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.

yeah, 28 MM seems like a really odd choice after everything shifted to 32 MM.

 Ghaz wrote:
They've said before that what size base a unit uses is comes down to what the model looks best on.

Uh-huh.

By the by, you in the market for any bridges?

 Sasori wrote:
yeah, 28 MM seems like a really odd choice after everything shifted to 32 MM.

Banshees are on 28s now instead of 25s, so this must be the new size for more "human" sized minis. Armoured up ones get 32s. I don't know of any new releases on 25s these days.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
yeah, 28 MM seems like a really odd choice after everything shifted to 32 MM.

Banshees are on 28s now instead of 25s, so this must be the new size for more "human" sized minis. Armoured up ones get 32s. I don't know of any new releases on 25s these days.

Well, even the humble Necron Warrior is on a 32 MM now. The only thing left 28 MM are Plasmacytes. Makes zero sense, but It's confirmed 100% they are 28 MM in the Necron Discord now.

So it is the extra 3mm of base size the real reason for the price increases , I knew it was justified somehow

 Theophony wrote:
So it is the extra 3mm of base size the real reason for the price increases , I knew it was justified somehow

No, no. Its 4mm less, so it should involve a price drop.

 Ancestral Hamster wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm assuming it's a typo like the 65 MM for the reanimator and SKorpekh Lord. The pictures do not look like 28 MM compared to the 40 MM chronomancer.

Though they put Cryptothralls on 28 mm... so who knows.

I doubt it is a typo. Warcry uses 28mm bases for some figures.* GW just wants to make sure you can't use 3rd party sculpted bases. By the same token the Shattered Dominion base set they sell does not have the 28mm bases either.

*In one of my Warcry warbands they came with 4 different base sizes, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, and 40mm? Was that really necessary? I don't think so.

I 100% agree that GW probably doesn't give one flying about 3rd parties that provide accessories to their games.

On the other hand, I can't imagine them making such a strange change *expressly* for the purpose of pissing off people who make sculpted bases. Like, it's such a niche thing that only serves to add-on to the miniature you already bought from GW - I can't see them even registering on their radar.

Maybe it's partly to discourage use of the old metal models, or any 3rd party or 3D printed versions?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
I 100% agree that GW probably doesn't give one flying about 3rd parties that provide accessories to their games.

They went to court over it. They care. They care quite a bit.

 Sasori wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
yeah, 28 MM seems like a really odd choice after everything shifted to 32 MM.

Banshees are on 28s now instead of 25s, so this must be the new size for more "human" sized minis. Armoured up ones get 32s. I don't know of any new releases on 25s these days.

Well, even the humble Necron Warrior is on a 32 MM now. The only thing left 28 MM are Plasmacytes. Makes zero sense, but It's confirmed 100% they are 28 MM in the Necron Discord now.

I'm starting Drukhari for KT/9th and the plastic Incubi came on 28mm, Kabalite Warriors and Wyches are still on 25mm bases, which was a problem after converting a 6th Incubi out of a Warrior, and not having the correct size base :/ So it really does seem to depend on the model. 28mm bases are newer than 32mm by a year or two, so it's likely some models originally got shifted to 32s that would have worked better on 28mm, and some dynamic human/elf sized models work a little better with a couple extra mm space. The old Necron Warriors never fit on the original 25mm ones and worked well on 32mm, but the new ones aren't as wide-legged and probably would have been fine on 28mm. But then you have the ridiculous ones like Teclis on a 140mm base that he nowhere near fills up, so who the feth knows with GW sometimes

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
I 100% agree that GW probably doesn't give one flying about 3rd parties that provide accessories to their games.

On the other hand, I can't imagine them making such a strange change *expressly* for the purpose of pissing off people who make sculpted bases. Like, it's such a niche thing that only serves to add-on to the miniature you already bought from GW - I can't see them even registering on their radar.

Maybe it's partly to discourage use of the old metal models, or any 3rd party or 3D printed versions?

It is GW. Nothing that effects their sales escapes their radar. GW started changing base sizes in 40k even before they launched the Primaris marines, and at the same time they started selling Sector Imperialis base kits for 40k. An added benefit is veterans with existing armies either have to rebase or buy new figures. And before you say that you can use your old figures in a friendly game, read the threads in the AoS section where people using old WHFB figures get b*****d at for not rebasing to the proper sized round bases. Have not paid attention to W40k threads, but I assume the same applies. "Hey! That should be on a 32mm! You're getting more figures into HtH, you cheater!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
I 100% agree that GW probably doesn't give one flying about 3rd parties that provide accessories to their games.

They went to court over it. They care. They care quite a bit.

They care, they just can't do a lot about it beyond basing the rules on models and models exclusively even when it doesn't make sense

 Ancestral Hamster wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
I 100% agree that GW probably doesn't give one flying about 3rd parties that provide accessories to their games.

