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.

Out of interest, does the square bases effect the spacing of the models when deploying from deepstrike?

Personally i'd not be happy with the square bases, mainly because as the OP said, this guy had some of each in his army, Pick one or the other and stick to it.

I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

insaniak wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

That's just it, though... You're assuming that the player (a)is serious about having a good-looking force and (b)is going to agree with you that the square bases look bad.

Many players don't give a hoot what their army looks like... the miniatures are just markers to represent a bunch of stats. Many players don't have a problem with square bases, or a mix of square or round bases, because the base is just something to make the miniature stand up. And many players play their Daemons in both games, and don't want to take the time or effort (however much or little you may personally think it to be) or don't know how to make the bases interchangeable.

And that's entirely their right. It's their hobby too...

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

This, again, is expecting that your opponent is approaching the game from the same perspective as your own. Every player puts a different weighting on the different aspects of the 'GW hobby' ... If a player doesn't care as strongly about the modelling aspect of it as you do, that has no reflection whatsoever on whether or not they care about actually playing the game.

Exactly my point. If the opponent doesnt care, I do not have the time for them.

I obviously care more about the modelling and painting side of the hobby. I made implicit referrence to power-gamers and theory-gamers in my previous post. They are not worth a game against and most tournaments have rules which force these players to at least express some effort in order to compete.

Afterall, winning at all costs is not what a 'hobby' is about.

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

That's a fair point though I think scout bikers are the only models that currently use the long rounded base, Of course it's fair to assume they intend to eventually have all 40k cavalry and bikes on the new bases.

Actually the ork bikes now come with long rounded bases, as do the new seekers.

Sirius42 wrote:Actually the ork bikes now come with long rounded bases, as do the new seekers.

Oh I wasn't aware. I'm glad though, I like the look of those bases.

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.


I'm going to play my Daemons on square bases in both games. Mainly because I need 2-3 more boxes of Horrors to be playable in WHFB (which I'm building them for) yet I only need 5 more Horrors to have a playable 40k army. So rather than watch them gather dust I'd figure I'd use the models I brought and painted in 40k while I build them up for WHFB. Another fact being I like the Lord of Change and could use one straight away in 40k, yet have to wait until the army reaches 2000 points in WHFB before I can even consider placing it on the table.

Bikes have only had those bases in recent years. Previously, bikes in 40k had Cav bases (rectangular) for stability and combat purposes.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

You mean this model?

The one that is neither infantry or nor only on a square base? Even if for some reason it did only come with a square base it was a 50mm square base which is not used for infantry. Even in the bloodcrushers box set entry it says they come with both for use with fantasy or 40k. Looks like GW jipped you a base.

Jeez, my whole point since the beginning has been about infantry but you're not paying attention. It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"
It's okay reading is hard.

Regarding an opponent using mixed bases, well It wouldn't bother me.

I'd never do it myself mind, in fact if I wanted to have Daemons in 40K and Fantasy I'd have two armies.. but hey thats just me.

Yeah, GW see's me coming a mile away.

Ordo Dakka wrote:I can't believe everyone isn't pissed off by this. I hate it. It's against the rules and they would damn well call you on breaking a rule during the game.

Could you site the rule he's breaking?


As someone said, its finally time that deamons even came with round bases. For years it was square and nothing else. I'll have all mine on round and if/when i PLAY fantasy with them they'll just line up on a movement tray. I wont care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:I thought they came on a rectangular base, last time I checked squares are not the same as rectangles; if you're going to go if in that type of posting

Bikes don't have rectangular bases either they have sort of stretched circle bases.

Not always, thats a realtively new thing. In fact they didnt come with any bases for the longest while.

Anacrucis wrote:Questions of grammar and laziness aside, the big issue for me would be how many models can get in base-to-base with the models in question. It seems in 40k having a square base would be a disadvantage.

That was an issue in 3rd edition, but with the current assault rules allowing models to fight at full effect whether in base contact or within 2", a particular base allowing one extra model into base contact is a negligible disadvantage.

AvatarForm wrote:Exactly my point. If the opponent doesnt care, I do not have the time for them.

I obviously care more about the modelling and painting side of the hobby. I made implicit referrence to power-gamers and theory-gamers in my previous post. They are not worth a game against and most tournaments have rules which force these players to at least express some effort in order to compete.

Afterall, winning at all costs is not what a 'hobby' is about.

'WAAC player' and 'Player who doesn't particularly care about the modelling aspect of the hobby' are not automatically the same thing.

And, again, not putting the work into modelling isn't always down to not caring about it. I've come across quite a few players over the years who didn't put any effort into modelling because they thought they sucked at it, and decided it wasn't worth trying. And some just don't enjoy it, even if they do care about it.

And, as mentioned earlier, some players just won't have considered that swappable bases are an option. I would be curious as to how many people complaining about opponents with square-based models actually talked to them about the reasons for their models being so based, as opposed to just complaining about it ruining their game.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote: It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"

And now I'm hungry. Thanks a lot, dude.

