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.

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

Bell base is definitely the way to go. I would say base the dwarfs separately, as the cannon looks less cluttered on its own base then and the dwarfs are frankly a bit optional any longer

- Salvage