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.

Sol wrote:
If someone moved 6 inches then pivoted on center so that the corner gained movement then that is cheating because they have moved greater then 6 inches.

This is true for movment, yes, but if they turn in the shooting phase "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase" pg. 11, then it's totally legal.

LoS - I havent missed your point.

Your point is: ignore the rules, ask for consent
My point is: the rules state I dont *need* to rely on consent. Same as I dont need to rely on consent in order to take 2 HQ choices. Or to field a havoc launcher rhino.

THAT is my point. Why do you expect to be able to field 2 HQs without asking consent, yet are attempting to say the "big picture" is that I need consent to field entirely, 100% legally based models. That is utter, utter gak.

I'm done with you, as you acknowledge you have no rules backing and continue to belittle others by your insistence that they ask permission to do something the rules already say they can do.

Bookwrack wrote:
Well, that's regrettable. I thought I'd be charitable and attribute your stance to simple ignorance, but if you're going to gleefully display that you have absolutely no excuse... My fault for giving you the rope, but I take no responsibility for you making a noose of it and sticking your neck through.

Since you've shown that in a rule discussion thread you're going to completely disregard or deliberately misunderstand the rulebook and aptly demonstrated that its not lack of experience to blame, there's really nothing else for you.

Wow, you are filled with irony. I really don't think you read my posts carefully, or those of anyone else for that matter. It really looks like your orientating yourself into this discussion by reading bits and peaces. For all your clever subtleties you actually seem to lack any knowledge of where this conversation went, its almost embarrassing and borderline desultory. You're so bent on displaying vague clues linked to obsolete models when the discussion went far past interpretations. Try to keep up and stick more to the point next time. I personally should have done the same, it would have saved you your confusion.

How about everyone lays off the personal attacks and sticks to the actual topic, hmm?

nosferatu1001 wrote:LoS - I havent missed your point.

Your point is: ignore the rules, ask for consent
My point is: the rules state I dont *need* to rely on consent. Same as I dont need to rely on consent in order to take 2 HQ choices. Or to field a havoc launcher rhino.

THAT is my point. Why do you expect to be able to field 2 HQs without asking consent, yet are attempting to say the "big picture" is that I need consent to field entirely, 100% legally based models. That is utter, utter gak.

I'm done with you, as you acknowledge you have no rules backing and continue to belittle others by your insistence that they ask permission to do something the rules already say they can do.

You are being stunningly ignorant. You also bluntly took my point out of context, however its good enough.

No, you don't need to rely on consent. However you may yet learn that courtesy can be a more useful tool than the rulebook, especially for rules that lack specificity and are open for interpretation. Such as this one we are discussing here. Maybe for you in your mind it seems so very clear cut. Their must be something feeding this illusion such as you proving it to people you might have considered very competent. For me, its absolutely exhausting at this point. Ironically our exchange has taken up very similar characteristics to official 40k bases.

I have tried hard to break the hostility, but your persistence has failed to even understand that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:How about everyone lays off the personal attacks and sticks to the actual topic, hmm?

I second that. Some common ground is due.



Ehhh, come on. . I love you guys.

ChrisCP wrote:

Sol wrote:
If someone moved 6 inches then pivoted on center so that the corner gained movement then that is cheating because they have moved greater then 6 inches.

This is true for movment, yes, but if they turn in the shooting phase "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase" pg. 11, then it's totally legal.

Yea you are correct, but also if you just pivot then you are not moving over 6 inches. Everything in the codex is assault so no cheating there. My point is some people are trying to say you gain movement with a square base, but that is impossible unless you are cheating. So my point is the square base has no ill effect on the game only ill people effect the game in a bad way. Square bases are fine and don't negatively effect the game in any way. If you have, or had an issue with a Daemon player with squares bases then put the blame where it belongs, on that player for cheating. People shouldn't be trying to cause aggravation for good players over a none issue, when playing the game correctly, that is a legal option for your army.

Ah slightly misread your post lol. Yea you are still right, but I guess I haven't had that come up since I usually move in a direction of what I plan on shooting, and have never had to pivot in a shooting phase.

LordofSteel wrote:You are being stunningly ignorant.

I thought you were laying off the personal attacks?

LordofSteel wrote:No, you don't need to rely on consent. However you may yet learn that courtesy can be a more useful tool than the rulebook, especially for rules that lack specificity and are open for interpretation.

"You may yet learn" - can you be any more condescending?