As has been mentioned, GW actually doesn't really care. There isn't a rule on it (the only rule about bases is that it must be on the correct SIZE base, not shape)

I ordered some chaos space marines for some bitz for my beastmen, and I got 6 square bases and 4 circle bases.

Blame GW, not me.

Obligatory "OMG It's 3rd Edition and there are SQUARE BASES and ROUND BASES fighting" picture.

I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone mentioned the Avatar now comes on a round base - any idea what size?

BloodQuest wrote:I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.

I believe you're the one twisting the 'clear intent' of the rules. I think that the clear intent of the rule is that if you base your models on what comes in the box, you're following the rules so are fine. If they wanted to establish standard bases, they could, and did in fantasy so obviously have no problem making such a rule, so I think to any reasonable person it's obvious that the rule is intended to avoid requiring people to rebase.

Trying to take a rule that clearly, simply, and unambiguously says 'this is fine' and trying to argue that the intent of the rule is 'this is not fine' makes no sense at all. You're not the innocent victim of someone twisting the rules, you're obsessing over something most people don't care about and acting like a control freak over something that doesn't even make a significant gaming difference.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Flesh Hounds are Infantry. They come on square bases ONLY.

Nuff said.

Ummm... NO. Flesh hounds are not infantry. They are beasts which is why they are not on square bases they are on rectangular bases just like bikes, knights and other cavalry none of which are infantry. Do you know what a square is? Do you know what infantry means?

Whoops. Meant Blood Crushers.

Type: Infantry. The box I recently bought? Only square bases.

Do condescending questions that don't prove your point move the argument forward? No.
Are you off on this one? Yeah.

You mean this model?

The one that is neither infantry or nor only on a square base? Even if for some reason it did only come with a square base it was a 50mm square base which is not used for infantry. Even in the bloodcrushers box set entry it says they come with both for use with fantasy or 40k. Looks like GW jipped you a base.

Jeez, my whole point since the beginning has been about infantry but you're not paying attention. It's like I'm arguing that cheeseburgers have cheese on them and you're coming back with " but hot dogs don't"
It's okay reading is hard.

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

BloodQuest wrote:

Someone mentioned the Avatar now comes on a round base - any idea what size?

Terminator base. What's that, 40mm?

BloodQuest wrote:I'm biased because I don't like the look of square based, but once again what ticks me off is the twisting of the clear intent of the rules, justified by "it's RAW"

The rules say use the base provided. Two bases are provided. It's quite clear that the intent is that you should use round bases for 40K and square for fantasy.

Intent means nothing. In RAW, its says use the bases provided. With both round AND square provided, they did. YOU didnt like the result, and are looking for intent.

Bookwrack wrote:Given that the rules for 40 explicitly don't care about which shape base they use, and up until fairly recently quite a few models came with square bases to begin with, I don't see any reason why people would need to waste time blu-tacking anything.

+1.

If 40k rules specified a specific base shape and size, then it would be important.
As it is, such is not an issue - only certain people have an issue with it.

Don't have a problem with it.

Don't even care if he uses non-GW daemon models, tbh (and don't play in a GW - I'd rather play in lesser hives of scum and villainy.)

I stated that I had a preference for one shape, but that it was RAW vs. RAI that was an issue for me.

So, the rules say you should use the base supplied. I have to confess, I've never even noticed it, but I can see why such a rule would be in place.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:you're obsessing over something most people don't care about and acting like a control freak over something that doesn't even make a significant gaming difference.

First off, this wasn't something I'd ever even thought about before this thread came up. I'd agree that any tactical advantage of using a square base (in 40K) is marginal.

The aesthetics are the reason for my preferring sticking with one form.

carmachu wrote:YOU didnt like the result, and are looking for intent.

Really? So, 99% of 40K bases are round, but they really meant for you to use one randomly selected from the two they supplied. If it really didn't matter, why don't they just supply one base?

Even the previously rectangular bike bases have been replaced with what amounts to a stretched circular base.

So, I wouldn't for a moment expect someone that played the same models in both game systems to jury rig some bizarre multi-format base. It would seem prefectly reasonable to me, however, for them to use one shape or the other consistently.

BUT someone playing only 40K should, to my mind, use the round bases and to argue otherwise is specious.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally, from BloodCrushers' description: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

Che-Vito wrote:

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

I don't know about 40k (I don't own the codex) but in fantasy they are monstrous cavalry. And from a common sense standpoint it's a warrior riding an animal- therefore cavalry.
But this is all a moot point since Games Workshop's website states regarding the Bloodcrushers box set:

Games Workshop wrote: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

(Emphasis mine.)

Like I said before, It looks like GW jipped you on a base.


But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

AvatarForm wrote:

Bikes have only had those bases in recent years. Previously, bikes in 40k had Cav bases (rectangular) for stability and combat purposes.

Yes. And Demons have been on square bases going back to Rogue Trader. But that's not good enough either by your logic. So get to popping those bases off your bikes, because you're now doing it wrong.

