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.

Stormonu wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
...I think they look like absolute ass when they're not needed. If you put your models on a shelf they might look okay, but a tank crawling up a hill or over debris with a base? Absolute fething garbage aesthetically.

This! The moment you put a based vehicle on any surface that's not completely flat, the immersion is ruined. Luckily, I'm still buying Razorbacks and Land Raiders, so it's not an issue for me, but if I ever decide to start collecting Whazbomb Blasta Buggies or what not, I'll absolutely be leaving their bases in the box.

Immersion is also ruined the moment you put green-based infantry models on an arctic battle board.

True, but I rarely see this happen. The vast majority of tables I've ever played on are either urban grey or grass and dirt, which also happen to be what makes up the majority of bases I've seen my opponents use, though to be fair, almost all of the tables I've played on tend to be very flat as well, so it's not as bad as all that I suppose. Still, I just don't really like the look of a base where it's not needed. As a matter of fact, I think I'm just not a big fan of bases in general. I think I'd even opt to get rid of them on all of my models, if it weren't for all that pesky 'gravity' floating about the place.

I convert a lot as I am of the persuasion that no two ork vehicles shoudl look alike. I bought one of each of the new buggie kits, but the ones that I wanted more of got to be hacked up other kits on the same size bases. kicks otu the rgument that a model for advantage ocurred when it has the same footprint and you make sure the top points of the model are the same height (or taller) as the official GW ones. my piranna based deffkilla wartrike is a good bti different in size but the footprint is the same and he is even taller so I have yet to see any complaints.

 Ratius wrote:
I was thinking about this and couldnt really come up with a reason.
Was it for rules purposes only?
Or aesthetics maybe?

So you can be unassaultable by them if you stand on a 1.2" tall terrain feature? (unless that is fixed in an obscure supplement somewhere...)

Mark.

I just can't get behind the idea of bases for the larger vehicles. Bases for vehicles like walkers and bikes have mostly existed so that the model stays upright. The box tanks don't need it, and I think it looks silly. For the gameplay perspective, I'd be fine measuring to and from either the footprint of a vehicle, or the 'bounding box' of the chassis, or whatever.

I like my vehicles to sit on the board, aesthetically, and never once when I built non-gaming kits did I put anything on a display base. Let's hope there's never a mandate for it in 40K.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just can't get behind the idea of bases for the larger vehicles. Bases for vehicles like walkers and bikes have mostly existed so that the model stays upright. The box tanks don't need it, and I think it looks silly. For the gameplay perspective, I'd be fine measuring to and from either the footprint of a vehicle, or the 'bounding box' of the chassis, or whatever.

I like my vehicles to sit on the board, aesthetically, and never once when I built non-gaming kits did I put anything on a display base. Let's hope there's never a mandate for it in 40K.

You could always magnetise the bases. I actually hope GW do enforce bases for all models come 9th edition and even make base size a characteristic on the datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just can't get behind the idea of bases for the larger vehicles. Bases for vehicles like walkers and bikes have mostly existed so that the model stays upright. The box tanks don't need it, and I think it looks silly. For the gameplay perspective, I'd be fine measuring to and from either the footprint of a vehicle, or the 'bounding box' of the chassis, or whatever.

I like my vehicles to sit on the board, aesthetically, and never once when I built non-gaming kits did I put anything on a display base. Let's hope there's never a mandate for it in 40K.

You could always magnetise the bases. I actually hope GW do enforce bases for all models come 9th edition and even make base size a characteristic on the datasheet.

I understand why that might be preferable from the "purist" perspective, but from the "product" perspective I feel it's a poor aesthetic choice for the tabletop. It makes models more like little statues rather than being part of the table. I think the game shows itself better the more integrated the models are with terrain, and while it's less possible with most models that need bases structurally, no-base works really well for vehicles that are often driving over scatter terrain, low walls, etc.

If you want your models to be diorama pieces, you can keep them off the bases. However, when playing the actual game the discrepancy between base and no base causes too many rules issues.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you want your models to be diorama pieces, you can keep them off the bases. However, when playing the actual game the discrepancy between base and no base causes too many rules issues.

I've never had any serious rules issues regarding un-based vehicles.

If anything, based vehicles cause more rules problems than not when you end up having units hiding on the second stories of buildings that your walkers and vehicles can physically reach but can't assault because you have to measure from the base.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
If anything, based vehicles cause more rules problems than not when you end up having units hiding on the second stories of buildings that your walkers and vehicles can physically reach but can't assault because you have to measure from the base.

Non FLY Walkers and Vehicles can't climb ruins anyway, so they can't "reach" to begin with. What is silly is that a Knight can't attack someone on a 1.5" tall box but a Land Raider can.

