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.

Hi everyone, I'm putting together a Warboss model and I want to use an Attack Squig. Unfortunately, from a modelling point of view I'm having difficulty finding somewhere to put the Squig model I want to use without making the base crowded so I was thinking of putting him on his own base (I'm using a WHFB Cave Squig). So what I am wondering is, could I still use the Attack Squig if he's not visible on the actual Warboss model's base?

I realise that this question wouldn't make sense for all upgrades. For example, I wouldn't just model a gun lying on the ground on its own base and announce that the charatcer using it is supposed to be reaching over to pick it up. However, in the Ork codex (page 92) it mentions a similar point related to Ammo Grots - that the models are decorative and should just be moved to one side if they cause a problem in the game (eg during combat). My intention was to apply the same principle to the Attack Squig. What do you think?

Fezman wrote:Hi everyone, I'm putting together a Warboss model and I want to use an Attack Squig. Unfortunately, from a modelling point of view I'm having difficulty finding somewhere to put the Squig model I want to use without making the base crowded so I was thinking of putting him on his own base (I'm using a WHFB Cave Squig). So what I am wondering is, could I still use the Attack Squig if he's not visible on the actual Warboss model's base?

I realise that this question wouldn't make sense for all upgrades. For example, I wouldn't just model a gun lying on the ground on its own base and announce that the charatcer using it is supposed to be reaching over to pick it up. However, in the Ork codex (page 92) it mentions a similar point related to Ammo Grots - that the models are decorative and should just be moved to one side if they cause a problem in the game (eg during combat). My intention was to apply the same principle to the Attack Squig. What do you think?

Its not really legal because the whole model must be on the base supplied with the model. An extra base can cause other problems in game play like placement during assault and many other situations. I'd say you should find a way to model it with the Warboss using a much smaller attack squig model. The Cave Squig is much large than it should be.

Aye, look at the GW warboss with attack squig for how they modeled it.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440263a&prodId=prod1160033a

Or just skip it if you're not doing tournaments where wysiwyg is enforced... Just tell your opponent before the game and it shouldn't be a problem.

Not that it has any bearing on legality - but i'm doing it!

Just plan to keep them nearby, move them to the side (as per Ammo Runt) for assaults etc - exactly as you mentioned.

Maybe upgrade to a large base? I'm pretty sure thats still legal isn't it? So long as the base isn't smaller. Or am I thinking of WHFB?

Actually that is fine as long as you move the extra base to the side during an assault or other similar tight fit situation. It even tells you to do so in the codex. As a matter of fact the same situation occurs with Azrael's Helmet Bearer in the DA codex and in the CSM codex for a Sorcerer's familiar. Honestly, anyone(TO or player) that gripes about it being physically represented, while also being a cool conversion, and it not changing in any way how anything works in the game is an Asshatketeer. If you need the DA or CSM codex page #s for future reference let me know. Would do it now, but it's 13° outside, and the codexes are in my trunk lol.

Almost forgot to say great job on the conversion and display base. Can't wait to see it painted!

Kaldor wrote:Maybe upgrade to a large base? I'm pretty sure thats still legal isn't it? So long as the base isn't smaller. Or am I thinking of WHFB?

That would've been right in 4th edition, but not so in 5th. You should use the base that the model was supplied with unless your opponent agrees otherwise.

Regarding the original question, there is no rule allowing you to represent one model and it's wargear on two separate bases. In this instance I would personally have no problem with it, though, since you can very easily just treat the squig as a kind of 'marker' that is ignored for all purposes except for indicating wargear. If it ever gets in the way, then you could easily remove it.

I'd still try to find a way to include it on the Warboss model anyway, but I can't see there being any room for confusion so long as you explain that it's essentially a marker no different to things like DE pain tokens, wound markers, etc.

Kaldor wrote:Maybe upgrade to a large base? I'm pretty sure thats still legal isn't it? So long as the base isn't smaller. Or am I thinking of WHFB?

4th edition allowed larger bases. The current rules don't.

