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.

Do you want the three wolf chariot because you believe it will have the same effect as the Three Wolf T-shirt?

No, I want it because of reasons.

skyfi wrote:
a "Snotling attack cart" is also NOT a "snotling pump wagon" but I wouldn't mind someone using one as the other. I think its pedantic not to. It's clearly a fine count as/seems like the same damn model, similiar to this wolf chariot/three wolf chariot situation...

Agreed. But since the Orcs & Goblins book doesn't have a Snotling Attack Cart or a Three-Wolf Goblin chariot, we'll allow players to use those models as Snotling Pump Wagons and Goblin Wolf Chariots; they're certainly not required to model a chariot with an "extra wolf" upgrade on a bigger base.

skyfi wrote:
I was under the impression that the rule stating it must be based on what it came with was a true rule. I have heard of people being gamey and bringing old skarsnik model for that reason over the new ones. Same thing as old mega armor nobz.

Now if you brought an old 3 wolf chariot and based it appropriately how it came... then you'd be at a disadvantage compared to the new model... just like the new MANZ and new skarsnik are disadvantageous over the old models...

And that's exactly why I have a huge problem with "base it how it came". My Hell-Pit Abomination is 80% green stuff and epoxy. He's got plenty of GW bits in him, but he didn't come on a base. Can I not field him, or do I have to put him on three Carnifex and one Arachnarok base, since those were the bases his bits came with?

skyfi wrote:
So if someone wants to use the old one with old base... Not sure why anyone would object.

I wouldn't. But the OP was asking if they were forced to add another wolf and give the chariot a wider frontage, not if they were allowed to.

skyfi wrote:
I think the argument behind a "three wolf chariot" and a wolf chariot is really pedantic. I think it's crystal clear that is a chariot with a 3rd wolf added, which is aslo an entry in our army book.

I understand the RAW position. I just think we are overthinking it.. To me it seems like GW spelled it out... chariots with 4 steeds are 100 wide, (settra), with 3 steeds 75 wide (grom and old wolf chariots) and 2 steeds are 50 wide... Seems like something they might leave to inference, which isn't a good idea in a rules set like we have but... Ya know.

Sure, sure. But this is a RAW conversation. So it's bound to be tedious and boorish. The point is: a Goblin Wolf Chariot comes on a set base. Upgrading it with this-and-that does not, by RAW, force you to change that base (or even allow you to).
And by RAI, if you want to spend 5pts on an extra wolf for some reason, I'm not going to punish you for it.

RAW I still play it 50, but with a grimace on my face. Just like when I have to back my NG up 8" after a Hand of Gork move..

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:


So if you obtained that old model, you would have a 75mm frontage. If you bought the new one, you would use the current chariot base. Your opponent cannot force you to change the bases of their models.

A new release of a model immediately invalids the old model. There is only one Goblin Wolf Chariot entry in the book and there's a model for it. Using a giant with a smaller than current base is illegal.

If I own the old 3 wolf Goblin Wolf Chariot, you cannot in any way tell me that I can't use it as that model, or that I am required to rebase it. It's not MtG where everything has to be the most recent version to play on the table. Hell it's not even a count-as, it's a goblin wolf chariot.

To quote the BRB "A model should always be mounted on the base it is supplied with" (p80). Nowhere in the rules are you required to rebase or does it state that models are supplanted by newer versions. It is more dickish to force your opponent to unbase a finished model rather than allow it.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:


So if you obtained that old model, you would have a 75mm frontage. If you bought the new one, you would use the current chariot base. Your opponent cannot force you to change the bases of their models.

A new release of a model immediately invalids the old model. There is only one Goblin Wolf Chariot entry in the book and there's a model for it. Using a giant with a smaller than current base is illegal.

If I own the old 3 wolf Goblin Wolf Chariot, you cannot in any way tell me that I can't use it as that model, or that I am required to rebase it. It's not MtG where everything has to be the most recent version to play on the table. Hell it's not even a count-as, it's a goblin wolf chariot.

To quote the BRB "A model should always be mounted on the base it is supplied with" (p80). Nowhere in the rules are you required to rebase or does it state that models are supplanted by newer versions. It is more dickish to force your opponent to unbase a finished model rather than allow it.

Honestly I think that rule is there and is referring to current edition models only. Like most companies GW is only talking about their current product (it makes sense, its the one they are selling and profiting from).

