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.

With IA 11: The Doom of Mymera (with lots of Eldar stuff) apparently coming out some time this/next month, and the next Eldar codex rumored to be released some time next year, I thought now would be a good time to start planning ahead for future purchases and begin updating my Eldar army.

My current plan when I update my infantry is to have some nice resin bases for them. Specifically the wraithstone ones from Microart Studio.
http://www.shop.microartstudio.com/wraithstone-c-3_84.html

One thing that puts me off however, is that they look relatively "thicker" than regular bases. This, as many may know, provides a distinct line-of-sight related disadvantage. Its fairly marginal, but when its across the whole army, it kind of adds up.

I'm curious if anyone here has used resin bases of any kind and if so, how have they affected gaming, if at all? Am I over-reacting or is this a viable concern from a competitive point of view?

Hopefully come 6th edition GW will come to its senses and nix TLOS so it shouldnt matter...

CT GAMER wrote:Hopefully come 6th edition GW will come to its senses and nix TLOS so it shouldnt matter...

After 20 years and 5 editions, that seems unlikely.


Those particular bases are no thicker than a lot of the scenic bases people make for themselves. While some of the bases available geta little silly (see Micro Art Studio's forest of tree stump bases) in most cases you shouldn't have any dramas.

The only issue I have with resin bases is the lack of a recessed bottom, which makes them not as stable on uneven terrain.

insaniak wrote:The only issue I have with resin bases is the lack of a recessed bottom, which makes them not as stable on uneven terrain.

hmm. Thats actually a good point. Thank you. Anyone know if theres an "easy" way to fix that? Obviously... like carve/sand them in yourself... or something.

I've seen people grind out a recess with a grinding stone in a dremel. Or add little rubber feet to the base.

It would be nice though if some of these resin base manufacturers just started using 2-part moulds so they could recess the bases to begin with.

Thats a non problem for fantasy since units are all inside movement trays...

Many base producers do get carried away and forget the basic thing for which a base is created, that is to fit a mini in it, not the other way around... Sometimes bases are so filled with stuff that you have to do silly things just to fit a mini... Gladly not all companies that do bases go that route.

Those bases you posted aren't that tall.

I have played with these models on hirst art blocks a few times and not had a problem. If anything, it makes it harder for me to hide my guys and not get shot. Granted, I don't play in tournaments. I will admit that the chaplain is a bit over the top.

My IG army is now on resin bases, the few added mm's of height is really not at all a competitive issue. For normal infantry, it is extremely easy to get cover even if you are a bit taller.

My Termagants are all assembled on to a resin base with integral snake tail I cast myself.



They work fine in competition because they are almost exactly the same depth as a standard base. (I shaved 0.001mm off the bottom which gives me a sneaky advantage in the long run.)

Kouzuki wrote:With IA 11: The Doom of Mymera (with lots of Eldar stuff) apparently coming out some time this/next month, and the next Eldar codex rumored to be released some time next year, I thought now would be a good time to start planning ahead for future purchases and begin updating my Eldar army.

My current plan when I update my infantry is to have some nice resin bases for them. Specifically the wraithstone ones from Microart Studio.
http://www.shop.microartstudio.com/wraithstone-c-3_84.html

One thing that puts me off however, is that they look relatively "thicker" than regular bases. This, as many may know, provides a distinct line-of-sight related disadvantage. Its fairly marginal, but when its across the whole army, it kind of adds up.

I'm curious if anyone here has used resin bases of any kind and if so, how have they affected gaming, if at all? Am I over-reacting or is this a viable concern from a competitive point of view?

As someone who uses those bases myself, they are all roughly the same height as a standard base, unless you're putting the mini on one of the higher tiers.

Killkrazy, the fact that you went to such lengths to gain such an insignificant advantage for a game that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things kind of depresses me. :(

So umm, if people get in a twist over the height of a figure for the purposes of true LOS what's the general attitude towards this figure?

Howard, that model is on a square base and would be illegal in 40k. Shame on you!

(It looks sweet! Who makes that?)

kronk wrote:Howard, that model is on a square base and would be illegal in 40k. Shame on you!

(It looks sweet! Who makes that?)

Is it illegal because it's on a square/rectangular base or because it's a model that was not packaged with square/rectangular bases?

dripwelquest wrote:
Is it illegal because it's on a square/rectangular base or because it's a model that was not packaged with square/rectangular bases?

I was teasing about the illegal part, but since we're on the subject.

Our group would certainly allow the model, but would probably prefer it to be on a round base. Yes, it would look silly hanging off the 25mm base. I'd make a case of putting it on a 40mm base simply because it would look better. However, I'd let someone use it as-is (rectangular base). Rule of cool, and all.

As for taking that to a GW tournament, I doubt it would fly. 1) not a GW model, 2) not a 40k base, 3) line of sight issues.

Edit: if pushed on the "You can't see my model over this hill. It's laying down." My counter would be "Then your model obvisouly can't see me either since there is a hill in the way."

Another example of talking stuff out before the game.

kronk wrote:

dripwelquest wrote:
Is it illegal because it's on a square/rectangular base or because it's a model that was not packaged with square/rectangular bases?

I was teasing about the illegal part, but since we're on the subject.