I personally don’t want bases on vehicles whenever possible. I get flyers and hover vehicles need some sort of base because gravity, and walker models too but once you get bases as big as tanks you run into problems. The bases would be so big the second you want to try and add a hill or depression (uneven terrain) it becomes the problems normal infantry have but magnitudes higher. Why add this problem to a model that doesn’t need it? It’s true they technically have this problem now since none have working suspensions but you are still increasing the point of contacts by a few times at least. And when it comes to dead space this problem is equally magnified. Imagine a solar Auxilia army with 6 Russes, Dracosans, and a Baneblade, the real estate coverage would be much much larger than necessary! And if you use square bases that the model perfectly fits why bother? At that point you just standardize on how you measure distances with vehicles. Ultimately for a problem that can easily dealt with clarifying where you measure it seems an inefficient route (albeit the lazy one since it requires less effort) to go adding unnecessary bases.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just can't get behind the idea of bases for the larger vehicles. Bases for vehicles like walkers and bikes have mostly existed so that the model stays upright. The box tanks don't need it, and I think it looks silly. For the gameplay perspective, I'd be fine measuring to and from either the footprint of a vehicle, or the 'bounding box' of the chassis, or whatever.

I like my vehicles to sit on the board, aesthetically, and never once when I built non-gaming kits did I put anything on a display base. Let's hope there's never a mandate for it in 40K.

You could always magnetise the bases. I actually hope GW do enforce bases for all models come 9th edition and even make base size a characteristic on the datasheet.

I don't want this since it forces anyone with older models to rip them off the base they came with every time GW decides to upscale them. Since points across the board have generally scaled down and table size for multiple reasons generally haven't gone up having more and more models have a bigger and bigger foot print is annoying. A 2000 point game today with the proper amount of terrain has enough problems with movement without making every rhino and Truk take up more space.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just can't get behind the idea of bases for the larger vehicles. Bases for vehicles like walkers and bikes have mostly existed so that the model stays upright. The box tanks don't need it, and I think it looks silly. For the gameplay perspective, I'd be fine measuring to and from either the footprint of a vehicle, or the 'bounding box' of the chassis, or whatever.

I like my vehicles to sit on the board, aesthetically, and never once when I built non-gaming kits did I put anything on a display base. Let's hope there's never a mandate for it in 40K.

You could always magnetise the bases. I actually hope GW do enforce bases for all models come 9th edition and even make base size a characteristic on the datasheet.

I don't want this since it forces anyone with older models to rip them off the base they came with every time GW decides to upscale them. Since points across the board have generally scaled down and table size for multiple reasons generally haven't gone up having more and more models have a bigger and bigger foot print is annoying. A 2000 point game today with the proper amount of terrain has enough problems with movement without making every rhino and Truk take up more space.

You could always house rule the base thing if you don't like it? And if 2000 points has too large a footprint, perhaps we should drop back down to 1750 or 1850?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want this since it forces anyone with older models to rip them off the base they came with every time GW decides to upscale them. Since points across the board have generally scaled down and table size for multiple reasons generally haven't gone up having more and more models have a bigger and bigger foot print is annoying. A 2000 point game today with the proper amount of terrain has enough problems with movement without making every rhino and Truk take up more space.

You could always house rule the base thing if you don't like it?

Doesn't this logic work both ways?

 Stormonu wrote:

Immersion is also ruined the moment you put green-based infantry models on an arctic battle board.

I'd rather everything had a base.

True - that's why clear bases are better.

As far as I'm concerned the only good use for a base on a model in a skirmish game is to stop it falling over. ordered units are a different matter as the difference between ground scale, model scale and how many troops a single miniature represents can have a significant effect on things.

Also, if you define base sizes in the rules, you either ban a lot of old models or end up with loads of exceptions and one-offs.Bikes on no bases, 25x50 rectangles, 25x75 pills, whatever size oval they come on now, for example.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I don't want this since it forces anyone with older models to rip them off the base they came with every time GW decides to upscale them. Since points across the board have generally scaled down and table size for multiple reasons generally haven't gone up having more and more models have a bigger and bigger foot print is annoying. A 2000 point game today with the proper amount of terrain has enough problems with movement without making every rhino and Truk take up more space.

You could always house rule the base thing if you don't like it?

Doesn't this logic work both ways?

Not really. Barring the fact I already feel House Rules are always bad, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people are less likely to accept a house rule that requires them to modify their models than they are to accept a house rule that lets them ignore an official rule that requires them to modify their models.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
...I don't think it's unreasonable to assume people are less likely to accept a house rule that requires them to modify their models than they are to accept a house rule that lets them ignore an official rule that requires them to modify their models.

True, but I would also assume that more people would revolt against an official rule making them rebase their old models than the status quo that allows them to leave them be.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I already feel House Rules are always bad

What leads you to that rather extreme opinion?