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.

Could you guys weigh in on the appropriate base size for a Hellcannon and Steed of Slaanesh (for a chaos sorcerer)?

After extensively thinking about it, I decided I should purchase chariot bases for my hellcannons... they really hang off all sides of a 50mm, and that's without the chains and things that are supposed to be in the back.

However, would it be OK to put the Hellcannon on the front of the base, and the handlers on the back?

Otherwise, there is so much extra room and it looks terrible :-/. Are monsters and handlers (how a hellcannon is treated) like warmachine crew in that they're simply "wound markers" now, and don't need to be positioned behind the hellcannon, I can just put them on the base?

The Steed of Slaanesh is a choice between a cavalry base and a 50mm. I have no preference here, I just want to know which is correct.

Thanks!

I'd have no problem with the Hellcannon on a chariot base. It is a Monster, after all!

The Steed of Slaanesh is a bit tricky. Technically the Lord on a Steed comes on a 50x50mm base, which according to GW is what he should be on. I believe the realization previously was that GW really screwed the pooch on that one though. A Steed of Slaanesh is what the Seekers of Slaanesh ride, and they're on normal 25x50mm cavalry bases. The Daemonic Mount, on the other hand, is on a 50x50mm base but has (obviously) entirely different rules than a Steed of Slaanesh.

So... it's a bit of a toss up really. I'd go with 25x50mm for consistency with the Seekers, or use the Steed model (aka the Boobsnake) as a daemonic mount and leave it on the 50x50mm base.

well technically warmachines(i know its a monster too) have no bases but i think a chariot base would be better then the 50mm since most monsters and warmachines are now coming in chariot bases(skaven stuff, ogre stuff, tomb kings)

According to GW, the Hellcannon doesn't go on a base. The guideline is, "Use the base it comes with", and the model isn't packaged with one.

I guess I should clarify- I'm looking for what to practically do here, not just the theory of what's allowed.

Technically, I could give the hellcannon no base since it comes with none, based on the "use the base it comes with" rule.

I could also use a 50mmx50mm base for the Steed of Slaanesh- IF I was using the GW model (which I'm not, I'm converting it).

So, putting aside arguing Only off of the "use the base that comes with it" rule, I'm curious which I should put it on in practice... in relation to all other evidence (rules, models, etc).

I believe the answer is 50x100 for Hellcannon, and 25x50 for my converted Steed of Slaanesh, as the actual boobsnake model would seemingly need to be used as a daemonic mount if on a 50x50.


Any thoughts on sticking the warmachine's crew bases on top of the hellcannon base? I'm not sure of the rules governing the handlers of monsters and handlers, and if that would violate it... of if they really are just wound markers a la warmachine crew.

They are just markers and add attacks in hand to hand. Placing them on the base is perfectly acceptable.

The hellcannon is oddly shaped for sure. I personally would have no problem with an opponent basing it on a chariot base for aesthetics.

Does the Cannon hang off the chariot base at all?

It seems that if it did, and you put it on the base, you would have to come to an agreement with your opponents about whether they have to come into contact with the edge of the model, or the base itself in games. Normally you just have to touch the model. If you reduce the models footprint via the base, then you have gained an advantage. Alternatively, modeling on a base may increase its footprint and put you at a disadvantage. Personally, I'd just play it as normal (ie. opponent measures to any part of the model for range / charges etc) and ignore the base entirely for gaming purposes.

Tell you what,
Put the Hellcannon on a base big enough for all the wheels to fit, and I'll let you run that steed on a 25x50mm base, and let you save the boobsnake for the daemonic mount.
But, that's not a YMTC answer.

Steeds (conversion or not) should be on 50mm base.

Not coming with a base, you get to pick the base size, but don't do anything that breaks the #1 rule.

-Matt

Except the Steed of Slaanesh doesn't make you Monstrous Cavalry, it only makes you normal Cavalry. Thus why it should be on a 25x50mm (if being used as a Steed of Slaanesh instead of a Daemonic Mount).

Davall wrote:They are just markers and add attacks in hand to hand. Placing them on the base is perfectly acceptable.