This forum is not a real game
This forum is a place to discuss rules.
I have discussed the rules, you have persisted in NOT discussing the rules. You have also broken, repeatedly, the tenets of this forum - most notably in that you have yet to provide any BACKING to your argument, from the rulebook.

LordofSteel wrote: Such as this one we are discussing here. Maybe for you in your mind it seems so very clear cut. Their must be something feeding this illusion such as you proving it to people you might have considered very competent. For me, its absolutely exhausting at this point. Ironically our exchange has taken up very similar characteristics to official 40k bases.

I have tried hard to break the hostility, but your persistence has failed to even understand that.

Yet your continue to insult anyone who does not hold the same view as you.

You have no rules argument that says this rule is not clear cut. The closest you have come to even attempting a rules argument, rather than pushing your own idea of the game onto others, is when you totally and unutterably distorted the very clear directive on page 3 so it says somethign entirely different to what it actually says.

Place the model on the base it is supplied with. If the model is supplied with a square base this means you can put it on the square base

Simple. SHocking, amazingly simple. Yet apparently it doesnt mean that - it just means put it on a circular base, according to your "interpretation".

An Angel wrote:Hey guys, it's Christmas, the time of peace on Earth and good will to all men.

How about letting a bit of that Christmas spirit into the forum?

Back on topic.

I played an entire army of Daemons on square bases last weekend. They were all old skool models that came on square bases.

Conversely, nearly my whole army was on illegal bases, because I moulded my own Termagant bases, and rebased a lot of my larger creatures because they fell over when based on the official bases.

It didn't make any difference to the game.

LordofSteel wrote:I honestly feel like no one reads my posts thoroughly because I am repeating myself. They are supplied with both square and circle bases.
Their is no rule specifically for the use of square bases in the rulebook, people are using the rule that models must be based as a rule that they can use square bases.

There is no rule specifically for the use of round bases either. The only description we have of bases in general is that they are "plastic".

LordofSteel wrote:You are more interesting in being right than you are in finding common ground which is the only way this debate could possibly end.

It could also end with you producing rules to back up your opinion. Or with you acknowledging that there are no such rules.

insaniak wrote:For what it's worth, people often get riled when they're accused of deliberately abusing the rules just because you don't agree with their interpretation. Quite a lot of the time, the people who disagree with you aren't doing so purely to gain themselves some sort of in-game advantage... they're just doing so because they disagree with you.

This concept seems lost on much of the YMDC board and should be a requirement to say ten times before posting.

I can say this much, if your opponent doesn't care about your basing than go for it. But don't expect everyone to not care. It's kinda like proxying, but you're proxying the base- some folks will only play WYSIWYG. Also, I'd say best of luck taking a model with the wrong base into a tournament, or campaign.
If you ask me since the shape and size of the base has a direct impact on certain rules, then common sense (I know- an uncommon virtue) should dictate that you can't or at least really really shouldn't use a different size or shape base or bases.
Also since the model comes with the base, and additional bases are cheap as dirt, why is this such an issue?

MisterMoon wrote:I can say this much, if your opponent doesn't care about your basing than go for it. But don't expect everyone to not care. It's kinda like proxying, but you're proxying the base- some folks will only play WYSIWYG. Also, I'd say best of luck taking a model with the wrong base into a tournament, or campaign.
If you ask me since the shape and size of the base has a direct impact on certain rules, then common sense (I know- an uncommon virtue) should dictate that you can't or at least really really shouldn't use a different size or shape base or bases.
Also since the model comes with the base, and additional bases are cheap as dirt, why is this such an issue?

Mine had square bases.

MisterMoon wrote:I can say this much, if your opponent doesn't care about your basing than go for it. But don't expect everyone to not care. It's kinda like proxying, but you're proxying the base- some folks will only play WYSIWYG. Also, I'd say best of luck taking a model with the wrong base into a tournament, or campaign.
If you ask me since the shape and size of the base has a direct impact on certain rules, then common sense (I know- an uncommon virtue) should dictate that you can't or at least really really shouldn't use a different size or shape base or bases.
Also since the model comes with the base, and additional bases are cheap as dirt, why is this such an issue?

Did you read a single post in the thread? The only guidance given is 'use what's in the box.' Both square and round bases are in the box, so you can choose. The only conflict is Lord of Storms being deliberately dense. There is no 'wrong' and I've never encountered a tournament or campaign event where anyone gave two gaks about square-based Daemons.

LordofSteel wrote:

You are being stunningly ignorant. You also bluntly took my point out of context, however its good enough.

