Square or circle?

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.

**LazzurusMan**

I was just wondering, given that your units don't need to line up in formations...is it accepted to use square bases on 40k models?

This would make armies like deamons allot easier to play as you can then have 2 armies on the same base...what is everyones opinion on it?

**Gorechild**

I believe it says in the 40k rule book that models have to be put on the base they are bought with, so in most cases that means that they need to be on the round ones. When it comes to Chaos Daemons though, technically you can use either.

**AresX8**

I'm in agreement with Gorechild; somewhere in the BRB it says that you must base the models with the ones they come with. Since I'm in class right now, I can't exactly find the page number.

**Jangustus**

I would prefer to play 40K against armies with round bases because I think it looks better. (and they should go on the bases they come with).

However I would have no issues with for example a demon player with a large number of square based models.

If someone is clearly using it to gain some kind of advantage, then no. (cramming more models behind a building for example) But in general it would not be a problem.

**htj**

I play Daemons and I'm mounting them on round bases, because if I want to play them in Warhammer I can put them into the War of the Ring movement trays. An easy solution. A bit more complicated with the big stuff, they get magnetised plasticard bases that can be switched between round and square bases.

So I say: go round.

**Kirasu**

Square and round bases have very few differences as long as they're both 25mm. It's not a big deal, just doesn't look as good because it *is* the wrong base for 40k even if its not the wrong base from a rules perspective

You should really always mount your demons on round bases and then create movement trays for WFB to keep everything correct and efficient

**whigwam**

You're supposed to use the bases the models came with. So, technically you can have Daemons entirely on square bases, 25mm Terminators, 25mm Avatars of Khaine, Dreadnoughts on square bases, Dreadnoughts on no bases, and even a 25mm-based 2-D cardboard Dredd---if that's how you bought them. So clearly you should begin each game of 40k by carefully checking your opponent's receipts.

More seriously, taking proper basing too seriously leads down a path of madness. Be reasonable and expect the same of your opponent. If there is little to no effect (e.g. square-based Daemons), don't worry about whether it's legal or not. Just play.

**Howard A Treesong**

Life is too short to care about the shape of model bases.

People seem to like the unconventional base on my nurgle sorcerer... rule of cool right?

**JOHIRA**

40K used to have all kinds of models on square or rectangle bases. Avatars, war walkers, carnifexi, Ripper swarms, tyrannid warriors, bikes, rough riders, ... back in the old days pretty much everything that wasn't infantry was on a square base. And our world didn't collapse.

I personally have a guardian conversion somewhere of two guardians mounted on a cavalry base, one dying from being shot and the other attending to them. No one has ever complained about it.

These days I would usually try to keep things on the appropriate base (unless it looks cooler otherwise). But I'm happy to play anyone with non-standard basing as long as it doesn't lead to a clear game advantage. As someone who had to re-base all of their ungors with the last revision of the beastman army book, I say screw GW's basing rules.

**Portugal Jones**

I've got better things to do than bitch about my opponent's choice of base shape. As long as it's legal (and things like square bases for daemons explicitly are), I don't care.

**nkelsch**

Square bases gain distance measuring corner to corner when disembarking out of transports. They also can pivot for extra distance.

As long as you don't exploit it, people usually won't have an issue, but I agree with the round bases for fantasy using special movement trays. Considering how almost every fantasy model overflows their base, it makes ranking up easier when they can rotate a little in the hole opposed to being a puzzle for ranking up squares.

**templarsandorks?**

I dont mind if its deamons or any other if its benn used for conversions

**Blacksails**

Not a big deal, particularly for daemons. For new kits that come with round bases, I'd prefer that my opponent use them, but that's mostly for aesthetic purposes. I just don't like the way square bases look.

**King Crow**

i can't say i care at all. just make it look good.

**H.B.M.C.**

I don't really care. I tend to think things often look better on round bases, but from a game perspective it wouldn't bother me.

**lord_blackfang**

Square bases look bad. I never used them, not even for bikes back when they came on cavalry bases.

**Leigen_Zero**

Personally I'm not too bothered about bases, so long as your not being silly (demons on square bases in 40k, fine, putting a model with an 'all models in base contact die' on a valkyrie base, no). I prefer round for 40k and square for fantasy, but I'm not particularly choosy (although 40k praetorians would look cool ranked up on square bases in gunlines) and I wouldn't let it stop me playing a game against someone.

If you we getting to the point where we let the exact number of sides of our bases ruin our fun, we need to re-evaluate our perspectives a little.

**MakeH**

I wouldnt exactly refuse a game, although I answered "no". They should be played on round bases so I would be slightly annoyed. I would understand it when proxying for a new unconventional idea or something, but if your just plain cheap with your FB Daemons army I would not look favorably.

**Ugavine**

Personally I don't mind. But the rules say use the base it came with, so that's what I do. If I make a custom model I make sure to use the correct base that would normally come with that unit. Of course, if there is no official model then I guess you can base how you like, within reason.

**scarletsquig**

^ Actually Demons are the one army with the best case for using square bases.

You can't easily use round bases in fantasy, but you can easily use square bases in 40k.

How exactly is this "being cheap?" Why should someone have to buy/paint an entire duplicate of their existing army just so they can be on round bases instead of square?

It's not just the money either, it's the hundreds of hours of painting time, too... why should someone personally go to all that bother just for the sake of appeasing the few people that it would really bother?

In general, I don't really care.. someone could use space hulk models on the integral bases and it wouldn't bother me.

**gicks30**

MakeH wrote:but if your just plain cheap with your FB Daemons army I would not look favorably.

I don't understand this.

Are you saying you'd want them to buy twice as many daemons if they wanted to play both 40k and Fantasy?

Or do you want them to rebase their mini's each time they want to switch system?

**Clumpski**

erm... i might actually have a problem when it comes to this because of my conversion of a tau broadside is kinda on a 50mm base because it wouldnt support its self to stand up did i do a bad thing? o.o its still a broadside going by the rules its just slightly longer

**MakeH**

gicks30 wrote:
MakeH wrote:but if your just plain cheap with your FB Daemons army I would not look favorably.

I don't understand this.

Are you saying you'd want them to buy twice as many daemons if they wanted to play both 40k and Fantasy?

Or do you want them to rebase their mini's each time they want to switch system?

both of your suggestions are fine with me if he wants to go through that. But I would rather he play FaBa with round bases on proper, for example war of the ring type, movement trays then 40k on squares.

edit:

You can't easily use round bases in fantasy, but you can easily use square bases in 40k

I actually disagree, and I am mostly a fantasy player. The use of proper movement trays would hide round bases, something that cannot be one in 40k. To me, playing against square bases is comparable to an unpainted army. I does not ruin the game for me, but it does affect the visuality and thus affects the enjoyability.

**master of ordinance**

That time spent bitching about their bases is time that could be spent playing.
to tell the truth so long as their happy then im fine with it.
i mean WHY bother if his marines are on square bases-there still marines.

**Sunoccard**

The ability to use either would be appreciated, as I don't care one way or the other, but a lot of people do. My necron army in particular I'd like to be square based just for the phalanx.

**oadie**

Ideally, all models would be on round bases and WFB units in formation would always be placed in movement trays with staggered rows of holes. From what I've seen, ranking any but the most stiff, bolt upright models is rather trying, using the current system. Give pikes and spears some room to the front and let models rotate in place to put their limbs/weapons where they'll fit. Makes sense.

Personally, I also think round bases look better. Either way, I don't think I'd particularly mind playing a square-based army in 40k, but I distinctly prefer round bases.