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.

With new pile in, base sizing from a smaller to larger would be a disadvantage while base sizing down from 32 to 25 would be an advantage.

That being said, in the case of the Old WHFB armies that are on square bases I wouldn't care. If some is going to rebase to s smaller round base that wasn't originally part of the model then it would obviously be gamey.

It is in my opinion pretty stupid of GW to design the rules so that base size has an impact at the same time as changing everyone's armies basing. It is trivial to design a game where base size or shape is irrelevant - SAGA for example manages it by just having entire units be "in contact" and doing away with all the fussing around with individual positioning.

*Shrug*
Putting up with GW's baffling rules choices have been a part of playing their games forever. It is not a big deal for me to mount my saurus on something the appropriate size if I want to play AoS. Everything else in the army will be on the right sized base anyhow.

I do think this will gradually tighten to the point where old armies will not be usable any more, which is a shame because it stops models having dual purpose use in multiple games, which may have been the intention.

 Dynas wrote:
With new pile in, base sizing from a smaller to larger would be a disadvantage while base sizing down from 32 to 25 would be an advantage.

No, as the rules are clear that you have to measure like the model has the correct base.

You can base them on 10mm Bases and you won't get an advantage as you have to measure like the they have 32mm Bases.

 kodos wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
With new pile in, base sizing from a smaller to larger would be a disadvantage while base sizing down from 32 to 25 would be an advantage.

No, as the rules are clear that you have to measure like the model has the correct base.

You can base them on 10mm Bases and you won't get an advantage as you have to measure like the they have 32mm Bases.

Yep, but on a practical level it is trickier to measure to invisible bases and far far far easier to measure to an actual physical base on the model. Plus having to measure each model on an invisible base would slow a player down considerably when making their moves.

Of course it is easier to use the supposed base
But no one is forced to re base or use bases he doesn't like

Best way would be to use paper in the correct size and fix under the base.

But there is no reason donot accept different bases or to use them for an advantage.

 Da Boss wrote:
It is in my opinion pretty stupid of GW to design the rules so that base size has an impact at the same time as changing everyone's armies basing. It is trivial to design a game where base size or shape is irrelevant - SAGA for example manages it by just having entire units be "in contact" and doing away with all the fussing around with individual positioning.

Honestly, this is the first time they've had a basing guide--and its contents weren't really a surprise. Saurus have been on 32mm bases since the Seraphon book dropped, and while it might suck for people that decide or are forced to rebase--it isn't that difficult with Saurus.

*Shrug*
Putting up with GW's baffling rules choices have been a part of playing their games forever. It is not a big deal for me to mount my saurus on something the appropriate size if I want to play AoS. Everything else in the army will be on the right sized base anyhow.

I do think this will gradually tighten to the point where old armies will not be usable any more, which is a shame because it stops models having dual purpose use in multiple games, which may have been the intention.

Realistically, the keyword system is what will do that.

What I find odd is how GW are being very casual with the base system; yet their tournament rules are really strict with the paint schemes for official armies.

 Overread wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
With new pile in, base sizing from a smaller to larger would be a disadvantage while base sizing down from 32 to 25 would be an advantage.

No, as the rules are clear that you have to measure like the model has the correct base.

You can base them on 10mm Bases and you won't get an advantage as you have to measure like the they have 32mm Bases.

Yep, but on a practical level it is trickier to measure to invisible bases and far far far easier to measure to an actual physical base on the model. Plus having to measure each model on an invisible base would slow a player down considerably when making their moves.

This, are you really going to measure the math add on of 22 mm to the exiting base and then measure from that invisible point to the opponent. Its too much. In a friendly game I wouldn't care honestly. Only in tourney setting would it matter IMO.

In a tourney setting I can see it and understand it completely. I would never try to play in a tourney with my stuff. If I ever wanted to play in tournaments I'll need to buy an entirely new army, which I do not forsee happening anytime soon. I already have an entire model room full of cases lol

I have an alternative reason for my models to be on 25mm bases: they all started out that way.
I have been playing since 2nd edition 40k and cannot bring myself to tear off the base and 'upgrade" to the new bases.
I have been holding off on the "newer" models that come with the larger bases because the blend of the multiple generations of models might look a wee bit odd.
I think the on-going rule was to use the same size or larger base the model came with.