No, you don't need to rely on consent. However you may yet learn that courtesy can be a more useful tool than the rulebook, especially for rules that lack specificity and are open for interpretation. Such as this one we are discussing here. Maybe for you in your mind it seems so very clear cut. Their must be something feeding this illusion such as you proving it to people you might have considered very competent. For me, its absolutely exhausting at this point. Ironically our exchange has taken up very similar characteristics to official 40k bases.

I have tried hard to break the hostility, but your persistence has failed to even understand that.

Well there you go. As a lateccomer to the argument, and an emotionally uninvested third party, I will attempt a paraphrase.

Point 1-
By the rulebook, one can play with whatever bases are provided in the kit regardless of their size or shape- even if that means the cardboard Ork dreadnought!

Point 2-
If your kit provided unusual bases (like small terminator bases, square avatars, or square daemons) it would be nice, but not necessary, to see if your opponent is ok with it before you play, much as you would explain what your classic rogue trader models are armed with if they differ from their contemporary equivalents.

Conclusion- You can play with the bases you were provided with. Although you do not have to, it would be nice to let your opponent know what you are doing and why you are doing it.

I hope that these are points we can all agree to, gentlemen and gentlewomen.

Im guna toss this out there: This topic is starting to get off-topic... My original question was whether people would mind if they played against a daemon army with square bases. Learning that, though its not against the rules it is iffy was also helpful, and i thank you all for your help. I got the information i need and know how i will play daemons in both games, Thanks for all your help.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Point 1-
By the rulebook, one can play with whatever bases are provided in the kit regardless of their size or shape- even if that means the cardboard Ork dreadnought!

Well, if I were to use this interpretation of the rule I could then put Necron Warriors on 40mm bases, and Scarab Swarms on 25mm bases just because they both come in the box.

It is as Mannahnin said before.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, there is legitimately an ambiguity in being supplied two different types of bases.

The rulebook does not give you any specific guidance for what to do in this situation.

While I believe the instruction given is sufficient to allow the use of the square bases, I really don't think that they're in the box because they're supposed to be an option for 40k.

While we collectively agree that if your Captain somehow comes with a 40mm or a Dreadnought base in his box, that technically it is within the letter of the law to use him on it, we all accept that it is obviously not GW's intent for him to be fielded on a Dreadnought base. So why pretend that there is a bright and shining line between that situation and the square vs. round issue?

People have been so focused on the fact that I have no rule backing up my argument, that they really failed to understand my argument was that they have no rule backing them up. The rule is obviously there for brand new players to understand that they cannot play with models that don't have any bases on them, if the kit in fact did intend them to. IE, you cant have a tactical squad without any bases. People are just making a far too literal over-interpretation of that rule, and use it as more of an excuse than a reason as to why they put their models on square bases.

I only suggest the oldest trick in the book, and that is courteousness. Far more solid than debating with your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarrKing wrote:Im guna toss this out there: This topic is starting to get off-topic... My original question was whether people would mind if they played against a daemon army with square bases. Learning that, though its not against the rules it is iffy was also helpful, and i thank you all for your help. I got the information i need and know how i will play daemons in both games, Thanks for all your help.

I apologize if I created a debate that lead off the topic. My initial intent was to give you my 2 cents on the question. I hope some of my input or advice was of use to you.

LordofSteel wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:

Point 1-
By the rulebook, one can play with whatever bases are provided in the kit regardless of their size or shape- even if that means the cardboard Ork dreadnought!

Well, if I were to use this interpretation of the rule I could then put Necron Warriors on 40mm bases, and Scarab Swarms on 25mm bases just because they both come in the box.

It is as Mannahnin said before.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, there is legitimately an ambiguity in being supplied two different types of bases.

The rulebook does not give you any specific guidance for what to do in this situation.

While I believe the instruction given is sufficient to allow the use of the square bases, I really don't think that they're in the box because they're supposed to be an option for 40k.

While we collectively agree that if your Captain somehow comes with a 40mm or a Dreadnought base in his box, that technically it is within the letter of the law to use him on it, we all accept that it is obviously not GW's intent for him to be fielded on a Dreadnought base. So why pretend that there is a bright and shining line between that situation and the square vs. round issue?

People have been so focused on the fact that I have no rule backing up my argument, that they really failed to understand my argument was that they have no rule backing them up.

I disagree with this conclusion. They HAVE a rule backing them up. The rulebook explicitly gives them permission to use the bases provided in the box.

That being said, it might be better to focus on the possible negative repercussions of just abiding by that, without inferring any other guidance. I suspect that the Scarabs vs. Warriors argument fails because there are assembly instructions in the kit. Insaniak pointed this out before, in regards to terminator boxes coming with a single 25mm base for the teleport homer model.

