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.

Alright, so I have all this stuff left over from making my AC teams. The HBs I'm saving for an ogryn project and the LCs for you know what, but looking at the missile launchers, I'd like to try them out a bit. In places where they're not stuck with just bs3, like my CCS or a veteran squad.

My problem is, I don't like how the team bases look squeezed in between 3-8 normal-based guys, so what I'd like to do is make one dude with the ML on his shoulder and one guy with a rocket or something, and put them on regular infantry bases.

Obviously, this isn't actually legal since they're not the bases they come with, but I'd like to gauge what reactions I'm likely to get anyway, because it seems pretty insignificant. I can always make them infantry-based and stick them on a proper base if there's a problem, but it would be nice to see how likely I am to get that problem.

I'm also not quite able to get a full picture of the consequences, gameplay-wise. Like, I guess spacing would be affected, and template hits. What else?


TL: DR - Would you mind it if my missile launcher teams were on infantry bases? Why/why not? How big a deal would it be?

Do they normally go on 60mm round bases?

As a pair of guys with a gun.

That was quick.

Yeah I think 60mm is their normal size.

Almarine wrote:I'm also not quite able to get a full picture of the consequences, gameplay-wise. Like, I guess spacing would be affected, and template hits. What else?

Those are the big ones (by templates I assume you mean templates AND blasts).

They normally count as one model, so if you get his by a flamer you'll have to explain to your opponent why you take one fewer hit than it appears. Also, they're two wounds so you can soak a wound on them, but if you take a S6 wound you'd have to remove both for instant death purposes.

Deploying from a vehicle would hurt you, as you'd lose out on the advantage of a large base.

Also, it would make a difference for majority models in cover in later turns. Normally you start with 9 models, meaning you need 5 in cover to get a save, and then after losing one you need only 4. With a 10 man group, after losing one you'd still need 5.

MOST of the things that are affected actually hurt you to place them out as two models, but not all, and the explanation that is needed can be damaging as well. It'd be better I think to prepare a large base for them, using all the nice bits you get from that kit to spruce it up, and carrying with them at all times. Before each game, mention it to your opponents (just tell them you think it looks cooler) and explain how it affects gameplay. If they want you to use the big base, then you have it there. People who you regularly play with should (eventually) have no problem, as long as you consistently resolve rules the same way. With your casual games, you could, I suppose, either:

A) Use them as they are supposed to be used (Large base, large base rules)
B) Use them as you want to use them (Small bases, large base rules)
C) Use them as the models dictate you should use them (Small bases, small base rules)

That last one makes changes to the actual codex rules and might not be the best choice, but it'd be less confusing IF you use small bases (mainly for templates). However, I'd only do something like that with someone you regularly play with.

I suppose I should mention that this is mainly for casual games. I don't need you to tell me not to do this at a tournament : P

Ah, random dude, yes I mean templates and blasts. I hadn't thought about the transports thing, or cover. Thanks for pointing those out. Any thoughts about how it would affect an assault?

I like your ABC thing. B is what I'd like to do here, it's not like I'd try and make up my own rules.

Back in 4th ed, I also had my missile launcher gunner/loader on two seperate bases:



Then when that became illegal with the new codex, I left the models as-is, but went and bitz-ordered some large bases, flocked them, and then just place my old models on my new bases before the game begins.



And if GW reverses itself again, I'll just let the large bases collect dust. Easy peasy.

Plus, those large bases also work for putting my other heavy weapons teams on. I have 26 gunners of various types with only 12 large bases. Needless to say, swapping out which 12 heavy weapons I want to use in any given week is pretty easy.

Yup. I would generally not be happy to see an opponent NOT using the 60mm bases as they presently are required. But Ailaros' adaptation is a smart and easy one if you prefer to model the guys on 25mms for aesthetic purposes, or if you have old models already based that way which you need to update.

Yeah obviously if i TELL my opponent that I have proper bases with me he's going to want me to use those pretty much every time, and it would be like in ailaros' picture. But I mean, look at that base covering up half the terrain piece. I don't think I have to tell you how much sexier it would look if they were separated.

P.S.
I like your dudes ailaros. Upper row, second from the left looks especially dedicated.

If you can tell what would be preferred by your opponent and you prioritize your sense of aesthetics over making him happy, I think something's wrong.

Obviously it would be best if you could come to a mutual understanding where he lets you use the basing the way you like but you treat them like they were on the 60mm during the game and give him the benefit of the doubt on blasts and other measurements to where the base would be.

But if you're playing with someone you don't have time to have that conversation with, or in a competitive venue, just use the current legal basing. It's the best option.

While I'd go with my sense of aesthetics over the happiness of others pretty much any day, you may be right in the context of this discussion. For the record, what you describe is how I'm suggesting to play it.

Thanks for your input so far guys, I appreciate it.

Don't the rules specifically state that you must use the base that the model came with (BGB p3)? I have praetorians the missile team is on 2 25mm bases. If I put them on a 60mm base then I am in violation of the rules (as I understand them). The solution to your problem is to get some older models and use them.
I do find it strange that 2 people can have the same codex army but they don't have to follow the same rules (basing in this instance). I've got a friend who has some old RT era Termies that are on 20mm bases while mine are on 40's. He can get into much smaller Deep Strike areas than I can but by rule I can't make him change his base size.