You could always put the models on their current bases atop a larger base. Sure it would be more rim than base at that point, but it would be a fast way to achieve the result without having to scrape off and put them on band new bases.

 Overread wrote:
You could always put the models on their current bases atop a larger base. Sure it would be more rim than base at that point, but it would be a fast way to achieve the result without having to scrape off and put them on band new bases.

I saw a few companies were selling adapter rings.

http://www.eccentricminiatures.com/sprues.html

 Overread wrote:
What I find odd is how GW are being very casual with the base system; yet their tournament rules are really strict with the paint schemes for official armies.

Which actually makes a good bit of sense. It's easier to army hop via traits than it is to rebase things--despite how easy rebasing can be.

Personally, I'd add some kind of "Pale Imitators" rule for the various army traits based upon painting: you can pick one of the traits/abilities if you're not painted in the 'official' colors. Whether it be the -1 to Hit or +3 Namarti brought back, etc.

It lets GW get some information about what traits are/aren't popular and potentially take mitigating steps down the road.

Sorry, at the risk of derailing my own thread - GW mandate paint schemes in tournaments now? Could someone elaborate on that for me a little bit please? That is wacky!

 Da Boss wrote:
Sorry, at the risk of derailing my own thread - GW mandate paint schemes in tournaments now? Could someone elaborate on that for me a little bit please? That is wacky!

It's more like a given paint scheme may mandate what rules you may use. From the Age of Sigmar Core Rules Designer's Commentary:

Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?

A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.

GW run tournaments don't usually allow proxies (e.g., you can't use Stormcast Eternals painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent a different warrior chamber).

can anyone confirm what size the Ironwald Arsenal cannons and organ guns and all that come on. I have found 2 sites, one says 60mm/70x105 the other says 90x52mm.

So is that a 60mm round? Or 70x105mm oval or 52x90mm oval? Anyone who plays Dispossed/Dwarfs or Empire/Free Guild able to shed any light on this?

90x52 and 25mm for the crew

 Dynas wrote:
can anyone confirm what size the Ironwald Arsenal cannons and organ guns and all that come on. I have found 2 sites, one says 60mm/70x105 the other says 90x52mm.

So is that a 60mm round? Or 70x105mm oval or 52x90mm oval? Anyone who plays Dispossed/Dwarfs or Empire/Free Guild able to shed any light on this?

Here's the base sizes directly from GW.

The Ironweld Arsenal Cannons(Duardin manned ones--the Free Guild ones are sadly no longer able to be taken outside of 'old' Empire lists) are 90x52mm ovals, with each crew figure mounted on a 25mm base.
The Organ Guns gets the same size bases.

Now bear in mind that the kit probably does not include a base since it's still old stock, and most of that stuff didn't include bases for anything but the crew. So you'd have to buy a few bases.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Sorry, at the risk of derailing my own thread - GW mandate paint schemes in tournaments now? Could someone elaborate on that for me a little bit please? That is wacky!

It's more like a given paint scheme may mandate what rules you may use. From the Age of Sigmar Core Rules Designer's Commentary:

Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?

A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.

GW run tournaments don't usually allow proxies (e.g., you can't use Stormcast Eternals painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent a different warrior chamber).

Thanks for explaining. So it is for stuff like Stormcast Eternals and Marks of Chaos for the various mortals then? That makes sense, it was like that in the old days too. It isn't like, paint your lizardmen blue or else they are not really lizardmen sort of thing?

No the old days did not enforce painting colors. I played in many many many a GW Tournament and GT and faced all kinds of colors pretending to be other things and no one batted an eye.

That particular topic was a hot button topic on forums though, because some people hated it and tournament players typically didn't care and that caused heated arguments.

 Da Boss wrote:


Thanks for explaining. So it is for stuff like Stormcast Eternals and Marks of Chaos for the various mortals then? That makes sense, it was like that in the old days too. It isn't like, paint your lizardmen blue or else they are not really lizardmen sort of thing?

Basically, it's a thing that GW has posted up a few times for tournaments/events at Warhammer World. If you have your models painted as Blood Angels, they're Blood Angels. You don't get to have Bloodmarines or crap like that.

I'd assume it was in response to constantly changing lists/soup lists where you might have had Blood Angels with Ultramarines with Dark Angels and everything was painted the same color and you didn't know wtf was going on in terms of who had what rules..

