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.

Does the new models of Thunderwolves equipped with 60 mm round bases will declare finally a standard (and mandatory from now..) base size for cavalry models? Does it will affect Beasts bases also?

Obviously I'm asking this for all the tournaments situations where a model coulb be considered illegal or whatever.. you will certainly see how 5/6 models on 60 mm round bases will needs large movements areas on the table and you will figure out how the same models could be easily (with a lot of advatages in terms on true LOS, covers, IC bases-to-bases contacts in assault, etc..) moved and played on little bases, like 40 mm round or even bike size.

What your hopinion?

I would really like to use my count-as-thunderwolves on 40 mm bases, even 25 mm if it would be possibile ;D

LoL I'd love to see them try to cram more 60mm bases for calvery since my alternate daemon list has some 20 seekers and I'd be hard pressed to even find a spot to drop that many 60mm bases anywhere. Hard enough to drop 8 bloodcrushers and a fateweaver somewhere. 9-10 60mm bases is pretty hard too.

Likely this is like past GW things where different things will just have different bases. Roughriders for example already have thin biker bases so I'm assuming that things will stay the same and there will be NO change to all calvery getting 60mm base.

Toban wrote:Does the new models of Thunderwolves equipped with 60 mm round bases will declare finally a standard (and mandatory from now..) base size for cavalry models? Does it will affect Beasts bases also?

It affects nothing other than Thunderwolves.

When Terminators were shifted up onto 40mm bases, it didn't cause all other infantry models to follow suit. The base size a model comes with is applicable only to that model.

I would really like to use my count-as-thunderwolves on 40 mm bases, even 25 mm if it would be possibile ;D

If your Thunderwolves are fitting on 40mm bases, they're probably far too small to be Thunderwolves. Forget about 25s.

The problem, my problem, is that 1) I use count-as Thunderwolves models or at least I would like to.

I'm converting, from a very long time, one IRON HANDS big big collection of models using different codexes, 2000 pts here, 2000 pts there.., I already have a Bjorn Gunline from the SW codex ie and I were thinking to expand this setup to 3000 and soon to 4000 pts with some add from the same book.

Just to gives you one idea I were planning to build up a sort of mechanised chassis for modern centaurs. Basically imagine a modified terminator's torso installed on a thunderfire-cannon-like tracked support.

This will likely fit on a 60 mm round base but I would really prefer to set them up to at max one 40 mm round base.



This would be "criticable" at a tournament?

upsizing isn't that bad though, after a few iterations, my daemon princes that used to be on 40mm bases just get put on top of a 60mm flat base. I didn't bother taking the old one off and just glued it on the new one then decorated the thing. Essentially looked like he was on a small hill or if you paint it stone could be like a tiered temple thing.

Toban wrote:This would be "criticable" at a tournament?

I'd have to say yes. If you're doing a counts-as, you need to fulfill things similar to the "real" model.
Which means you need to take a similar amount of LoS space, and use the same sized base, in my opinion.

Since that's opinion however, you'd have to check with the TO beforehand to make sure you're gtg.

This is the tipical aswer that everyone give istinctively.

I know, that's the first thing I were thinking me too.

The real question is another one however.

Following just the real dimensions respect for true LOS directives isn't a problem.
Even a foam-maded model that will show out the weapons and the tools with a total size equal or comparable to the real one will be rules/wise correct.

So, assuming my models will be dimensionally equal to the Thunderwolves just talk about the bases.

As you will obviously can imagine moving 5+1 models on 6x 60mm round bases, spreading correctely the unit for one ideal "line" of 27", profiting the maximum of objects blocking LOS and or terrains placing some of the models in areas etc etc wouldn't be so easy. Now, imagine to put the same models on little bases and keep on mind that:

- All the distances are measured from the base, coherency, shooting distance, various ranges and the like...;
- For all the Close Combat situations, base-to-base contacts, units members not in base contacts but still fighting because at less than 2" fron the fellows in contact and bla bla;
- number of enemy models in base-contact (and all the consequentely IC placement options during assaults)..

well, as you can see, even without discussing about the model's dimensions (because even a new plastic thunderwolf would eventually be easily placed on a 40mm base, I remember you that arms, weapons and all the extra parts of the models doesn't count but instead only the body must be considered for true LOS), the bases size could make a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference in a lot of situation.

So why I would like to put my thunderwolves-like models on little bases, eventually even on bike-size bases.

Just for your info, 6x models on 60 mm round bases, spaced by 2" within eachother on one ideal "line" means 27", with 40 mm bases 19", with bike's bases (counting the short side of 25 mm) 16".

I'd say for all those reasons, you'll just have to join us daemon players and suck it up despite our giant deepstrike footprints to embrace the accepted sizing. It's just how it's gotta be or else there would not be enough uniformity to the game to allow us to all play under the same rule set. If you are just doing friendly games, then go ahead and use even 25mm bases to your hearts content.