On the other hand, I can't imagine them making such a strange change *expressly* for the purpose of pissing off people who make sculpted bases. Like, it's such a niche thing that only serves to add-on to the miniature you already bought from GW - I can't see them even registering on their radar.

Maybe it's partly to discourage use of the old metal models, or any 3rd party or 3D printed versions?

It is GW. Nothing that effects their sales escapes their radar. GW started changing base sizes in 40k even before they launched the Primaris marines, and at the same time they started selling Sector Imperialis base kits for 40k. An added benefit is veterans with existing armies either have to rebase or buy new figures. And before you say that you can use your old figures in a friendly game, read the threads in the AoS section where people using old WHFB figures get b*****d at for not rebasing to the proper sized round bases. Have not paid attention to W40k threads, but I assume the same applies. "Hey! That should be on a 32mm! You're getting more figures into HtH, you cheater!"

If someone out there wants to spend time they could be playing a game to bitch at me for my first born on their old bases, I'm their huckleberry. They can try and get in my face all they want but unless they are going to pay for all my new bases, and use their efforts to base them all anew and paint it all up nice, I'll do what I do with my stuff. If they won't play against them that is their loss.

Base size and the ups and downs are a GW formulated problem because they want to play magical base size the game. They leave it to us to drive each other crazy over our bases. Just don't hound each other over them and it'll be all good. There are good and bad points to base sizes.

Just look at bikes, at first they came with those terrible square bases, some didn't base them at all then. Then the thin oval one was the size, now its the fat oval, I like the thin ones so I use them for my regular bikes and stick with the fat ovals for the outriders. If someone is going to get in my face about it ? Well I can spend an afternoon arguing, just will feel like another day in the dakka trenches.

I just started putting together some Necrons for Kill Team, hoping to add these new Flayed ones.
I've put the warriors, immortals, deathmarks, lychguard, praetorians all on 32mm necromunda bases. I have loads of the 25mm Necromunda bases spare too. Seems GW don't make the Necromunda themed bases in 28mm, so I'll have to hope that 25/32mm doesn't offend anyone for the flayed ones.

 Kalamadea wrote:
They care, they just can't do a lot about it beyond basing the rules on models and models exclusively even when it doesn't make sense

They can and have done lots about it. Going to non-standard base sizes (32mm and 28mm) is the least of what they've done.

Flayed Ones on 28mm makes no sense at all and mine will be going on 32's

Cynista wrote:
Flayed Ones on 28mm makes no sense at all and mine will be going on 32's

Same. Unless they're the size of the EZ Fit Chaos Cultists, there's just no reason to use 28mm bases.

1 sprue for 5, look like mix and match torso/leg/arm is possible with some greenstuff.

I mean, all my Necron warriors are on whatever the old ones originally came with. 25’s?
They always did overhang.
Won’t change them, too much effort.
And bigger bases don’t fit the classic 25mm base slot in many troops trays.

Bigger base help units move a bit further.

Especially when you measure from the front of the base and then move until the back of your bases are at/beyond that line.

uhmmm no the rule said you measure by using the further point of the base, so you move a bit further, but not much.

Danny76 wrote:
I mean, all my Necron warriors are on whatever the old ones originally came with. 25’s?
They always did overhang.
Won’t change them, too much effort.
And bigger bases don’t fit the classic 25mm base slot in many troops trays.

What effort? Just stack the 25mm on top of a 32mm base.

I recollect reading the following text from a 40K rulebook once:

"You can mount the model on a bigger base if you wish, but not on a smaller one."

I take it that this instruction is no longer canon? I still follow that one and use bigger bases on any models I feel like, based on the looks. A "correct" sized base just looks best somehow. 28mm looks okay on a smaller mini, but 32 and even 40 mil can look a lot better depending on the size of the model's lower surface area and the particular pose(s).

However, I don't mix and match base sizes within a single unit; that would be too confusing no doubt.

I don't consider any of that to being "modelling for advantage", a base size always comes attached to its advantages and disadvantages. A bigger base isnt always better.

 John Prins wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
I mean, all my Necron warriors are on whatever the old ones originally came with. 25’s?
They always did overhang.
Won’t change them, too much effort.
And bigger bases don’t fit the classic 25mm base slot in many troops trays.

What effort? Just stack the 25mm on top of a 32mm base.

It’s the same scenario as doing all my squares to rounds where people said you can do similar etc. even that is too much effort

Though my main issue is room in the carry cases would be all thrown out.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
yeah, 28 MM seems like a really odd choice after everything shifted to 32 MM.

Banshees are on 28s now instead of 25s, so this must be the new size for more "human" sized minis. Armoured up ones get 32s. I don't know of any new releases on 25s these days.

