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.

 Happyjew wrote:
couldn't care less.

Really sorry. I tried to resist - I really did. Sorry.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
couldn't care less.

Really sorry. I tried to resist - I really did. Sorry.

No, I could care less. I couldn't care more.

So you care a lot about it?
I'm confused. And this is offtopic. I'll drop it.

 Xerics wrote:

Its a big seeling point that the $50 Fire Prism will be able to be used so long as the Fire Prism is in the codex. .

GW have never made any promises that a model would remain usable forever. There have been quite a few examples over the years of models being rendered obsolete by codex revisions. Ask anyone who had an original razorback in 3rd edition...

And regardless, what GW may or may not promise has little bearing on what is required in tournaments...

 insaniak wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

Its a big seeling point that the $50 Fire Prism will be able to be used so long as the Fire Prism is in the codex. .

GW have never made any promises that a model would remain usable forever. There have been quite a few examples over the years of models being rendered obsolete by codex revisions. Ask anyone who had an original razorback in 3rd edition...

And regardless, what GW may or may not promise has little bearing on what is required in tournaments...

I miss using the Red Terror...

 insaniak wrote:
GW have never made any promises that a model would remain usable forever. There have been quite a few examples over the years of models being rendered obsolete by codex revisions. Ask anyone who had an original razorback in 3rd edition...

And regardless, what GW may or may not promise has little bearing on what is required in tournaments...

I agree with the thrust of your point, but when was the original razorback made obsolete? Smaller than the new one, sure, but not obsolete.

Las/plas wasn't an option in the 3rd Ed codex... despite being the only weapon fit that the razorback came with up until that point. They revised the model in 3rd to have twin heavy bolters or twin lascannons instead.

Well pieces are expensive, and i'm sorry i dont feel like replacing a large portion of my troops just cause GW decided to make a finecast wraithguard (which BTW finecast is rediculous priced seeing as how its the same price as the original metal pieces but not metal). I spent a good sum of money to have a decent amount of wraithguard to field in large games and i refuse to replace them just cause a new model came out. They probably changed that razorback due to some exploit it had or it was too small for what it did. They probably had a good reason for it. There isnt a good reason to change the wraithguard. I have 30 metal wraighguard on the 25mm bases they came with and thats how they are going to stay for the duration that I own them. If that means i never go to a tournament (which is laughable as GW doesnt even support any official tournaments so they all mean nothing anyways) then so be it.

 insaniak wrote:
Las/plas wasn't an option in the 3rd Ed codex... despite being the only weapon fit that the razorback came with up until that point. They revised the model in 3rd to have twin heavy bolters or twin lascannons instead.

Oh really, I had completely forgotten about that change. Good times.

The razorback change was actually because the vehicle rules in 3rd made that combination of weapons unusable... You could only ever fire one or the other.

But you seem to have missed the point of my response. I'm not questioning that people might be upset at having to update models... Just your claim that GW ever said you wouldn't ever have to.

@Insaniak: Actually, that's not true. Just went and grabbed the third ed codex: SM. Razorback was 70 points, TLL for 20, MM for 5, Las TLP for 15.

The pics in the book even show the old razorback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The razorback change was actually because the vehicle rules in 3rd made that combination of weapons unusable... You could only ever fire one or the other.

But you seem to have missed the point of my response. I'm not questioning that people might be upset at having to update models... Just your claim that GW ever said you wouldn't ever have to.

I actually agreed with your response. I just disagreed with the razorback part, which is incorrect. I think you're thinking of the other guy.

Also, the 'could only ever fire one or the other' is wrong. if you were stationary, you could fire all your weapons.

Well if someone ever comaplins that im using old wraithguard im just going to tell them that as the Eldar are an ever dying race they can't complain about using yesterdays model as they probably don't have all the resources in the world to retrofit every piece of equipment in their arsenal as newer models come out.

4th edition took away las/plas. But still...

 Happyjew wrote:
4th edition took away las/plas. But still...

Aha. Okay, well that makes a lot more sense. I skipped 4th. Sorry for the diversion.

 pretre wrote:
@Insaniak: Actually, that's not true. Just went and grabbed the third ed codex: SM. Razorback was 70 points, TLL for 20, MM for 5, Las TLP for 15.

The pics in the book even show the old razorback.

Yeah, early morning caffeinne-deprived brain. It was actually 4th ed that killed the las/plas.

I actually agreed with your response. I just disagreed with the razorback part, which is incorrect. I think you're thinking of the other guy.

