that game that's fine (I do it when I can), but at least have the courtesy to base them correctly. If you just outright refuse to do that, then slightly glue your small base on a large base, and everyone's happy.

You're making the assumption that the bases currently shipping with the models are the "correct" bases, when the rules specify to use the bases supplied with the model.

I'll just point to the Beast of Nurgle model that is depicted in the codex and shipped in the spearhead box on one base, and packaged (the last I checked) in the blister packs on a completely different one.