Good to know

Lehnsherr wrote:The hellcannon is oddly shaped for sure. I personally would have no problem with an opponent basing it on a chariot base for aesthetics.

Does the Cannon hang off the chariot base at all?

It seems that if it did, and you put it on the base, you would have to come to an agreement with your opponents about whether they have to come into contact with the edge of the model, or the base itself in games. Normally you just have to touch the model. If you reduce the models footprint via the base, then you have gained an advantage. Alternatively, modeling on a base may increase its footprint and put you at a disadvantage. Personally, I'd just play it as normal (ie. opponent measures to any part of the model for range / charges etc) and ignore the base entirely for gaming purposes.

Thanks for the detailed answer! My thought was, as it's treated as a monster with handlers, it needs a base size... is there a rule that says somewhere you just have to contact the edge of the model?

It does hang slightly off the sides, but isn't nearly as long as the chariot base... i.e., it's a slight advantage in the front, but a large disadvantage on the side (assuming I want less models touching my flank, which would seem to make sense if I were seeking an advantage). Based on a 50x50, it would hang off all sides, hence why I think the chariot base is the one to use... assuming I'm not going to go with the new 100x150, which would be grossly oversized! And possibly give me an advantage in other ways (tying up multiple units, for example).

HawaiiMatt wrote:Steeds (conversion or not) should be on 50mm base.

Except that Steeds of Slaanesh for DoC are mounted on 25x50.

I actually would prefer mounting it on a 50x50- it would make my conversion much easier and probably look better. But it seems incorrect...

One rule is going to have to broken one way or the other. As steamdragon points out, if I put it on a 25x50mm base, I avoid putting a normal Cavalry on a Mounstrous Cavalry sized base. That to me seems to be the interpretation to go with here... it does not matter to me game-wise as I have no cavalry in my army (monster mash) and this model will be running around solo regardless of his base size. I just want to get it right!

For your argument- what if someone were to use a steed of slaanesh stolen from a DoC model? Then putting it on a cavalry base is using the base that it comes with- but this conflicts with the boobsnake's base size. That's not the conversion I'll be doing, but it certainly seems to meet the letter (if not the intent) of the rule of "Use the base it comes with"... as those are legitimate Steed of Slaanesh models, that come on a different base size from the boobsnake.

Thanks for the detailed answer! My thought was, as it's treated as a monster with handlers, it needs a base size... is there a rule that says somewhere you just have to contact the edge of the model?

It does hang slightly off the sides, but isn't nearly as long as the chariot base... i.e., it's a slight advantage in the front, but a large disadvantage on the side (assuming I want less models touching my flank, which would seem to make sense if I were seeking an advantage

I meant normally for the hellcannon you have to contact the model as there is no base. Sorry bout that, I could have been a bit more clear. As the model normally lacks a base, in order to determine if you are within range for a charge (for those suicidal enough to charge a hellcannon) you just measure to the cannon itself.

I would not like you to field the model in such a way as that you are at a disadvantage. It seems just as unfair as if you modelled it in a way to give yourself an advantage. You could discuss it with your opponents before the game begins, to figure out how you would play the model with a base. In the absence of an actual GW base, we really can only guess at what would fit best. As such, I think you should model it in a way that you like, and then just measure as you normally would for the HC and ignore the base. That way your opponent can't claim that you are trying to gain an advantage, and you get the bonus of the model on a base, which I agree, always looks better.

The worst thing to happen would be if GW came out with a base for it in a couple of weeks, after you have chosen your base. That would suck

As an idea, the large round bases that IG heavy weapons teams used to come on would be ideal for a nice looking model, although they have been phasing them out of in WHFB, I'd never complain as you could really make the HC look good on that.

Hmmm, I will have to think about that!

The only issue with my just using the model with no base, is that there are these chains hanging off the back when it is fully assembled as per the pic. Where does the model begin and end? Honestly, if that part is included as part of the "model" (and I have yet to see one in-person that has that part assembled, as it's quite fiddly) the "model" would take up most of the length of the chariot base, after all.

As I didn't put on that part, I've been planning to stick the crew on the back part of the base... but if I had fully assembled the hellcannon with that bit, there'd be these chains in that space.