The bases rule on page 3 of the basic rulebook is not specific enough to enforce.

1) If you take a casualty, you'll loose the extra attack that you get from the HW base. If it takes a wound, he still gets 2 HTH attacks.
2) another thing to remember, is that the loader still can't fire his lasgun. A HW base counts as a 2 wound, 2 attack model that is armed with a HW.
3) I would hazard to say that you can't just decide to ignore a pretty substanial rule, just becuase you don't like it. But hey, if your opponent doesn't care, then what does it matter?

Cortez667 wrote:1) If you take a casualty, you'll loose the extra attack that you get from the HW base. If it takes a wound, he still gets 2 HTH attacks.
2) another thing to remember, is that the loader still can't fire his lasgun. A HW base counts as a 2 wound, 2 attack model that is armed with a HW.
3) I would hazard to say that you can't just decide to ignore a pretty substanial rule, just becuase you don't like it. But hey, if your opponent doesn't care, then what does it matter?

HWTs are armed with a heavy weapon and a lasgun but your point still stands - you can't shoot both however they're based.
Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

castellan wrote:The bases rule on page 3 of the basic rulebook is not specific enough to enforce.

So when it tells you to explicitly put the model on the base it came with that isnt specific enough for you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

castellan wrote:The bases rule on page 3 of the basic rulebook is not specific enough to enforce.

So when it tells you to explicitly put the model on the base it came with that isnt specific enough for you?

This made me lol, but in a little way he's right, we don't know which base was for which model. Maybe Gw should impliment a numbering system?

Not a problem with HWT's though - you don't get any choice in there.

With everything else on small bases havng a 60mm base for a pair of troopers just looks odd.

Prior to the corrent ruling I mounted the heavy weapon and gunner on a 40mm base and the loader on a seperate 25mm. I dont get complaints.

Leo_the_Rat wrote: I have praetorians the missile team is on 2 25mm bases. If I put them on a 60mm base then I am in violation of the rules (as I understand them). The solution to your problem is to get some older models and use them.

This advice is above and beyond what I expected in terms of usefulness, I'll look into this if I decide that I like missile launchers on guardsmen. Thanks

Scott-S6 wrote: Apparently, he's pretty sure his opponents won't like it but plans to carry on regardless...

This makes me sound like a villain, I laughed xD

ChrisCP wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

castellan wrote:The bases rule on page 3 of the basic rulebook is not specific enough to enforce.

So when it tells you to explicitly put the model on the base it came with that isnt specific enough for you?

This made me lol, but in a little way he's right, we don't know which base was for which model. Maybe Gw should impliment a numbering system?

ChisCP, I think you are going in the right direction! Nosferatu, the only explicit rule is if the model comes with a base it must be glued on a base.
So, the rule should say, "Models shall or will be glued on a base". The rules should say as to base sizes for particular types of models. I prefer the large bases for the heavy weapons team as to me it looks better.

If you magnetize the two guys on the 60mm base (like Ailaros' showed above), they make great wound counters as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

castellan wrote:The bases rule on page 3 of the basic rulebook is not specific enough to enforce.

So when it tells you to explicitly put the model on the base it came with that isnt specific enough for you?

It doesn't say that, it says to ask your opponent if he minds. (Good advice for the op really).

Possible solution: Make a 60mm transparent base.

No, it tells you to put it on the base it came with. If you dont then you essentially invoke TMIR

Every
Single
Game

Requia: Here's the quote for prosperity...
"BASES
Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." Page 3 Brb

And the next paragraph says if you want to mount on a different base that will effect gameplay, ask your opponent.

i use the same method as ailaros with my 3rd edition IG army. since you're starting a new army and don't have that excuse to fall back on ("hey, it was legal when i did it... 5 years ago!"), you have the option if your opponent objects and your own preference if they don't.

Requia wrote:And the next paragraph says if you want to mount on a different base that will effect gameplay, ask your opponent.

The point is that since you need your opponent's permission to mount them on anything other than what they come with, it's advisable unless you're playing against a regular group to just put them on the original bases and save potential arguments.

Otherwise, you're going to be asking the question before every game.


Having said that, from my experience, most players aren't anywhere near as picky about base sizes as all the talk online would lead you to believe. I've been running my Ork Nobs on 30mm bases since 3rd edition, and in all that time I think 2 people have commented on it, and that was just to point out that it looked good. Likewise with my bikes on 60mm round bases. Most people don't even notice what bases anything is on, let alone keep track of what they should be on and take the time to check before the game.

If it's not too abusive, it's generally going to be fine.

So as far as HWTs go, so long as the base looks ok, and so long as you discuss how they will function in-gae if you're basing them separately, you shouldn't run into too many troubles regardless of how you decide to base them.

Wow. Just, WOW.

GW meant for HWT to be mounted on the bases they came with for 5th ed. Lets not try to get around that with symantics. If you want a way around that, go play another game, or choose another army. Its really not worth that big an argument, is it?

"But I have HWTs that I bought and based years ago on the bases supplied in the box." - Anon
So, are you saying that Anon is not following GW intent or rules when they've successfully followed out the instructions on page 3?

Cortez667 wrote: Its really not worth that big an argument, is it?

It's generally not that big an argument.