Our group would certainly allow the model, but would probably prefer it to be on a round base. Yes, it would look silly hanging off the 25mm base. I'd make a case of putting it on a 40mm base simply because it would look better. However, I'd let someone use it as-is (rectangular base). Rule of cool, and all.

As for taking that to a GW tournament, I doubt it would fly. 1) not a GW model, 2) not a 40k base, 3) line of sight issues.

Edit: if pushed on the "You can't see my model over this hill. It's laying down." My counter would be "Then your model obvisouly can't see me either since there is a hill in the way."

Another example of talking stuff out before the game.

It probably would fly at a GW tournement - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135

It is a gw model and thats the base it's provided on - i should know i have one

I see. I'm not familiar with that model (as I stated 5 posts up). If it is a GW model, and that's the base it came with, then game on.

kronk wrote:As for taking that to a GW tournament, I doubt it would fly. 1) not a GW model, 2) not a 40k base, 3) line of sight issues.

It's absolutely a GW model and based on that which came in the packet.

I expect much gnashing of teeth when someone produces a whole unit of them.

I see I'm been beaten to it!!

If you really have your panties in a knot about it you could always just take something like the DoC Seekers base, which is a rounded calvalry base.

What my planned all prone catachan army based on that model might be considered gaming for advantage.........
Seriously who cares it might mean you take a tiny bit more firepower but it'll look pretty. It's hardly likely to actually lose you a game and it'll probably gain you more on the soft scores anyway.

The gw answer to it is swings and roundabouts. Taller models can see over more and be seen over more.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I expect much gnashing of teeth when someone produces a whole unit of them.

Except then the guy using them has the distinct disadvantage of taking IG with sniper rifles

kronk wrote:As for taking that to a GW tournament, I doubt it would fly. 1) not a GW model, 2) not a 40k base, 3) line of sight issues.

It is a GW model, that's the base it comes with, and there are no LOS issues that don't apply just the same to any other model.

Edit: if pushed on the "You can't see my model over this hill. It's laying down." My counter would be "Then your model obvisouly can't see me either since there is a hill in the way."

That is exactly how it works, yes. Which is one of the reasons you don't see more prone models in the game.

insaniak wrote:

kronk wrote:As for taking that to a GW tournament, I doubt it would fly. 1) not a GW model, 2) not a 40k base, 3) line of sight issues.

It is a GW model, that's the base it comes with, and there are no LOS issues that don't apply just the same to any other model.

As has been pointed out 4 times, now.

kronk wrote:As has been pointed out 4 times, now.

If only I had just used it as an opening point, and gone on to address something else relevant from your post.

Oh, wait...

Daemon prince has one here! Yet he would never hide completally anyway...

Howard A Treesong wrote:So umm, if people get in a twist over the height of a figure for the purposes of true LOS what's the general attitude towards this figure?

If GW got rid of TLOS and had models of various base sizes be considered to occupy a set volume of space then the actual pose/stance/basing of a models would be irrelevant.

This would accomplish a number of things:

1. eliminate TLOS sighting issues ("I can see him"..."no you can't" and endless cover debates)

2. Encourage more creative basing/converting

3. Eliminate the ability of mucnkins to model for advantage

makes too much sense however, so carry on...
2.

insaniak wrote:

The only issue I have with resin bases is the lack of a recessed bottom, which makes them not as stable on uneven terrain.

It would be nice though if some of these resin base manufacturers just started using 2-part moulds so they could recess the bases to begin with.

Tada... It just so happens I've just finnished editing the video showing off the newly available Anvil Gaming Bases,

Recessed textured underside AND around twice as heavy as a resin base. Stable on almost any surface.

You can see the bases in action compared to normal resin bases on Anvil Industry TV-

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnvilindustryTV

Cheers,

Anvils Hammer

Anvils hammer wrote:You can see the bases in action compared to normal resin bases on Anvil Industry TV-

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnvilindustryTV

Not to be rude, but you will get far more interest out of me if you just show pictures rather than expecting me to waste my time on a video.

CT GAMER wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:So umm, if people get in a twist over the height of a figure for the purposes of true LOS what's the general attitude towards this figure?

If GW got rid of TLOS and had models of various base sizes be considered to occupy a set volume of space then the actual pose/stance/basing of a models would be irrelevant.

This would accomplish a number of things:

1. eliminate TLOS sighting issues ("I can see him"..."no you can't" and endless cover debates)

2. Encourage more creative basing/converting

3. Eliminate the ability of mucnkins to model for advantage

makes too much sense however, so carry on...
2.

Play Warmachine.

Platuan4th wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:So umm, if people get in a twist over the height of a figure for the purposes of true LOS what's the general attitude towards this figure?

If GW got rid of TLOS and had models of various base sizes be considered to occupy a set volume of space then the actual pose/stance/basing of a models would be irrelevant.

This would accomplish a number of things:

1. eliminate TLOS sighting issues ("I can see him"..."no you can't" and endless cover debates)

2. Encourage more creative basing/converting

3. Eliminate the ability of mucnkins to model for advantage

makes too much sense however, so carry on...
2.

Play Warmachine.

Wat? Really?

No. Those guys that killed Warmachine in Frederick Md. made the worst of the local "40K That Guy" look tame.