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.

To be fair, there are some legitimate differences in game play between a single big base and two small bases. Nothing game breaking in anything but the tightest games, but it could be a factor.

In addition, army painting will now expect all IG teams on big bases.

Hellfury wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:FWIW, if I was a TO I would not allow older models on smaller bases. That's not because I am a sticler, or think it's a good rule. It's because I think there will be too much moaning from people who think older models on smaller bases are getting an unfair advantage.

Sadly, its always the whiners who win over reason...

*sees IG HW team and is agape with chagrin.*

"Muaaaaahhhhhhh... *lisp* You cant have your bases like that *lisp* thats illegal! It says here under page *slurp spit* 43 of the aforementioned codex that you must *wipes drool from lip* always have them based as a single model *lisp* on a 65.2mm base!"

*stares blankly at the 'illegal' army in front of him. Farts.*

"Clearly, *slurp spit* this army is in direct violation of this rule, and I call *scratches neckbeard* for a judge to come over and disqualify your army based on this *lisp* blatant and willful infraction."

So pepole who actually wanna play by the rules are drooling monstrosities? Is he drooling just the same when he sais you cant move your models 7" instead of 6, because it sais so under page 8 instead?
Maybe having you use the force organisation chats from the codex page 52 makes him fart even more?

Thats a pretty good way to argue without actually having anything to back up your reasoning, at least your earlier posts had the "in my opinion" part.

This was arguably one of the dumbest posts I have seen here on Dakka.

Hyperbole is your friend, Kallbrand. There's a difference between playing by the rules when it matters and playing by the rules simply because they are the rules.

Polonius wrote:Hyperbole is your friend, Kallbrand. There's a difference between playing by the rules when it matters and playing by the rules simply because they are the rules.

And how do you suggest making it so that everyone is on par when the rules matters or are just the rules that can be ignored? When you play people you dont know very well, usualy in a competative enviroment the rules in the books must be what goes(unless FAQed or something before hand) othervise how are people suppose to know what goes?

Kallbrand wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:FWIW, if I was a TO I would not allow older models on smaller bases. That's not because I am a sticler, or think it's a good rule. It's because I think there will be too much moaning from people who think older models on smaller bases are getting an unfair advantage.

Sadly, its always the whiners who win over reason...

*sees IG HW team and is agape with chagrin.*

"Muaaaaahhhhhhh... *lisp* You cant have your bases like that *lisp* thats illegal! It says here under page *slurp spit* 43 of the aforementioned codex that you must *wipes drool from lip* always have them based as a single model *lisp* on a 65.2mm base!"

*stares blankly at the 'illegal' army in front of him. Farts.*

"Clearly, *slurp spit* this army is in direct violation of this rule, and I call *scratches neckbeard* for a judge to come over and disqualify your army based on this *lisp* blatant and willful infraction."

So pepole who actually wanna play by the rules are drooling monstrosities? Is he drooling just the same when he sais you cant move your models 7" instead of 6, because it sais so under page 8 instead?
Maybe having you use the force organisation chats from the codex page 52 makes him fart even more?

Thats a pretty good way to argue without actually having anything to back up your reasoning, at least your earlier posts had the "in my opinion" part.

This was arguably one of the dumbest posts I have seen here on Dakka.

Your post is arguably one of the most uptight and sensitive I have ever seen on Dakka.
As Polonious noted, my post is pure hyperbole, but it is a direct reflection of being a dink for the sake of being a dink, and noting the rules because they are important.
The two are distinctly different entities.
Though for some being a dink for the sake of being a dink is one and the same as noting rules because they are important.

Kallbrand wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hyperbole is your friend, Kallbrand. There's a difference between playing by the rules when it matters and playing by the rules simply because they are the rules.

And how do you suggest making it so that everyone is on par when the rules matters or are just the rules that can be ignored? When you play people you dont know very well, usualy in a competative enviroment the rules in the books must be what goes(unless FAQed or something before hand) othervise how are people suppose to know what goes?

Well, the whole basing issue for guard will only come up in a few instances: when moving or deploying the larger base (Which is almost always dealt with through collaboration and not rules anyway), for figuring out hits for blast weapons (two base teams will have more hits), instant death ramifications for the teams, and a few other minor areas for wound allocation and the like.

Assuming the models are kept on two bases but in coherency with each other, the IG player will actually have a penalty in every way by taking more hits from blasts, while all the current rules would apply.

I would say this is a time when bending the rule can often be ok. It doesn't help the player doing it (it actually hurts him), and the impact on games is going to be negligible.