 Da Boss wrote:
Sorry, at the risk of derailing my own thread - GW mandate paint schemes in tournaments now? Could someone elaborate on that for me a little bit please? That is wacky!

It's popped up in a few places, for example the Official 2018/2019 Warhammer 40,000 Grand Tournament Rules Pack:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
People are getting weird about things - there was an argument in my local GW over the legality of using the Astreia Solbright model as a generic, non-'HAMMERS OF SIGMAR' Lord-Arcanum

auticus wrote:
No the old days did not enforce painting colors. I played in many many many a GW Tournament and GT and faced all kinds of colors pretending to be other things and no one batted an eye.

That particular topic was a hot button topic on forums though, because some people hated it and tournament players typically didn't care and that caused heated arguments.

I remember one year (and maybe it was even just one tournament) where GW had this rule in effect sometime back in 4th edition (I think). It was as controversial then as it is now.

Depends, I guess. IIRC the general ruling is "You can always use a larger base, but not go under the minimum.", but minimum is typically interpreted as "The historically smallest base for that model." So in other words: If the models came originally with 25mm bases, then generally it should be ok. If they never came with anything but 32mm (which I know these don't), then don't scale down. Alternative would be that you try to prefer a couple cut-out 32mm bases where you can insert the 25mm bases into, or something like that, so you can everything covered.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Now bear in mind that the kit probably does not include a base since it's still old stock, and most of that stuff didn't include bases for anything but the crew. So you'd have to buy a few bases.

If it doesn't come with one (or comes with the wrong size), tell GW Customer Service (or their store staff) and you'll get them for free.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Thanks for explaining. So it is for stuff like Stormcast Eternals and Marks of Chaos for the various mortals then? That makes sense, it was like that in the old days too. It isn't like, paint your lizardmen blue or else they are not really lizardmen sort of thing?

Basically, it's a thing that GW has posted up a few times for tournaments/events at Warhammer World. If you have your models painted as Blood Angels, they're Blood Angels. You don't get to have Bloodmarines or crap like that.

I'd assume it was in response to constantly changing lists/soup lists where you might have had Blood Angels with Ultramarines with Dark Angels and everything was painted the same color and you didn't know wtf was going on in terms of who had what rules..

What I hate is that the rule is meant to be enforced like you said (models painted as Ultramarines are Ultramarines; models painted as Salamanders are Salamanders, etc), but some people have interpreted the rule to mean all marines of X color have to be played as the chapter most closely associated with that color. Blue marines have to be Ultramarines. Green marines have to be Salamanders, etc. Go to any Miniwargaming BatRep where they use their house chapter (green and yellow) and play it as Ultramarines, and you'll find people screaming in the comments section about how they're cheating and they have to player their army as Salamanders. Successor chapters are still perfectly fine, and they don't have to match their progenitor's color scheme.

I mean, I get it when a model should be on a larger base than you have and how it can be an unfair advantage. For all other daemon players, they use 32 for their basic daemons, but Slaanesh is still on 25mm, granting the use of extra rank of girls. It's a massive advantage towards me that I get more attacks in.

On the other hand, I have jabberslythes that were kitbashed for me. I put them them not on chariot bases, and since their old base was 100x50, I put them on similar sized based, just oval, but the guide tells me to put them on chariots. I won't do that, since I have to buy my own flight stands to attach to the base, also my jabberslythes want to be in combat and get damanged, so i've nerfed myself for what I want them to do, also their aura ability doesn't have as big of a range since my base is smaller. No opponent I've had has an issue of this since it actively hurts me.

If tourneys enforce the base size rule, then I guess my jabberslythes stay home when I go to adepticon.

I'm quite the opposite, I think bigger bases are better aesthetically. That said, over the last couple years I have been putting a lot more thought into my bases and the larger footprint simply gives me a bigger canvas. Genuinely it's one of the reasons I started Beastclaws and Stormcasts - nice big bases.

Given that range is now measured by the base, smaller bases vs what is intended has huge consequences in melee. Most melee weapons have 1 inch range, so putting a model intended for a 32mm base on a 25mm base grants a huge benefit because it makes it possible to be in melee range from behind other models in the unit when normally it wouldn't be.

At Throne of Skulls, nobody cared that my Plaguebearers were on 25's. One guy did ask if I planned to rebase, but it all seems pretty relaxed to me.