How people are able to assemble these chains holding it to the ground with no base is beyond me, though . Apparently there is a chain on the ground next to the wheel that would increase the width of the hellcannon, although not at its' front facing, too.

Pic for reference:

RiTides wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:Steeds (conversion or not) should be on 50mm base.

Except that Steeds of Slaanesh for DoC are mounted on 25x50.

I actually would prefer mounting it on a 50x50- it would make my conversion much easier and probably look better. But it seems incorrect...

One rule is going to have to broken one way or the other. As steamdragon points out, if I put it on a 25x50mm base, I avoid putting a normal Cavalry on a Mounstrous Cavalry sized base. That to me seems to be the interpretation to go with here... it does not matter to me game-wise as I have no cavalry in my army (monster mash) and this model will be running around solo regardless of his base size. I just want to get it right!

For your argument- what if someone were to use a steed of slaanesh stolen from a DoC model? Then putting it on a cavalry base is using the base that it comes with- but this conflicts with the boobsnake's base size. That's not the conversion I'll be doing, but it certainly seems to meet the letter (if not the intent) of the rule of "Use the base it comes with"... as those are legitimate Steed of Slaanesh models, that come on a different base size from the boobsnake.

But the daemonic steed of slaanesh is not the warriors of chaos steed of slaanesh. The daemonic version has a wardsave and immune to psych. The warriors of chaos one can flee a charge.
As for it must be on a cav base to be cav, that is not the case.
Squig hoppers are cav, but are not on a cav base.
I can't find a rule anywhere that states how base size matches up to unit type.
The Nurgle Palanquin is infantry (50mm), the Slaan is infantry (50mm), weapon teams and Jezzails are Infantry but on 25x50 bases.

Am I missing a base size = unit type rule?

-Matt

Evey time I have had it charge or get charged me and my opponent clarified that it is either from the tip of the barrel or the front wheel.

Other than that we just treat it like they show in the brb with thegobos charging the empire cannon.

I have tried different base sizes but the hc is awkward. So I didn't base it.

I hear what you are saying RiTides, and I agree with it.

I think it would be rather silly to count those chains as part of the model for determining charge range, being hit by ranged weapons / templates, and all other things. 40K has that rule where a models decorative bits don't count, but I do not think the rule is there for Fantasy.

I doubt you will ever run into a player who demands that you must have those chains built, and that he can in fact measure his range to the chain. Frankly, I think the situation is rather unlikely to come up, as any player willing to charge the HC to begin with, won't be worried about getting too close to it. The darn thing is unbreakable, so the only time that could be a problem is if an opponent wants to charge the HC, is just outside range of the body of the HC, but in range of the chains, and absolutely needs the bonus to their CR for being in its flank / rear so they will win the combat rather than lose and potentially flee from the HC.

Someone attempting to hit your HC with a template might have more of a valid reason to want to hit your HC on the chain, but I just think thats

Even in the fantasy rules it says something like banners and weapons dont count for los.

So ya those chains dont count for hits (mine broke off and i lost them sooooo I dont have that problem)
but still that should not count.

You could always cut the chains down and make them touch the ground right beside the wheel.

Still I would not let that count as charge distance no way.

I find it interesting that most people posting in this thread don't seem to have based theirs... I still plan to use the chariot base just because I'd like them to be based and it seems to be the best option, but like I said... very interesting!

An alternative I think is acceptable would be to make a custom base thats 75x75. It would be large enough to fit the HC. The crew could then either be fit onto the base with the HC or based seperatly and placed behind it.

I just feel that it belongs on a square base rather then a rectangular one.

My hellcannon is converted, and it's an ogre with a mortar barrel (long story). I put it on a 75x75 base anyway, though. No particular reason, just my $.02

If a 75 fits it I would do it for convenience, I'm sure your opponent won't mind since that way he knows exactly where and you know exactly where to measure to and from.

I think a custom-sized square base is wrong, though... I mean, nothing else in the game uses it...

I built one way back when the model first came out, and I made a 100mm x 100mm base for it out of 4 50mm x 50mm bases, some green stuff, and some plasticard, and it worked great (the chains never broke off). Seeing as that's not really an option, why not make a 100 x 100 scenic base out of the bottom part of a modular movement tray and just ignore it for measuring ranges, declaring charges, etc.? It'd look cool, be low enough to place models on it, and keep all the parts firmly in place.