In casual games it will generally be allowed - in a competitive environment I'd expect everyone to play with the same standards. That means sure that really cool old model IS valid as a model, but that it should be upon a base equal to the base supplied in the box with the current model that its representing in the game you're playing.

Otherwise you simply leave the game open to competitive abuse should players find that an older model has a base size that gives them an advantage over current edition models.




In my mind the only grey areas are models that sell without a specific base (like the High Elves Repeater Bolt-Thrower which has troop bases for the 2 crew but no actual base for the thrower).

 Overread wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:


So if you obtained that old model, you would have a 75mm frontage. If you bought the new one, you would use the current chariot base. Your opponent cannot force you to change the bases of their models.

A new release of a model immediately invalids the old model. There is only one Goblin Wolf Chariot entry in the book and there's a model for it. Using a giant with a smaller than current base is illegal.

If I own the old 3 wolf Goblin Wolf Chariot, you cannot in any way tell me that I can't use it as that model, or that I am required to rebase it. It's not MtG where everything has to be the most recent version to play on the table. Hell it's not even a count-as, it's a goblin wolf chariot.

To quote the BRB "A model should always be mounted on the base it is supplied with" (p80). Nowhere in the rules are you required to rebase or does it state that models are supplanted by newer versions. It is more dickish to force your opponent to unbase a finished model rather than allow it.

Honestly I think that rule is there and is referring to current edition models only. Like most companies GW is only talking about their current product (it makes sense, its the one they are selling and profiting from).

In casual games it will generally be allowed - in a competitive environment I'd expect everyone to play with the same standards. That means sure that really cool old model IS valid as a model, but that it should be upon a base equal to the base supplied in the box with the current model that its representing in the game you're playing.

Otherwise you simply leave the game open to competitive abuse should players find that an older model has a base size that gives them an advantage over current edition models.




In my mind the only grey areas are models that sell without a specific base (like the High Elves Repeater Bolt-Thrower which has troop bases for the 2 crew but no actual base for the thrower).

Warmachines shouldn't have bases at all, they have no facing and their footprint is exactly the same as the shape of the warmachine itself. There is no grey area there.

I don't see why it applies specifically to the newest versions of models, the rule is certainly not specific enough to make such a statement. If I own a Treeman in its old form (on a 50x50 base) I am in no way required to change it over to the new chariot-size base. It was supplied with a 50mmx50mm base, and I am not compelled by the rules or otherwise to unseat it from its base, buy a chariot base and base it again. Nor am I compelled to stand it on a further chariot base or make any actual modifications to the model.

Going to agree with Ehsteve on all that.

...though the question remains: what about conversions and kit-bashes, then? See my previous examples, and enter the muddy waters of the RAW!

Warpsolution wrote:
Going to agree with Ehsteve on all that.

...though the question remains: what about conversions and kit-bashes, then? See my previous examples, and enter the muddy waters of the RAW!

A lot of the old 'conventions' were dropped from the WHFB book when it changed to 8th (heck a lot of the references to models in general were dropped, with only about 3 total physical model-related rules in the entire rulebook).

I'll check the 40k book as well when I have the time but from memory, all kitbash kits are entirely up the discretion of your opponent and it just suggests coming to an amicable agreement. This is said with the old caveat that you should always ask your TO/opponent and all that trash. If you turn up with a kitbash/scratchbuild/converted Treeman on a 25mm base, there will certainly be an issue.

For kitbashes, assuming that at least part is the initial kit you would assume that you would use the base included with said kit. If you're kitbashing/scratchbuilding a treeman from wire, plaster and a citadel forest, or from other companies without any pieces of the actual citadel miniature included, well that's where your judgement entirely falls into play. Gut feeling says it's entirely dependent on *when* the kit is made and the base of the equivalent modern unit. If it's a citadel model, then use the base the model was provided with at the time the model was produced.

A more complicated scenario is a model is pulled from the line and either reappears later on or an equivalent unit is released which confuses the point. This is common with the Bretonnian Hero on Pegasus. Pegasus knights use a 40mmx40mm base, but the Hero uses a 25mmx50mm cavalry base (from the old metal Pegasus). Now we're getting into a territory where you would have to consider the exact circumstances at the time when the model was made. I still have my Hero on Pegasus, which will obviously confuse newer Bretonnian players, but is still entirely legitimate.