The way you know if following a rule matters is to ask the following question: "what impact does this have on how the game is played, how the game is won, and how each player is able to follow and keep track of the game." If the answer is anything more than "hardly at all," than I say let it go. For example, when moving a mob of 30 boys, most players measure the front 8 and then just move up the rest. it really doesn't matter. Moving a boy near the back 7" isn't' going to change the game, while moving the front boy more than 7" might.

The default is to follow every rule, every time. It hink that's the standard expectation, but frequently it's easier to let a few slip. The opponent of that IG player would be in his rights to point out that it's not legal, but what would it matter?

Ok, the on topioc stuff first...

So pepole who actually wanna play by the rules are drooling monstrosities? Is he drooling just the same when he sais you cant move your models 7" instead of 6, because it sais so under page 8 instead?

Actually Hellfury posted a pretty good parody of the sort of tool that would make a big issue about almost irrelevant basing issues. You would have to be pretty far gone to worry about that sort of thing. But sadly I seem to be an idiot magnet at times.
Look, I'm a very conservative guy. I'm all about the rules in most aspects of my life. But there is a difference between being respectful of the rules and being an anal retentive tool. As polonius points out, you are engaging in hyperbole here.


Now the off topic fun....

Polonius I'm not going to do an extensive point by point of your post. There are simply too many angles to use, this is an off topic aside, and to be honest I have a Daemon prince model I need to paint. So I'll just make a couple of general comments and restrict my "fisking" to just a couple of key issues.

Sadly, you seem to be the sort of 'net poster that likes to attritibute motivations and thoughts to others without any real evidence and in some cases here despite the specific comments to the contrary by the person you are discussing. I say sadly because you and I are largely in agreement on many issue and specificly in thie thread. Had you not painted a big target on your head by going after me, our exchanges would certainly be alot nicer. I learned a long time ago on USENET that long range telepathic mind reading attempts only helps to harm your own credibility.

Also your definition of a " 'net tough guy" is a bit different than mine. I tend to refer to those clowns who post things like "I wouls kick his a--" or "I would break the guy's models" as falling under that description. The behavior you are describing is just being an agressive and self assured poster....something I fully agree that I am.

Anyway....a few quick points.

The implication that I "want to play," as if you are going to school me

Actually I made the "want to play" comment because I enjoy these sorts of back and forths. A symptom of this has to be my addiction to political blogs and forums. There you go again, making assuptions in regards to the thoughts and motivations of others....

, as it was assumed that if posted publicly they would derail the thread. Which it has, of course.

Actually, YOU derailed the thread by attempting to take me to task for posting this child's PM. The PM itself was somewhat on topic.

And I did not imply that you were untruthful.

It's pretty amusing that you deny accusing me of lying in one breath and then a few lines below when discussing my presumed motivations in pointing out his typos do the very same thing again. Consistancy is your friend.

I'd ask you not to call me son,

And I would point out to you that I can call you pretty much whatever I please as long as it's not slanderous or inflamitory. I refered to you as "son" because I suspect you are much younger than me.

Anyway, that's enough right now.

Cheers.
TR

Trench-Raider wrote:

Polonius I'm not going to do an extensive point by point of your post. There are simply too many angles to use, this is an off topic aside, and to be honest I have a Daemon prince model I need to paint. So I'll just make a couple of general comments and restrict my "fisking" to just a couple of key issues.

Just because it's fun, this is one of my favorite types of rebuttals, the "there are so many things wrong but I don't have time to point them all out" kind. Even if it's true, it is often done so that people assume: 1) that you are "above" the debate, and 2) that I'm categorically incorrect.

Sadly, you seem to be the sort of 'net poster that likes to attritibute motivations and thoughts to others without any real evidence and in some cases here despite the specific comments to the contrary by the person you are discussing. I say sadly because you and I are largely in agreement on many issue and specificly in thie thread. Had you not painted a big target on your head by going after me, our exchanges would certainly be alot nicer. I learned a long time ago on USENET that long range telepathic mind reading attempts only helps to harm your own credibility.

I think everybody does this, and I'm probably guilty of my fair share. You seem to be an old hand at internet posting, in fact you point out yourself the ways in which it's easy to be misinterpreted and misread. Because of this, I'm going to assume that you know, roughly, who your posts are received. If I'd known you for longer, than I'd probably let a lot of stuff slide, but while it's wrong for me to assume motive to your posts, I would argue that if that's a problem you could instead make it clearer what your motivations are. Just like people can't say "but I was just kidding" if they didn't include any clues that it was a joke, knowing that tone and tenor don't translate on the internet is a two way street. I apologize for misinterpreting you, but if you don't want people to see you like a tough guy, there are ways to avoid posting the ways tough guys post.

Also your definition of a " 'net tough guy" is a bit different than mine. I tend to refer to those clowns who post things like "I wouls kick his a--" or "I would break the guy's models" as falling under that description. The behavior you are describing is just being an agressive and self assured poster....something I fully agree that I am.