I wouldn't be too fussy about how its based personally. I just don't think a chariot base fits the size of the model. I know that a 75x75 base isn't used anywhere else, but the chariot base is just too long. The handlers aren't counted for the purposes of charge range and so it wouldn't make too much sense to have that size of a base for them to fit onto as well.

Just out of curiousity, are you trying to get some competitiveness out of the base size? Or is it merely speculation on what SHOULD be used?

Well a base for the hellcannon try the base for the saven bell.It's 60mm by 100mm. As for the other no clue..

Personally, my Hellcannons are on the 40K Trygon bases. Its a nice, tight fit (stay away Slaaneshi worshippers) and I even get my crew members on.

For gaming purposes, I just ignore the base sizes and measure to the Hellcannons' body, ignoring the chains as well.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Just out of curiousity, are you trying to get some competitiveness out of the base size? Or is it merely speculation on what SHOULD be used?

Definitely not trying to get competitiveness out of it! I was noting how it could be a competitive advantage/disadvantage- but I am trying to confirm what base size I should paint my hellcannons on for a GT at the end of September.

So I think I've been convinced that, by the rules, I should be ignoring whatever base I put my hellcannon on.

In that case, for those of you who do this, what dimensions do you play your hellcannon as? This is probably how I should have been phrasing the question from the beginning. Here's a few pics to help with that:




I believe it should be 60mm x 80mm (the dwarfs are on 20mm bases). Previously, to try to cram it onto a base, I'd been playing the front as 50mm wide. And while it's true that the front wheels are that wide, the side wheels definitely hang off, as you can see above.

What I am thinking I will do now is to get 2 Screaming Bell bases (thanks for the idea!) and just cut off 20mm on the back. My concern is that if I leave that part of the base on to put the crew on, when I rotate the model I won't actually be rotating about its' center. See how much room there is at the back here:





So, what do you guys think about a 60mm x 80mm base (cutting 20mm off the back of the screaming bell base) from the pics above?


Edit: Also, HawaiiMatt's argument about the RAW for a Steed of Slaanesh has convinced me to put it on a 50mm, despite it being cavalry. The infantry palanquin that is a 50mm is part of what convinces me. Also, it's what GW has on their website, it's what the model comes with, and I think RAW that's what it has to go on based on the information available. That is actually good for me, as it makes my conversion a hell of a lot easier! But it's also avoids the modelling-for-advantage accusation that putting it on a 25 mm x 50 mm would have invited.

Personally, I'd just put the hellcannons the bell bases and call it good, without worrying about cutting and rebuilding bases. Unbased war machines, particularly monstrous ones destined for combat, are a bad idea IMO, and I find it extremely unlikely that anybody would complain about bell bases - the majority of based hellcannons I've seen are on a chariot base (50x100), two chariot bases (100x100), or are counts as monsters on 50x50. Bell bases aren't going to make anybody sad at a GT, I'd reckon.

As an aside, you still haven't convinced me that the boobsnake is a steed of slaanesh. The GW website is the only place that says as much, and while I do have the feeling that the boobsnake will become the SoS due to GW not wanting to make another slaanesh mounted character model, I don't believe it actually is one. I'd however only gripe about your 50x50 steed if you were running it with other cav and claiming that it took up the place of two cav models (so little rank boost, or attak denial, or so on). Solo-ing the thing around, the base size does still matter, but it's largely only to your disadvantage to upsize in that case (easier to hit, harder to hide).

- Salvage

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that EVERY war machine and monster should be on a base. The new skaven Warp Lightning Cannon / Plague Claw Catapult kit comes with a base for the model, and I plan on ordering a couple for my old metal Warp Lightning Cannons. (assuming I don't just replace the old metal ones with the new plastic kits...)

It's the same issue I have with old metal dreadnoughts in 40k, although that's really for another board I suppose.

Boss Salvage wrote:Personally, I'd just put the hellcannons the bell bases and call it good

That would be nice (and clean!). I just ordered them so I'll see what they look like