Now since no one should have to produce an affidavit just because you started your army at an earlier point in time (again, this isn't MtG) the convention should simply be: unless your opponent is simply taking the piss, it's probably legitimate. There are no rules backing up this particular interpretation or convention, because there are no rules anymore when we step into this region.

From what I recall from the Throne of Skulls tournament pack ('The Warrior's Code'), GW doesn't allow proxies (entirely unconverted models of a different type), and all major conversions must be approved etc.

That's pretty much what I'm seeing: there's little to no RAW to back it up.
Talk to your opponent and work it out. And when your question is "hey, so I took some Goblin Wolf Chariots, and upgraded them to have extra wolves so they have an extra WS3 S3 I3 attack for 5pts...is it cool that they're still on the same base?", I seriously doubt anyone is going to have a problem.
...and if they do, it's because they don't like how cheap and effective the Chariots are to begin with, not because that 5pt upgrade is too good without a loss of mobility to compensate.

I'm curious.
Grom comes with 3 cav bases and nothing to go under the chariot.
Does that mean his footprint is actually 75mm wide and only 50m deep?

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I'm curious.
Grom comes with 3 cav bases and nothing to go under the chariot.
Does that mean his footprint is actually 75mm wide and only 50m deep?

-Matt

He's not a warmachine or has a unique rule regarding his base size so yes: his base size is indeed 75mm wide by 50mm deep with a massive back overhang which is of no consquence.

As far as I can tell he's only supplied with 3 25mmx50mm bases...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:


So if you obtained that old model, you would have a 75mm frontage. If you bought the new one, you would use the current chariot base. Your opponent cannot force you to change the bases of their models.

A new release of a model immediately invalids the old model. There is only one Goblin Wolf Chariot entry in the book and there's a model for it. Using a giant with a smaller than current base is illegal.

No such rule actually exists though, or you could supply a rules quote to that effect.

You are told to use the base supplied with the model, not the one currently supplied with the current model

Warp, I suppose that's why I try and stay out OF RAW convos. Lol.

In any case, most of my army is scratch built, so I completely understand where you come from on how do I base this or that. I look at the most recently released models as guidance so no one can claim I'm tryin to gain advantage. So In your hellpit, seeing as it has no base supplied with as no singular model made it (or has 3 bases)...go with one that matches most recent mod release I would say!

I brought up the 75 wide 3 wolf chariot because it's a stock model that could be used for reference as the current model doesn't have upgradeWYSIWYG for us to make an accurate basis of how to represent it. The only current edition models we have as indicators are Grom and Settra. That's all RAI though.

It's not RAI, though, as RAI means "Rules as Intended" and if it was intended to have the Goblin Wolf Chariot actually be 3 bases broad, GW would have released a model with it

But yeah, RAW is mostly a thing for internet discussions, in regular 40k, you'll mostly use RAI.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's not RAI, though, as RAI means "Rules as Intended" and if it was intended to have the Goblin Wolf Chariot actually be 3 bases broad, GW would have released a model with it

But yeah, RAW is mostly a thing for internet discussions, in regular 40k, you'll mostly use RAI.

like they did in the 90's? They haven't released a new 3 wolf chariot on a 50mm to invalidate it. Only a 50mm 2 wolf chariot. I feel like settra and grom are guidelines of how the situation is handled though. We don't have any allowance to legally in the rules (it seems) change the base size from a 50mm, but if someone showed up with 75mm wide ones to a tourney I wouldn't bust him on it.




If I'm not supposed to call using my line of reasoning to extrapolate an intended ruling RAI discussion, or RAI-speculating than I'm not sure what to call it. My bad if I was making the discussion difficult to understand.

I just assumed that speculating GW's reasoning behind Settra being 100mm and Grom being 75mm could be used as a guideline, in conjunction with the non invalidated design of the 3 wolf chariot for goblins.. as far as i know... as they have never released a new 3 wolf model. Granted the names are the same so you could always go back to the argument, that they might as well be apples and oranges... but that just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.


I really wouldn't care what model someone used. I definitely would not make them rebase their old 75 wide chariots.

I do get yor point about old, already owned models, but you can't claim using the highly outdated model was RAI with the rules that got released aeons before

"highly outdated"


Is there an updated/new goblin wolf chariot model produced by games workshop that has 3 wolves that I don't know about?


