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.

Looking at the website the models look identical except for the square vs round bases.

Just wondering.

As long as you put them on square bases.

If you're talking about Chaos daemons, yeah you can. Many people do just that actually.

If you mean Daemons, then yes, the models are the same (mostly. I don't believe the WHFB Daemons can take Soulgrinders).

As for the bases ...
WHFB mandates square bases (or at least used to, I could find no mention of required sizes in the current book).

40k only states that GW models come with bases and should be attached to them. It makes no distinction on SHAPE of bases.

Some people magnetize the bases, which frankly sounds like a lot of work but is a cool idea.

For the infantry sized models, Bloodletters, horrors, deamonettes, etc. I dont see why you cant just put them on round bases and then put them in LOTR or custom GF9 movement trays. It would be pretty much the same thing as the square bases in movement trays and then if you wanna play 40k just take them out of the movement trays. Now I dont know if you could make an army list that is compatible in both games, but I would like to see one

Custom movement trays for the round bases is the way to go.

Though you will find some things useful in 40k (Plaguebearers from what I've heard) are nowhere near as useful to have in Fantasy (from what I've seen).

Round bases with adaptive movement trays for fantasy is the way to go. Square bases in 40k are not terrible, but not good, either. Some of them are substantially different sizes too (like 50mm squares vs 60mm rounds for Juggers, or 40mm squares vs. 60mm rounds for current daemon princes). The size difference can genuinely matter for deep striking, and occasionally for other things.

I've used the same daemon models for both systems and I know whereof I speak. Initially I didn't think it made a difference, then I realized it did and had to re-base a whole bunch of daemons to rounds.

yes, ive seen it done.

though my advice to do it simply is attach them to the square bases, as most of them are slightly smaller than the round bases, and during 40k games, put them in an upside-down round base.

Golly, no. WHFB doesn't have Chaos Marines, for starters; though your 40K Chaos Marines would have a pretty decent chance in Fantasy battle, except for their lack of magic protection. Your Warriors of Chaos from Fantasy would really struggle in 40K, though, what with their lack of ranged weapons and heavy support choices.

he means deamons

Sabet wrote:he means deamons

Woosh!

Glue the square base to the feet and the round base to the heads.

you can put them on round bases just need to get special movement trays.

cgage00 wrote:you can put them on round bases just need to get special movement trays.

Yup. And if someone can't figure out the math for how many are in base to base when you're fighting, then they need to go back to elementary school.

I put my Daemons on round bases and then use special movement trays for Fantasy.

Are you choosing Daemons for both systems as a cost saving measure? If so, you may find that despite the fact that you can reuse some models (the force organisation will usually prevent you from using all of the models (Daemon Princes are Heavy Support in 40k and an character choice in fantasy)), it is not the cheapest way to build armies for both systems. Models from starter sets are cheaper, as are used deals.

Custom movement trays is the way to go. Using movement trays with spaces for circular bases and putting circular bases on the models solves both problems and causes you the demon player a lot less hassle.

Sabet wrote:though my advice to do it simply is attach them to the square bases, as most of them are slightly smaller than the round bases, and during 40k games, put them in an upside-down round base.

That does't actually work. Square bases are larger than their equivalent round base, because of the corners...

I don't really have any concrete plans. I just noticed the models were the same and said "gee, I wonder if...."; because the time and money saved might have been enough to look into it.

How much of an overlap is there? I understand that X unit might be better in 40K vs WHFB, but to those who have actually done this, how many of your units were you able to successfully use in both games?

Fiends and Flamers are both great in 40k and fantasy, as is Kairos. Also, Plaguebearers are still good in both (better in 40k), as the winner of an 'Ard Boyz semi-finals here (the one competing for a 3000pt army) won with daemons last month or two months ago, or whenever it was. My friend was there and got stomped by the guy on the top table. He ran Epidemus and Skulltaker in a unit of Plaguebearers, and other things. That's the only unit I remember. And for anyone who says "you can't do that on here," according to GWs FAQ it's perfectly legal. Don't believe me, look at it. I've done it, and it is VERY much hated. Skulltaker is also good in both games.

sum1thtdiesalot wrote:For the infantry sized models, Bloodletters, horrors, deamonettes, etc. I dont see why you cant just put them on round bases and then put them in LOTR or custom GF9 movement trays. It would be pretty much the same thing as the square bases in movement trays and then if you wanna play 40k just take them out of the movement trays. Now I dont know if you could make an army list that is compatible in both games, but I would like to see one

As long as they rank up the same, nobody really cares. The only issue you may have if they don't rank up properly is that you'll get hosed out of attacks. If your front rank only has 5 models but the same width as 6 models you're going to take more attacks from your enemy as your base is touching more enemy models.

