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.

So do we have a base size for this thing yet?

No.

awesome. awesome. I remember a time when GW supported rules in some manner.

I vote the next book just have statlines, no fluff, no pics, just stats. And no model support. After all, they leave us guessing already.

If they told you the base size, you'd go and make your own. Then you wouldn't need to buy the official one when it comes out.
Of course they aren't saying the base size...

-Matt

IMO: 60mm Round(Dreadnought) base.

My reasoning:
-Acts exactly like a big Fanatic(except controlled instead of carried before control is lost).
-The fluff is two giant cave squigs chained together. The giant cave squig model hardly fits on the 40mm Round(Terminator) base, let alone two giant squigs.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Tzeentch claims he's sticking to a story? Unlikely. He'll change stuff without even telling us.

That said, I'm with him for now. 60mm base looks about right, and it's exactly what I've been using!

Well on another forum, someone actually called GW customer support and they said it was a 40mm round base.

The ones I've faced have been on 40mm rounds, and that seems to fit best for how the thing works in game and what it costs. IMO 60mm is actually fairly abusive, with its ability to clip a huge number of enemy units, but I guess the flipside is that it also takes up a large amount of real estate in the orc line - almost 4.5" total, with the mandatory 1" buffers to each side - and if it actually survives to go wild back through the orc ranks (read: I DOUBT IT) it'll hit a lot of orc units too.

Anyway, here's a vote for 40mm. If it cost, say, 100 points I'd say 60mm makes sense, but then I'd expect it to have at least another wound too. T4 W3 things are on 40mm and 50mm squares, bigger than that you're talking proper Monsters. Like when we were figuring out how to fix the holes in the Skaven book, I feel you should always err on the conservative side, and 40mm is the base size of least advantage (vs easier to hide / obscure 25mm and easier to clip units 60mm).

- Salvage

You make a pretty good case, Salvage! I can see the light of 40mm Mangler-Squig-Basedness.

Aw, hell. Until someone at GW learns to write rules, I say base the damn thing on an LP (an LP is a plastic disk which was used to play music on phonographs, back in the old days, kids!)!

How is it that their models (and artwork, and fiction, and production values) keep getting better and their editing keeps getting worse?

When this kind of thing happens GW's response is generally "Use whatever you think, but be reasonable"

Nothing larger then a 60mm round base is reasonable imo.

The description of it is "2 giant squigs chained together", so the obvious choice (though certaintly not the only choice) is to model it with 2 GW giant squigs with... Y'know... Chains and stuff.

The guidance on bases has always been "the same size
The model came with."

So... Take whatever size a giant squig comes on and double it. If
they came on 40x40 it would be a custom 80x40 base. My boss-on-squig is modeled
on a round flying base for chuckles since I never figured it would be used competitively so I'm not able
to judge.