How strict are you about base size? What do you expect from your opponent?

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.

**ccs**

BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

What he said.

But realize that if you abuse it by being TFG & going beyond something reasonable you'll be playing alone....

**Steelmage99**

Base the model on the base the model came with.

**Moriarty**

If his opponents are OK with ‘counts as’ models, they will be OK with his bases.

The only time I’d object to any models/bases is if done for advantage.

**Grimtuff**

Strg Alt wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

Yeah, you can glue your Tacticals on bases the size of platters and your opponent has to shut up and take it like a man. Anything goes nowadays.

Hoisting BCB with his own petard? Noice.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
If I had an opponent rebake something like Guilliman to a knights base to boost his aura I would call BS.

See, It's things like the above that make me wary. I convert a lot and try to keep the mini on the same size base as the actual model so I'm hyper aware of potential for the above behaviour. If I saw anyone doing that I'd call them out on their gak PDQ. GW just exacerbates it in places though with those godawful HH character bases where it's like a fething dinnerplate in comparison to the mini.

**JohnnyHell**

Those aren’t intended to be gaming pieces mind. The mini’s base slots into the scenic bases on most, so you can play or display.

**BaconCatBug**

Grimtuff wrote:
Strg Alt wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

Yeah, you can glue your Tacticals on bases the size of platters and your opponent has to shut up and take it like a man. Anything goes nowadays.

Hoisting BCB with his own petard? Noice.

Whut? How is that hoisting with his own petard? If someone brought Tacticals on Dinner Plates I'd happily play them because I play by the rules.

**Grimtuff**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Strg Alt wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

Yeah, you can glue your Tacticals on bases the size of platters and your opponent has to shut up and take it like a man. Anything goes nowadays.

Hoisting BCB with his own petard? Noice.
Whut? How is that hoisting with his own petard? If someone brought Tacticals on Dinner Plates I'd happily play them because I play by the rules.

Because, as you continually cannot see the proverbial wood for the trees your "pLaYiNg By ThE rUlEs!" cuts boths ways and you can have gak like this pulled on you and you've gotta suck it up because of your Sith-like adherence to what you assume the rules are.

**Sim-Life**

I play with Bloodletters on cavalry bases from when they were a Fantasy army and I needed to pad the unit because I didn't have enough money to make a full unit and just count them as two bloodletters sharing a base, so I'm in no position to tell anyone what size base their models should be on.

**BaconCatBug**

Grimtuff wrote:
Because, as you continually cannot see the proverbial wood for the trees your "pLaYiNg By ThE rUlEs!" cuts boths ways and you can have gak like this pulled on you and you've gotta suck it up because of your Sith-like adherence to what you assume the rules are.

I don't see how I would have to "suck up" anything since you only have to "suck up" with things you disagree with. You appear to have some bizarre notion that I would be upset about this situation.

Also, I don't "assume what the rules are" because I don't make assumptions, I follow what the rules say.

**flandarz**

I wouldn't bother trying to argue down BCB on this one. They're the type who, if the rules didn't explicitly say to deploy your army during the deployment phase, would make the argument that 40k was meant to be played only in the imagination. Ie: a strict RAWist.

**leopard**

RAW works when the rules are well written
RAI works when the intentions are clear, and make some sort of sense

until then just enjoy the ride

**xraytango**

RevlidRas wrote:
I'm in favour of strict base sizes listed in each codex.

Why? Because hate the fact that "modelling for advantage" has become a thing that people even talk about, and in an age where I roll a D6 for my flamer hits instead of arguing over a template, I really think we're past the point of hunkering down by the table to check if my Hellblasters can see your Daemon Prince through the window of that cathedral.

Strict base sizes, kill TLOS, and use base-to-base measurement for targeting. If your tape measure goes through terrain, you can't "see" the enemy. There, done.

Everything with 10 or more wounds gets the LARGE keyword, so it blocks line of sight just like terrain. Units that are LARGE or can FLY can see "over" terrain pieces.

Terrain with the OPEN keyword (like lakes) doesn't block line of sight. Terrain with the OBSCURING keyword (like forests) gives cover instead of blocking line of sight. Terrain with the LARGE keyword (like buildings) blocks line of sight for LARGE models.

There. Done. Solved.

Perfect, I love this! I screenshot and saved it. As I don't play official 40k, I intend to use this in my home-bashed rules.

**Ginjitzu**

So long as a model can reliably stand by itself, I don't care if it even has a base. That said, I don't play in organized tournaments. If I did, I'd just accept whatever standard the organizers choose.

**Tyranid Horde**

Generally anything goes, although I have recently come up against the issue of playing against Orks who abused the smaller bases to get more attacks in with the "inch within an inch" rule because he had 25mm instead of 32mm based boyz. It isn't a huge difference, but that is enough between a wiped squad and a surviving squad to hit back.

If it has the potential for abuse or advantage then I'm not keen on that.

**Huron black heart**

I couldn't care less between 25mm or 32mm, use one of the recommended sizes for any given model and that's fair enough either way.
I've never known anyone to use something ridiculous or unsanctioned but would call them on it if I thought they were going to, or I may play them that one time and then put them on the avoid list.

**TheFleshIsWeak**

So long as the base seems reasonably sized for the model (no big overlap or huge expanses of unused space), I really don't mind.

I wouldn't object to someone using the 'wrong' sized base if they're using a conversion, alternative model or anything like that.

The only thing I'd really object to would be people being generally dickish. e.g. purring an Imperial Knight on a 25mm base, buried under one of its feet, or putting Guilliman on a Knight base with no extra modelling or scenery.

**G00fySmiley**

I use the old... use the base that came with the model. i have some 25mm base termies, and all my boyz are still on 25mm and will not be changed to 32mm because then i need to rebase and more importantly retexture and paint something like 500 bases.. and i am not interested in doing that.

**TarkinLarson**

There are advantages and disadvantages to base sizes.

I had a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut that was on a base that was bigger than a normal Bloodcrusher. When I charged into battle and then piled in and consolidated I could tie up extra forces with the larger base. It did mean I got a kicking the next round though, but tied up some extra shooters.