I shouldn't have used the terms Tough Guy. I think you're right, that in common parlance your definition is closer. The term "Dakka Tough Guy" amde the rounds a few years back that was closer to my definition. I should have used "Big Dog" or something equivalent.

Anyway....a few quick points.

The implication that I "want to play," as if you are going to school me

Actually I made the "want to play" comment because I enjoy these sorts of back and forths. A symptom of this has to be my addiction to political blogs and forums. There you go again, making assuptions in regards to the thoughts and motivations of others....

You like to post like this, you call yourself an aggressive poster, and you make comments like "want to play" and "painted a target on yourself." Forgive me for being snotty, but how is that not Tough Guy behavior? By your own admission you include attitude, minor insults, and the like as part of your posting behavior. We can call it whatever we want, but it's playground stuff. If you have a point, if I made a mistake, tell me. All the posturing in the world isn't going to impress me, scare me, or make me back up off of something I think to be true. You can call it "TR being TR," but I think it's close enough Internet Tough Guy behavior to justify a judge's ruling.

, as it was assumed that if posted publicly they would derail the thread. Which it has, of course.

Actually, YOU derailed the thread by attempting to take me to task for posting this child's PM. The PM itself was somewhat on topic.

Barely. It helped show that you were a victim, but I think most people are aware that there are self important jerks that will call you out. I think it was more distracting than helpful, but you are correct in that I have been more distracting. Of course, you're reply to my reply was then even more distracting, and so on. So, my bad, but you can't really claim moral high ground either.

And I did not imply that you were untruthful.

It's pretty amusing that you deny accusing me of lying in one breath and then a few lines below when discussing my presumed motivations in pointing out his typos do the very same thing again. Consistancy is your friend.

You said: "(typos and poor formatting left intact for increased humor) "
I said: "There's also no verification that it was an actual PM, not something you fabricated. "

Admittedly, I was incorrect in saying you, when what meant was "somebody." That said, I feel that your comment, pointing out the humor in a situation was pretty close to mocking the situation, while my comment was a true statement of facts that implied, at worst, that you "may" have fabricated something. Again, I should have been clearer in stating that it's the general situation I was referring to, not your particular post. Again, I'd prefer to have a judge's ruling on this one.

I'd ask you not to call me son,

And I would point out to you that I can call you pretty much whatever I please as long as it's not slanderous or inflamitory. I refered to you as "son" because I suspect you are much younger than me.

Anyway, that's enough right now.

Cheers.
TR

And I would point out that I bent over backwards trying to explain that I didn't take that out of context. Not to try to discern your motives, but posting that makes me look like a prat that didn't like being called a name, when the context was all about how I was trying to explain why I could find it bothering but I was aware of many communities in which it was not.

And there is an argument to be made that you calling me "son" is indeed slander. Calling me son implies that you are my father, and since you are not my mother's husband, that is actually a per se violation of slander against her. Calling me illegitimate isn't per se a violation, though, but it is still slanderous, just not against me.

Obviously that's not what this is about.

Now, you make a big deal of protesting that I read motivation into your posts, which I find interesting, considering you seem to also make a big deal of your freedom to treat people with less than total respect. If I assume your motivation is to demean, insult, or to browbeat people, and you claim that you can call people what they want and are an aggressive poster, how am I reading your motivations wrong? I don't know what the word is for a person that is aggressive, self assured, and disrespectful to others, but if that's what you say you are, and that's what I accuse you of being, aren't we just agreeing? So, yeah, if it walks like a jerk and talks like a jerk and tells people it's a jerk, how am I a bad guy in assuming it's, well, a jerk?

Polonius: Evidently TR doesn't want to play anymore.

grizgrin wrote:Polonius: Evidently TR doesn't want to play anymore.

I'm assuming he has actual business to attend to. I can post while I sit through classes, and not everybody has the free time I do.

It's ok. Then we don't get his misquoting of the rule on page 3 repeated, which is a good thing.

grizgrin wrote:Polonius: Evidently TR doesn't want to play anymore.

Perhaps he needed you to troll this thread a little first.

OT: While I believe that GW should make base size a rule in 40k like it is in fantasy I do sympathise with those who feel they are being forced to rebase there miniatures. Speaking as someone who rebased a large Imperial Guard army and knows your 'pain'.

Polonius wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Polonius: Evidently TR doesn't want to play anymore.

I'm assuming he has actual business to attend to. I can post while I sit through classes, and not everybody has the free time I do.

That's a fair assumption. I have a job that lacks internet access.

In any event, it was amusing watching you crawfish away from your points and the like when confronted. So I'll be kind and allow you the last word on the issue of my reposting that PM.