The Daemons issue is a little more nuanced, as the kit clearly comes with both so that they can sell one kit to service both rules systems. One can reasonably argue that the 40k rules allow either to be used, but the intent when talking about a new kit, is clearly that one set of bases is for one system and one for the other.

LordofSteal; you do not have permission to play me at all! Take your round bases and get out .



Fun aside, while you constantly call for common ground, you refuse to move from your own; creating this here dead lock.


Did you stop to think for a moment that if my models were supplied with square bases and I changed them
to round bases that I would THEN require your permission to use those models by RAW. Because quite simply I have changed
the base that the model was supplied with, EVEN if it is to one that is more commonly used, I still changed
the base.


Simple response to those concerned with square bases having the 1/4" advance is that you play it that the flat edge must always
face the intended target ((similar to turrets)). This SHOULD prevent people from simply twisting the model to gain that advantage
because it changes what its intending to target and SINCE the 1/4" advance is MOSTLY taken advantage of for assaulting, it makes
no sense for the model to be looking away anyway.




You guys what to know what's really fun? I bought a bane blade used, and it came with a flying stand for a Valkyrie in it! By
RAW I gotta base it on it ((I'm not going to cause it'd be silly)) but we do have a picture of a Russ sitting on the same stand
because we were laughing about a conversation exactly like this one and having some fun[i][u]. You know, that thing
this thread forgot what this game is SUPPOSED to be .

WarrKing wrote:Im guna toss this out there: This topic is starting to get off-topic... My original question was whether people would mind if they played against a daemon army with square bases. Learning that, though its not against the rules it is iffy was also helpful, and i thank you all for your help. I got the information i need and know how i will play daemons in both games, Thanks for all your help.

No problem!

And, don't worry about the arguments happening. Sometimes, the simplest of questions can start an avalanche. Don't try and stop the avalanche, just get out of the way.

I agree with Mannahnin. There can be little doubt that the RAI is for round bases to be used for 40k. As written, the rules support any bases in the box. As more of a fan of RAW, I'd happily play daemons on squares or circles.

Often, the intentions of the writers are difficult to discern and are far more susceptible to being twisted to favor the person arguing. RAW may be exploited, but it can generally only be exploited in one way. Intentions can be tweaked to any interpretation that you'd like.

I guess I was wrong about this one. I did find a picture of a Chaos creature on a square base in the 40k rule book. Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this or not...

Dracheous wrote:LordofSteal; you do not have permission to play me at all! Take your round bases and get out .

How dare you call me by my full name Square!

Dracheous wrote:Fun aside, while you constantly call for common ground, you refuse to move from your own; creating this here dead lock.

I have tried to find common ground. I dropped my argument that the rule was not as solid as people were making it out to be, in the sake of finding common ground. I then emphasized that I was only giving suggestions as to what would be a good approach. Those suggestions being courteousness. Surprisingly people had a hard time agreeing that asking your opponents consent was possible alternative than to prove to him he has none. Then people seemed to totally forget I had previously given an argument on the rules of page 3, so I had to bring it up again. I think my tone has lead new comers to this topic to believe I am unfair and wrong. However I cannot stress enough how hard I have tried to drop the argument by merely giving my more than reasonable suggestions. Although, people are bent on proving me wrong.

I can't find common ground because I am so greatly misunderstood.

Dracheous wrote:Did you stop to think for a moment that if my models were supplied with square bases and I changed them
to round bases that I would THEN require your permission to use those models by RAW. Because quite simply I have changed
the base that the model was supplied with, EVEN if it is to one that is more commonly used, I still changed
the base.

You don't require my permission. I only suggest that people take the approach of asking consent rather that the approach of proving to your opponent he has none, if he questions its legitimacy. I have said before, I personally don't care if someone uses square bases. In fact I think that is the 8th time I've said it.

MisterMoon wrote:I guess I was wrong about this one. I did find a picture of a Chaos creature on a square base in the 40k rule book. Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this or not...

Not surprising since there are 40K models still being supplied with square bases only (e.g. flesh hounds)

Mannahnin wrote: I suspect that the Scarabs vs. Warriors argument fails because there are assembly instructions in the kit.

Ah, my question was finally acknowledged. Something I considered well before I brought it up. This will come down to one thing, I hope you have one handy. Try to find, say the BloodLetter instructions kit. Does the instructions give a picture of a model being put on a square base, a circle base, or both.



We will settle this once and for all.