The new Arco-Flagellants from the Sisters line were released on 25 mm bases. Compared to Repentia on 28 mm bases, the Arco's have +1S and +1W, so the profile isn't really saying anything about the bases either. I doubt that between all the different armies you'll be able to find a logical explanation for all the bases chosen, apart from "that's what they apparently liked to use."

Chopstick wrote:
Bigger base help units move a bit further.

How? If you are measuring movement using a.fixed point on a circular base, how do you get more movement?

I remember the additional.movement shenanigans from Raiders and even land raiders when vehicle movement changed to permit free turning, but I cant see that working for infantry.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:


Maybe it's partly to discourage use of the old metal models, or any 3rd party or 3D printed versions?

How? GW doesn't enforce basing. Only ones who do are PLAYERS. GW doesn't give a damn which base you use as long as it came with that model when you bought. You could even use tyranid warriors with 40mm base and it would be 100% legal as far as GW goes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kalamadea wrote:
But then you have the ridiculous ones like Teclis on a 140mm base that he nowhere near fills up, so who the feth knows with GW sometimes

Seeing Teclis fills up in one direction 160mm base...yes it would fill. And go overboard.

160mm oval and we are talking about smaller base for Teclis that it doesn't overflow


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ancestral Hamster wrote:
It is GW. Nothing that effects their sales escapes their radar. GW started changing base sizes in 40k even before they launched the Primaris marines, and at the same time they started selling Sector Imperialis base kits for 40k. An added benefit is veterans with existing armies either have to rebase or buy new figures. And before you say that you can use your old figures in a friendly game, read the threads in the AoS section where people using old WHFB figures get b*****d at for not rebasing to the proper sized round bases. Have not paid attention to W40k threads, but I assume the same applies. "Hey! That should be on a 32mm! You're getting more figures into HtH, you cheater!"

Note how what you claim is said by PLAYERS. It's the PLAYERS who are imposing base sizes. GAMES WORKSHOP isn't. PLAYERS are. And as for cheater...That means going against the rule. OFFICIAL GAMES WORKSHOP RULES don't specify sizes. Therefore any CHEATER is actually the ones who impose base sizes for others. It's the PLAYERS WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT BASES who are the REAL cheaters. You literally cannot be cheater when you play by official rules made by the company who wrote the rules in the way the company intended to be played.

 Flinty wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Bigger base help units move a bit further.

How? If you are measuring movement using a.fixed point on a circular base, how do you get more movement?

I remember the additional.movement shenanigans from Raiders and even land raiders when vehicle movement changed to permit free turning, but I cant see that working for infantry.

"The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base that move the furthest from its starting position"

If you put both model behind a line with the edge of the base touching it, and both of them move orthogonally away from that line and crossing it, yeah they moved the same distance.

How ever that isn't always the case, since this game isn't a one direction sidescroller, if the bigger base model move in any other direction, it'll end up further than the smaller one. The most obvious example is that both model move orthogonally from the line in the opposite direction (and not crossing it)

 privateer4hire wrote:
Especially when you measure from the front of the base and then move until the back of your bases are at/beyond that line.

Uuuhh....that's cheating...That's got nothing to do with bases. That's flat out cheating. Is it fault of bases if I take up my model and put it 50" away? Same thing. You are ignoring the rules. You cheat. Bases are irrelevant. You measure from same point. No point of model can move further than it started. This btw means you can't even rotate freely. Say your rhino turns 180 degree around the back of rhino can't have moved more than rhino's M value in the end. So because you turned around you can't move as far as if you had kept orientation. You need to move rhino's length less...(easier to keep orientation in that case!).

Bases don't make you move further. Cheating does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chopstick wrote:
How ever that isn't always the case, since this game isn't a one direction sidescroller, if the bigger base model move in any other direction, it'll end up further than the smaller one. The most obvious example is that both model move orthogonally from the line in the opposite direction (and not crossing it)

And how you ensure no single point moves further than it started with? Literally every point. Each point can move no further than M value. If part of model can't move as far because other model hangs you cannot move. Read above example. You cannot turn rhino 180 degree(ie front looks where back was) if it means any part of rear has moved further than M value...(okay that's bit silly since there's no in game benefit but that's the rules).

No...point...in...model...can...move...further...than...M value...from...where...it...started. Period.

If any part moves further you are cheating. No difference to moving where-ever you want.

The guy who is using old base size isn't cheater. HE is following official rules. The guy who insist on different size is cheater. And the guy who moves base so that every part of base isn't within M value from point base started with is cheater.

You moved the same distance, but your bigger base make it easier to "touch" other thing.

If it was so hard to see with your eyes, I'll put my guy on a 100mm base to make it's easier to demonstrate, put him behind a line. Turn 1 i move orthogonally crossing the line, turn 2 i move sideway, and my 100mm base guy is now much closer to my target than the 25mm base guy, even though they moved the same distance. WITCHCRAFT!!!?

nah, it's common sense.