Let's close it out on the the things we actually agree with: that only a real tool would make such an issue about such a minor issue as basing.

TR

Trench Raider wrote:Let's close it out on the the things we actually agree with: that only a real tool would make such an issue about such a minor issue as basing.

Quoted for Irony.

Nurglitch wrote:

Trench Raider wrote:Let's close it out on the the things we actually agree with: that only a real tool would make such an issue about such a minor issue as basing.

Quoted for Irony.

lol

Hey, if I knew you could simply declare victory and walk away, I would have done that three posts ago.

Nurglitch wrote:

Oh look. It's my second favorite Warseer banned troll. It's like old home week in here!

Polonius wrote:Hey, if I knew you could simply declare victory and walk away, I would have done that three posts ago.

You are the only one who mentioned anything about "victory", sport.
What did we say about you being the sort to put words in people's mouths? It's always fun when someone just confirms things for you like that.

Ah well. I did say I was going to be nice enough to simply let yoiu have the last word and walk away from it. So here you go.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

Trench Raider wrote:Let's close it out on the the things we actually agree with: that only a real tool would make such an issue about such a minor issue as basing.

Quoted for Irony.

Oh look. It's my second favorite Warseer banned troll. It's like old home week in here!

He got you good though didn't he!

Yes, I put words in your mouth. When a person flips me off, I figure I can put words in his mouth.

whatwhat wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

Trench Raider wrote:Let's close it out on the the things we actually agree with: that only a real tool would make such an issue about such a minor issue as basing.

Quoted for Irony.

Oh look. It's my second favorite Warseer banned troll. It's like old home week in here!

He got you good though didn't he!

That he did, it made me smile.

My stance on the "issue": I don't care. I, personally, would probably rebase my models if I absolutely had to (chances are I'd just buy the new models if it were a case like old metal termies and their bases, since new models are awesome and all), but I'm not going to expect my opponents to unless they're clearly doing it for some kind of gain. In most cases it isn't a huge issue, like my FW XV89, if anything there are more cons than pros (though honestly I can't think of any benefit for doing so, it's a crisis suit) and most people do it because it looks better and allows for more dynamic posing.

LunaHound wrote:

enmitee wrote:

LunaHound wrote:What about using forgeworld greater demons on
the GW monster base D":

i would like to know the answer to this as well, i plan on purchasing zaraknyel for a KoS. what would a base her in? her one foot on a monster base?

o_o where does it display their names? Didnt see any when i looked at the website.

If you look at them in the Imperial Armour(40K) section, it gives their names. They only have names and rules in 40K, they're just really large Greater Daemons in Fantasy.

George Spiggott wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Polonius: Evidently TR doesn't want to play anymore.

Perhaps he needed you to troll this thread a little first.

Hysterical! There's a difference between stating the obvious and trolling.

Really, not sure what I would do if it became "mandatory". Prob. do what I am doing now, since none of my regular opponents seem to care.

Hellfury wrote:

Kallbrand wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:FWIW, if I was a TO I would not allow older models on smaller bases. That's not because I am a sticler, or think it's a good rule. It's because I think there will be too much moaning from people who think older models on smaller bases are getting an unfair advantage.

Sadly, its always the whiners who win over reason...

*sees IG HW team and is agape with chagrin.*

"Muaaaaahhhhhhh... *lisp* You cant have your bases like that *lisp* thats illegal! It says here under page *slurp spit* 43 of the aforementioned codex that you must *wipes drool from lip* always have them based as a single model *lisp* on a 65.2mm base!"

*stares blankly at the 'illegal' army in front of him. Farts.*

"Clearly, *slurp spit* this army is in direct violation of this rule, and I call *scratches neckbeard* for a judge to come over and disqualify your army based on this *lisp* blatant and willful infraction."

So pepole who actually wanna play by the rules are drooling monstrosities? Is he drooling just the same when he sais you cant move your models 7" instead of 6, because it sais so under page 8 instead?
Maybe having you use the force organisation chats from the codex page 52 makes him fart even more?

Thats a pretty good way to argue without actually having anything to back up your reasoning, at least your earlier posts had the "in my opinion" part.

This was arguably one of the dumbest posts I have seen here on Dakka.

Your post is arguably one of the most uptight and sensitive I have ever seen on Dakka.
As Polonious noted, my post is pure hyperbole, but it is a direct reflection of being a dink for the sake of being a dink, and noting the rules because they are important.
The two are distinctly different entities.
Though for some being a dink for the sake of being a dink is one and the same as noting rules because they are important.

Resorting to hyperbole means you've lost all crediblity anyway. You might as well go whole hog and go for the Godwin.

This thread has run its course and is turning into a flamewar.

Locking thread.