You can mount them on the round bases and buy the bits online from Back to Basex among other resin base makers. Just do a google search for it and you can find the right parts. Its something like $10-$20 for 2-3 regiment bases and you can buy the bases for the greater demons and other bases as well. Only trouble you'd have would be the bike bases (the rounded bike bases might be an issue - I've never compared them though).

Mannahnin wrote:Round bases with adaptive movement trays for fantasy is the way to go. Square bases in 40k are not terrible, but not good, either. Some of them are substantially different sizes too (like 50mm squares vs 60mm rounds for Juggers, or 40mm squares vs. 60mm rounds for current daemon princes). The size difference can genuinely matter for deep striking, and occasionally for other things.

Fortunately, GW doesn't require certain size, shape, or style of bases. The only rule is that models must be based on the size base supplied. My Daemon Prince came with both a round and a square base, so I'm pretty sure that either would be 'legal' for (most) GW 40k events.

I haven't seen a whole lot of major complaints about squard bases on Demon armies in 40K. Most people at the GT level just scratch their head and usually say "why didn't you go with round bases on your models that rank? As many people have menitioned, they make movement trays with round cut outs which rank up perfectly.

With the cavalry on bigger bases, is where you get into some issues. Put the round based over the squads, and you'll see some overlap with some parts sticking out. As long as your willing to allow the opponent some leeway, and be a good sport, you will run into zero issues. If you got with the "must be base 2 base" prepare to run into any eventually rules debate. Its the only thing I can really see. Me? I wouldn't care about playing your army with square bases, especially because rebasing and army is pretty arduous from personal experience.

This is what I've found works REALLY well for the bigger round vs smaller square bases (50mm vs 60mm). Take a regular square base and make a thin plasticard round base-just use a round base as a stencil and cut it out of the plasticard. Alternate models by putting the very thin plasticard under the square base and over the square base. The models will rank up for fantasy, and they'll also be on proper bases for 40k. Problem solved. Does it look perfect? No. I'm sure someone could put a ton of effort into doing so, but it works. Anyone not quite understanding what I mean, example time:

Models A, B and C are ranked up in fantasy, we'll use bloodcrushers as an example. Models A and C have round, 60mm plasticard bases underneath the 50mm GW bases, but model B has the round base ON TOP of the 50mm base. They rank up and they don't cause spacing issues for you or your opponent. The very thin plasticard makes it so opponents models can stand on top without difficulty. Genius, no?

timetowaste85 wrote:This is what I've found works REALLY well for the bigger round vs smaller square bases (50mm vs 60mm). Take a regular square base and make a thin plasticard round base-just use a round base as a stencil and cut it out of the plasticard. Alternate models by putting the very thin plasticard under the square base and over the square base. The models will rank up for fantasy, and they'll also be on proper bases for 40k. Problem solved. Does it look perfect? No. I'm sure someone could put a ton of effort into doing so, but it works. Anyone not quite understanding what I mean, example time:

Models A, B and C are ranked up in fantasy, we'll use bloodcrushers as an example. Models A and C have round, 60mm plasticard bases underneath the 50mm GW bases, but model B has the round base ON TOP of the 50mm base. They rank up and they don't cause spacing issues for you or your opponent. The very thin plasticard makes it so opponents models can stand on top without difficulty. Genius, no?

What people have been doing in my area is basing the model on the round base and modeling the base as a rocky looking outcrop for the front rank and taking the square bases and magnitizing the round base to stand on top of the square base. If they have trouble getting them to sit correcly on the square base, they raise or lower the base so fit. Then they make sure their movement tray from the front covers the round base from the front so their opponent can't tell. These people have a ton of fun making terrain and such so they really like this aspect of the hobby. A lot of the movement trays in our area are home made from Balsa wood and tons of effort goes into modelling it.

Phobos wrote:I don't really have any concrete plans. I just noticed the models were the same and said "gee, I wonder if...."; because the time and money saved might have been enough to look into it.

How much of an overlap is there? I understand that X unit might be better in 40K vs WHFB, but to those who have actually done this, how many of your units were you able to successfully use in both games?

Lots of 40k army lists call for 3 Daemon Princes. Most Fantasy lists do not use any, and the ones that do usually use only one. Some 40k lists use BloodCrushers or Fiends of Slaanesh. In Fantasy they are not very good. Fantasy usually uses more models than 40k, and thus some of your Fantasy Daemons will go unused.

In terms of the overlap go look at various daemon lists on the net and see how much they have in common. It usually is not a whole lot. As was stated above, Flamers work well in both. A block of 20 troops is serviceable in Fantasy, and could be divided into smaller units for 40k.