To make this simple, and to find common ground, I agree to forfeit my argument if someone can give me a full screen shot of the instruction sheet. Given that it clearly shows you must use the square base. -edit; Or even both the square and the circle. If however it only shows a circle, I stand by my argument. Or I will field Necron warriors on 40mm bases.

May the best shape win.


-Last Edit. This obviously has to be the up to date models for Chaos Deamons. Such as the new Blood letters.

LordofSteel wrote:We will settle this once and for all.

To make this simple, and to find common ground, I agree to forfeit my argument if someone can give me a full screen shot of the instruction sheet. Given that it clearly shows you must use the square base. -edit; Or even both the square and the circle. If however it only shows a circle, I stand by my argument. Or I will field Necron warriors on 40mm bases.

May the best shape win.

There is no need to show instruction sheets, because the rulebook allows you to use square bases, if your models were supplied with them.

A more interesting/relevant question is:

What about cav models that were supplied with cavalry bases, but it became acceptable to mount them on 40mm round bases for consistency during 3rd and 4th ed? Now with 5th ed and rounded bike bases, how does the whole situation resolve itself?

For example, would someone be opposed to mounting fenrisian wolves on 40mm round bases, square cav bases, or rounded bike bases?

Also, Mannahin, In reference to your fiends question, aren't Fiends mounted on 50mm square bases in fantasy, and 40mm rounds in 40k?

LoS, in courtesy there's no need for a photo. There's no reason not to take someone's word if we're being friendly.

I have a few new daemon kit boxes handy. The Bloodletter assembly instructions actually don't show the model being put on the base, though the front of the sheet shows them on squares only. The back of the box shows them on both; same with the Daemonettes.

whitedragon wrote:

LordofSteel wrote:We will settle this once and for all.

To make this simple, and to find common ground, I agree to forfeit my argument if someone can give me a full screen shot of the instruction sheet. Given that it clearly shows you must use the square base. -edit; Or even both the square and the circle. If however it only shows a circle, I stand by my argument. Or I will field Necron warriors on 40mm bases.

May the best shape win.

There is no need to show instruction sheets, because the rulebook allows you to use square bases, if your models were supplied with them.

Again, my attempt to settling things and find common ground has been ignored.

Their is need, because I raised the question if I can put Necron Warriors on Scarab Swarm bases since they come in the same box. Someone said no. Because the assembly instructions clearly state how to make the models.

Therefor, if my example has contradictions between the rules and the assembly instructions. Then so can Blood letters.

Lets be honest anyway, chances are I'm going to lose.

whitedragon wrote:What about cav models that were supplied with cavalry bases, but it became acceptable to mount them on 40mm round bases for consistency during 3rd and 4th ed? Now with 5th ed and rounded bike bases, how does the whole situation resolve itself?

For example, would someone be opposed to mounting fenrisian wolves on 40mm round bases, square cav bases, or rounded bike bases?

Also, Mannahin, In reference to your fiends question, aren't Fiends mounted on 50mm square bases in fantasy, and 40mm rounds in 40k?

Interesting questions indeed!

Fiends are on 40mm in both systems; just different shapes. Bloodcrushers are on 50mm squares in WH & 60mm rounds in 40k. Thus being more of a pain to deal with. Bloodcrushers and Greater Daemons are the biggest issues with basing for cross-compatibility.

Cavalry are a significant open issue; they still come with the old rectangular cavalry/bike bases, though bikes now come with the new elongated base with rounded ends. I think people are generally open to any of those options in 40k.

Mannahnin wrote:LoS, in courtesy there's no need for a photo. There's no reason not to take someone's word if we're being friendly.

I have a few new daemon kit boxes handy. The Bloodletter assembly instructions actually don't show the model being put on the base, though the front of the sheet shows them on squares only. The back of the box shows them on both; same with the Daemonettes.

Well a picture would have been more fun. If the Necrons assembly instructions are equally as vague, then perhaps I can field warriors on 40mm bases, or scarabs on 25mm. I hope one can see this does feed to the illegitimacy of using page 3.

Regardless, I'll stick to my word. If the front of the sheet does show them on square bases, I forfeit my argument. This picture though, does it consistently match the other instructional pictures, or is it a picture of a real model, or maybe a color picture. Just to get some clarity.

The whole instruction sheet is in black & white. The pic on the front is of completed models. The back is a series of diagrams showing how the pieces go together, but leaving out the bases. I suspect that the Necron instructions probably include the bases, but I don't have Necron kits to check.

The photos on the back of the box are in color.