Grom's chariot is from same era and is still currently used, Settra's rules seem to be built up off of the precedent that 1 steed adds 1 cav base width, which was set by Grom. This could be coincidental, the rules testers could have dictated that Settra and Grom are badass enough to withstand the attacks back and justified making them wider, while not making measly wolf chariots wider? I mean, I don't know, hence why I was speculating as to the RAI. Not stating it as fact. There exists a 3 wolf chariot model to draw an idea from, produced by GW... Made at same time Grom was, who is still current and up to date, and compatible with the rules, not "highly outdated" .. Doesn't seem like a stretch of imagination or reason, to THINK that they may have been indicating at a system with 2 steed drawn chariot = 50mm, 3 = 75mm, and 4 = 100mm.. I mean, I'm not rain man but I see a pattern. Sorry to derail the what should be RAW discussion I suppose.

I mean we can pretend that those models exist in a vacuum and there rules don't matter at all in regards to goblin wolf chariots, which I think is the point of the RAW discussion..

I don't think there's any RAW for either using the 3-wide front or not. One thing assured, though, is that I'd let people play their 3-wide front as they likely paid a lot of money for it or are really, really old vets.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't think there's any RAW for either using the 3-wide front or not. One thing assured, though, is that I'd let people play their 3-wide front as they likely paid a lot of money for it or are really, really old vets.

Is their any advantage at all for having a wider goblin chariot?
I can't think of any possible bonus and several negatives for being wider.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't think there's any RAW for either using the 3-wide front or not. One thing assured, though, is that I'd let people play their 3-wide front as they likely paid a lot of money for it or are really, really old vets.

Is their any advantage at all for having a wider goblin chariot?
I can't think of any possible bonus and several negatives for being wider.

In game? No.

Practically/economically? Yes.

If you have a pro painted chariot from back then, that you don't want to damage it by rebasing it.. say your painter has been deceased etc and you don't trust another painter to match his style or whatever..

hell even if you just had the thing table top ready and didn't want to bother rebasing because you didn't have time.

A larger frontage allows you to get impact hits more easily - and Impact Hits are where it's at; in melee, the GWC isn't worth writing home about. It also is easier to hit an enemy in the flank. I guess.

Another strange model that benefits from this (somewhat): The Black Coach. It's only currently provided with 2 cavalry bases for the mounts and it is still a chariot.

 Sigvatr wrote:
A larger frontage allows you to get impact hits more easily - and Impact Hits are where it's at; in melee, the GWC isn't worth writing home about. It also is easier to hit an enemy in the flank. I guess.

I hadn't thought about the making it easier to hit an enemy in the flank, I suppose that is true! How would a large frontage make it easier t get more impact hits thouh? that one confuses me.

Vs. a witch elf horde 200mm wide, we can get 6 50mm chariots on the front. while only 4 75mm chariots against that same frontage? I'm trying to think of a situation where the longer frontage would be beneficial, but coming up short. Maybe I should of hadn't that second cup of coffee.

Bad phrasing in my part, wanted to say that it's easier to get the GWC into the enemy in general and thus, statistically, get more IH.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Bad phrasing in my part, wanted to say that it's easier to get the GWC into the enemy in general and thus, statistically, get more IH.

A narrow base is actually easier to get in.
A 50mm wide base to shoot the gap between blocks that a large chariot won't fit through. Wider chariots need more space, which forces you to spread out more. Not something the lowest leadership army wants to do.

It's why I started running my wolf chariots in pairs. 3 Chariots had a very tough time moving around the table do to the width, are much easier.

skyfi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A larger frontage allows you to get impact hits more easily - and Impact Hits are where it's at; in melee, the GWC isn't worth writing home about. It also is easier to hit an enemy in the flank. I guess.

I hadn't thought about the making it easier to hit an enemy in the flank, I suppose that is true! How would a large frontage make it easier t get more impact hits thouh? that one confuses me.

Vs. a witch elf horde 200mm wide, we can get 6 50mm chariots on the front. while only 4 75mm chariots against that same frontage? I'm trying to think of a situation where the longer frontage would be beneficial, but coming up short. Maybe I should of hadn't that second cup of coffee.

A wider frontage or larger base in general in WHFB is NEVER advantageous unless we are talking about random movement round base units. Larger bases mean the unit is more difficult to manoeuvre (when moving regularly and charging), can get struck by more troops in close combat and makes it a larger target for warmachines.

For random movement it is actually somewhat advantageous but only when moving in the opposite direction that they were moving last turn, this is because they effectively get a slightly larger movement distance as a result (the 15mm between 25mm and 40mm round bases for example).