Yes, that post was in response to Xerics. You posted while I was typing on my phone

 Xerics wrote:
Well if someone ever comaplins that im using old wraithguard im just going to tell them that as the Eldar are an ever dying race they can't complain about using yesterdays model as they probably don't have all the resources in the world to retrofit every piece of equipment in their arsenal as newer models come out.

No one (as in - not a single person) has said to buy new minis.

New bases are cheap. You could use a 40mm base to cut circles out of cardboard and integrate it with the 25mm base and it would be near free.
The cost of doing so isn't an issue.

Youd didnt include the cost of getting those wraithguard new foam for my army carrier. The 25mm bases fit exactly with the foam i have for them. Changing them to 40mm would require me to find a new way to transport them.

Also I would not want to be that guy at a game store with cradbord stuck to all his pieces...

I hate to say this, but part of this hobby is updating minis, bases, carrying cases. I've been playing for a long time and I have snapped off more weapons than I care to admit to rebuild the dudes for a new edition. I have units that sit on the shelf and gather dust (and have for years). I have gone through stacks of foam for my carrying cases.

It's just part of the deal.

 Xerics wrote:
Youd didnt include the cost of getting those wraithguard new foam for my army carrier. The 25mm bases fit exactly with the foam i have for them. Changing them to 40mm would require me to find a new way to transport them.

Magnet under the 25mm base, magnet in the middle of the new 40mm base. Transport as before.

Also I would not want to be that guy at a game store with cradbord stuck to all his pieces...

Once you add some texture to match the existing base, it would look just fine.

I prefer current bases and update most of mine. If its obviously a scenic base which would require rework, or there would be a struggle removing the model from the current base then NP. if you have a based with nothing done to it there isn't really a problem with changing to the newer bases.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Games workshop has stated older models can continue to use their old bases at no penalty.


They have also stated that you can use larger bases with no penalty, but cannot use smaller bases than are provided with the model.

they do also state in my local stores and official tournament packs that they MUST be on the current standard base size of what they come with NOW

I rebase mine, if I have the bases on hand, otherwise I try and keep units separated by base size.

If you really want to troll with oop models, try using ork trukks, you'll get whines from some opponents at tournys.

I never did - but neither played in GW stores and didn't play in tournaments until after GW had stopped running their own events here (or even offering any kind of tourney support).

Nobody in my local group had issues with it.

I had original RT Rhinos for my SM (all of the rhino hulled tanks, however, were the newer hulls. I maintain that "tanks" should be larger than apcs. In the same way that an M1 is much larger than an M-113.

I don't play 40k anymore, and since they never bothered to include base sizes for any units in the rulebook, it was never a big issue up here anyway.

I would not change my bases. nor would i care if my opponent had the original base that came with his models! more of just ask your opponent or your terni leader.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Games workshop has stated older models can continue to use their old bases at no penalty.


They have also stated that you can use larger bases with no penalty, but cannot use smaller bases than are provided with the model.

I agree with you as far as RAW goes, but it does raise this Q:

My old chaos termies get to stay on their small standard bases, because they came supplied as such and this is legal. I cannot re-base my modern WG termies on the same size bases, it would be illegal.

It's a complete contradiction. Either a base size is legal for model x, or it isn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Hey! this thread again!

Listen, it's mostly a question of courtesy. I'd love dropping a 10-man squad of terminators with 25mm bases, but that becomes a bit easier than the new 40mms allow. And an opponent playing another terminator army would be pretty miffed at my models.

Easier and more courteous to update the bases.

This! Taking 25mm based terms, and fully enjoying the advantages of doing so, before suggesting your opponent is the one being rude or unreasonable for taking issue is taking the biscuit to say the least .

It's only really an issue when say, you have to take a dangerous terrain test and they don't, purely because of the differing base size. Not a frequent occurrence luckily.

Using the bases that came with your model is completely acceptable, anyone arguing otherwise is, well, bad names.

Well if the bases they came with is 100% acceptable then I am going to keep my wraithguard on their 25mm bases.

 Xerics wrote:
Well if the bases they came with is 100% acceptable then I am going to keep my wraithguard on their 25mm bases.

Lol. So one post agreed with the point you wanted and you cherry picked that one?

Wraithguard can't deepstrike anywhere and if you are running a shooty unit into melee combat then you have lost your mind especially with a weapon as strong as theirs so i don't think im going to be assaulting anytime soon. There is really no advantage in 25mm bases for my wraithguard.

If you've already made your decision, not sure of the reason for the thread.

IMO, you should update bases as they change. That's just my opinion though. It is part of the game and the hobby. There is no requirement but it is a courtesy to your opponents.