Heck, half the fantasy guys here don't care one split if I have round bases and the 40k guys don't really care about square bases either for friendly games. In fact, old calvery rough riders were on square bases before bike bases existed so they were cool with things.

Toban wrote:As you will obviously can imagine moving 5+1 models on 6x 60mm round bases, spreading correctely the unit for one ideal "line" of 27", profiting the maximum of objects blocking LOS and or terrains placing some of the models in areas etc etc wouldn't be so easy.

So you want to shrink the bases because it's easier?

Unacceptable. It doesn't matter that there's disadvantages to a smaller base - there's also advantages that come with it. The most obvious (that you skirted around) is that it's far easier to move, which means it's far easier to gain a cover save or move between obstacles that are 50mm apart but not 60.

Shrinking the base size from official should be considered modeling for advantage. Before there were official models, it wouldn't matter to me what size base was used. Now that there is an official model, they should all use that base size.

Again, however - this is a question for the TO, as is any counts-as or conversion legality question.

Toban wrote:Hi everyone.

Does the new models of Thunderwolves equipped with 60 mm round bases will declare finally a standard (and mandatory from now..) base size for cavalry models? Does it will affect Beasts bases also?

I wouldn't assume it to be mandatory. It isn't for old school terminators, I can still use mine. I refuse to add new larger based ones to my Blood Angels because they wouldn't fit in (and because I fail 2+ more than any other save).

It all depends about the official models bases regarding the unit kind (like infantry, cavalry, flying etc.).

I understand your straight NO NO NO about this kind of things but 1) I'm an hobbist, I really don't particulary mind about winning tournaments and so.. 2) of course even if at the first place there is the modelling/painting part of the discussion I do like winning when it happens ;D

So my doubts. because building up 2000 pts of models and than discover that 2/3rd of your list must be retouched and/or radically modified, well..

Toban wrote:It all depends about the official models bases regarding the unit kind (like infantry, cavalry, flying etc.).

I understand your straight NO NO NO about this kind of things but 1) I'm an hobbist, I really don't particulary mind about winning tournaments and so.. 2) of course even if at the first place there is the modelling/painting part of the discussion I do like winning when it happens ;D

So my doubts. because building up 2000 pts of models and than discover that 2/3rd of your list must be retouched and/or radically modified, well..

Yes, it sucks. Your argument of "but it's hard" or "because it's easier to move smaller models" isn't changing my opinion.

And there is no standard sized base for infantry models. It's just what they were sold with.

Than let's go with these horrible 60 mm round bases.

Thank you all.

Well there is a big difference between the terminators and the new thurderwolves..

The old terminators is also a GW model on the base it came with, counts as thunderwolves are not.

So while the old terminators are fine rules wise using other bases than 60mm for the counts as thunderwolves is not, now that we have an official GW model Imho

/ogard

You use the base size for the models as provided by Games-Workshop.

So old Terminators can fit on 25mm and new ones should be on 40mm. They're in limbo.

Thunderwolves are 60mm. Always have been, nothing changed there. The only model provided before was Canis Wolfborn. I don't see any new Codexes that have an HQ of one type on a bigger base than 'comparable' units (e.g. Logan Grimnar is on a 40mm base and is a Terminator, Ragnar is on a 25mm and is in Power Armor, etc).

And Tervigons are on Trygon sized bases, like everyone but power-gamers said they should be.


If you think you have it bad... I just spent 40 bucks on fancy 'cavalry' bases and another 60 on two boxes of Goblin Wolf Riders. Now I'm out at least 40 bucks because the base size is wrong. More unless I want a disadvantage on the table: Fenrisian Wolf models are bigger than the Goblin Wolf models, so block line of sight to vehicles better...

Thanks GW! Wouldn't h ave been so bad if there was any kind of "Coming Soon" thing on their website once they start developing models so you know not to waste your time.

Sadly I think GW's business model is not to say anything "coming soon' so that you spend $X and when the 'official' model comes out you spend $X again. Just because they are a model company does not mean you have to buy and play with their models. Are some really really neat? Then support them and buy it. Are some models really really fugly? Then don't support them and use something else.

It's not their hobby, it's mine. I'll use my time and money as I see fit and if I can't play in their game (ex. tourney or store) then I'll take MY ball and play elsewhere

To be honest I swore them off after their price, WD and shipping shenanigans but Vampire Counts and these new Nid models do have my attention...but I can't feel too bad about being a consumer who%$

I recently confronted this sort of issue regarding a host (25+) of Eldar jetbikes. The models originally came with hex bases (back in 1994, a couple of years before I bought my first one), but were then issued with small bases, and these days, come with large bases.

I asked the tournament organizer for the one I'm playing this weekend and he said not to give it a second thought.

Has anyone had a bad experience in a similar position? Are any TOs willing to step up and state an objection to such a thing?

The difference is you're fielding Eldar Jetbikes on the base they were supplied with.