Warhammer - It's THAT serious.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Read the profile. Read it, no really, read it.

"Infantry".

I don't know about 40k (I don't own the codex) but in fantasy they are monstrous cavalry. And from a common sense standpoint it's a warrior riding an animal- therefore cavalry.
But this is all a moot point since Games Workshop's website states regarding the Bloodcrushers box set:

Games Workshop wrote: The set also contains three 60mm round bases and three 50mm square bases, enabling you to assemble your Bloodcrushers for use in either warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.

(Emphasis mine.)

Wait... so you belittled him, were overall rude, and then it turns out that you didn't even have the codex to confirm the incorrect theory you had about 40k? Amazing. Also, that the set contains three square and three round bases doesn't tell me which ones I'm supposed to use. Suppose I'm starting Daemons. I'm a new player. I purchase and assemble my stuff, but then I have these two bases, which one do I use? Well, of my two friends that play, one has an old-school SM bike army that has rectangular bases, and then the other has an Eldar army, which has mostly round bases except for that big Avatar guy. I guess I'll just use the square bases. It probably doesn't matter much anyway and they look really cool when they're all lined up in a row.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
Like I said before, It looks like GW jipped you on a base.

But before my point gets muddled, All I'm really trying to say is GW intends for you to put daemons on round bases for 40k and square for fantasy. it also would not surprise me to see some of the more hardcore tournaments require basing to be as GW intends. perhaps some one who goes to tournament regularly could confirm or deny?

Adepticon, this very year. I saw at least one all-daemon army I can think of that was on square bases for 40k.
'Ard Boyz, Springfield, IL Regionals, two years ago (I believe). I didn't play, but I want to say there was also a daemon army there that had the same bases, and that one is GW sponsored.

Oh, and here is a thread from a few months ago posted in YMDC about square bases: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/310937.page

lordofcross wrote:Quite a lot of people at my local GW play chaos daemons and most of them play these guys for both 40k and fantasy now most guys at the store are quite casual gamers and don't get ticked off by unpainted models etc etc but the one thing that I take issue with is when a daemon player uses.
Lets say a unit of bloodletters 20 strong and 10 of them have square bases and the other ten have yep you guessed it circle bases as I said we're casual gamers so if I make a fuss of it the staff tend to say some bull like he plays a slaanesh army for both 40k and fantasy you don't expect him to get duplicates of everything but its not about duplicates of stuff its about if you want to use the same model for both games don't glue the dude on to a base or at the very least glue him on to one type of base and when you use it for the other game blu tack the other base on to the bottom so its the right base. Anyway rant is done just want to know if any of you agree or disagree with this and why you think this.

Yes its incredibly annoying. If I were you I'd never play miniatures again. In fact, this may be an inidicator that the difficulties of life may be a bit much for you. I'd suggest you hide in your room for a really, really long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Murray wrote:I find it annoying as the person is just plain lazy, i mean jeesh - how long does it take to pin a models foot and drill in two bases?

How long does it take to not do that, and just use the model on a single base?

Square bases make no real difference to the rules of 40K. It's only in recent years that daemons even came with round bases as an option.

Actually, for my Spawn I inserted the circular base into the square base in order to use them for both my Word Bearers and Warriors of Chaos.

It was as simple as drawing an outline and cutting. Then gluing an appropriately size piece of card to the bottom of the square base to stop the round base falling through.

If a player is serious about having a good-looking force, this is no trouble and takes about 10min for my 4 spawn. it all comes down to caring enough.

However, if your opponent does not respect his own minis enough to trouble him/herself to paint or base them appropriately, how can you expect them to respect you or the rules.

I can continue now with ad hominem but you know this type of gamer.

Actually, to keep the squads separate I use square bases for some squads and round for other squads. As they are painted similarly it helps keep the formations distinct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

Exactly. Its a nice indicator of who you don't want to play against though. If they get worked up over this, its an excellent indicator that the fun factor would be statistically nonexistent.

Do the War of the Rings movement trays work to convert 25mm circles to 25mm squares?

I probably wouldn't even notice if my opponent had funny bases mixed in. If I did my reaction would probably amount to making a bad joke about how or her units were "Squares", in the 1940s slang sense of the word.

My buddy plays with the old Ogrin characters and they came on square bases. It doesn't bother me.

If a guy has a demon army for Warhammer and 40k, I wouldn't care if he had some on square and some on round bases. Remember that a 25mm round base has an area of 0.76 square inches while a 1" square base has an area of (well) 1 square inch. The squar base will be easier to hit with a template.

However, before he brings them to a tournament, I'd check with the TO first.

KingCracker wrote:So youuve got a problem with corners? Or round things? The square bases are pretty much the same size as the round ones so whats the problem? My brothers DP for his CSM army is on its square base(since its a warhammer mini after all) Seriously, no problems.

The corners might stick out beyond the footprint of the circle?
Thereby gaining a massive millimetre advantage.

Life is too short to lose sleep over this.
Isn't that kinda oxymoronic?