The squig on a separate base shouldn't be a problem. The codex makes mention of squigs and grots taken as wargear sometimes being represented on seperate bases, and that they're just for show so can be ignored for all in-game purposes.

Beyond that, so long as it's visible and recognisable for what it is supposed to be, it should never be an issue.

Orks have rules for starless wargear on their own base. Just remove them or set them aside when it comes to assaults.

The previous codex you could take 1-3 attack squigs and they had stateliness and were on their own base. When the metal boss with the attack squig was released, it didn't fit the rules as the squig needed his own base.

nkelsch wrote:The previous codex you could take 1-3 attack squigs and they had stateliness and were on their own base. When the metal boss with the attack squig was released, it didn't fit the rules as the squig needed his own base.

Actually, that was the other way around. The 3rd ed codex didn't originally specify that the squig had to be on a separate base... That bit was added in an FAQ, making the Warboss model no longer fit the rules.

Nemesor Dave wrote:[ An extra base can cause other problems in game play like placement during assault and many other situations..

Just like the ammo runts and grot riggers that are put on seperate bases and that the codex says to just move out the way as needed?

You have a highly visable squig on a base next to your warboss and can easily move it if it interferes during a combat.

This is more easy to spot then half the wargear actually modeled on models, and is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Anybody who makes a big deal out of something as irrelevant as this is probably someone you are better off not playing tbh...

CT GAMER wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:[ An extra base can cause other problems in game play like placement during assault and many other situations..

Just like the ammo runts and grot riggers that are put on seperate bases and that the codex says to just move out the way as needed?

You have a highly visable squig on a base next to your warboss and can easily move it if it interferes during a combat.

This is more easy to spot then half the wargear actually modeled on models, and is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Anybody who makes a big deal out of something as irrelevant as this is probably someone you are better off not playing tbh...

QFT.

The "Gear on separate base" can be a really neat and convenient way to represent certain types of wargear (especially stuff that's hard to put on the physical model). Just because it's on a separate base doesn't mean it somehow stops being wargear. If it's in the way, just move it someplace to keep it from interfering with the game.

This is how I ran my Daemon Prince back before his unfortunate encounter with a hard-wood floor. He just had a floating Icon next to him (on a separate base) that indicated what mark I had purchased for him. Never had any problems with it getting in the way.

/2cents

Thank you very much to everyone for the opinions. After thinking about it, I would say the separate base is the idea I'm most likely to go with. I'd have liked to fit everything on one base but I think I may have underestimated the size of Cave Squigs

Arakasi: Nice job!

It shouldn't be much of an issue as there are precedents in the current ork dex. Look at ammo runs, grot oilers and grot orderlies.

Xca|iber wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:[ An extra base can cause other problems in game play like placement during assault and many other situations..

Just like the ammo runts and grot riggers that are put on seperate bases and that the codex says to just move out the way as needed?

You have a highly visable squig on a base next to your warboss and can easily move it if it interferes during a combat.

This is more easy to spot then half the wargear actually modeled on models, and is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Anybody who makes a big deal out of something as irrelevant as this is probably someone you are better off not playing tbh...

QFT.

The "Gear on separate base" can be a really neat and convenient way to represent certain types of wargear (especially stuff that's hard to put on the physical model). Just because it's on a separate base doesn't mean it somehow stops being wargear. If it's in the way, just move it someplace to keep it from interfering with the game.

This is how I ran my Daemon Prince back before his unfortunate encounter with a hard-wood floor. He just had a floating Icon next to him (on a separate base) that indicated what mark I had purchased for him. Never had any problems with it getting in the way.

/2cents

Good idea on the MOK marker. I'd have no problem with it...

It sounds fine, the fact you can already take ammo runts which are essentiall wargear on their own base that only count as markers and not models with statlines pretty much sets the precident IMO. WYSIWYG is primarily about avoiding confusion, to me, there's nothing confusing about your idea "he're my warboss, he has an attack squig, here's the attack squig" seems simple to me.