When Games Workshop has changed the base sizes on older models, do you re-base?

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.

**Xerics**

I didnt start the thread.

**pretre**

Xerics wrote:
I didnt start the thread.

Fair enough, my bad for assuming.

**BarBoBot**

Xerics wrote:
Well if the bases they came with is 100% acceptable then I am going to keep my wraithguard on their 25mm bases.

100% acceptable to who? The majority of those who posted their opinins don't agree.

**Xerics**

Eihnlazer wrote:
Games workshop has stated older models can continue to use their old bases at no penalty.

They have also stated that you can use larger bases with no penalty, but cannot use smaller bases than are provided with the model.

This is where they are 100% acceptable

**pretre**

Xerics wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
Games workshop has stated older models can continue to use their old bases at no penalty.

They have also stated that you can use larger bases with no penalty, but cannot use smaller bases than are provided with the model.

This is where they are 100% acceptable

Citation needed. Where does it say in the current rules that this is true? The only thing it says is that 'The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with.'

Either way, this is a dead horse being beaten. You do not NEED to update your bases. Just as your opponent does not NEED to play with you. Really, whether you update your bases or not is entirely up to you and your opponent(s).

**Exergy**

insaniak wrote:
Xerics wrote:

Its a big seeling point that the $50 Fire Prism will be able to be used so long as the Fire Prism is in the codex. .

GW have never made any promises that a model would remain usable forever. There have been quite a few examples over the years of models being rendered obsolete by codex revisions. Ask anyone who had an original razorback in 3rd edition...

And regardless, what GW may or may not promise has little bearing on what is required in tournaments...

DE wyches use to be able to take blasters or shredders and there were models as such. I have 4, metal, hard to convert.

DE Incubi use to be able to take blaster or shredders and there were models as such. I bought up a bunch more and use them as trueborn these days.

DE had a special character Kruela Devile, with he string covered tatas. I dont know if anyone bought this, but it might still exist. She had special grenade launchers.

Vect use to be a dreadnaught like character on his raider. I suppose you can still use his model as his Dais but then the actual model for vect is a little wierd.

**pretre**

If you're talking DE, their whole model range was made obsolete by the new models. At least the new ones looked so good that the anyone who still had the old ones was ashamed to take them out anymore.

**cormadepanda**

NickOnwezen wrote:
I rebased my metal wraithguard by literally glueing the old slotta base ontop of the terminator bases to make up the diffrence between the size and the base. But in your case your opponent is plain wrong. unit coherency for a jetbike is meassured from bike to bike not flying stand to stand and thus his blast weapons are out of luck.

A flying STAND is not always treated the same BASE and the big ones give you more problems then graces.

When charging, the larger stand is a disadvantage because you cannot charge through a gap thats smaller then your base, even if that is a massive flying stand.

When you move ontop of impassible terrain. When the rule is literally you can get ontop of this aslong as the model physically fits its again a disadvantage to have a larger flying stand.

Where is the advantage here, because I don't see it. Every time it would be advantageous to have a larger base as a jetbiker those times fall away. Charge range is meassured from the bike not its stand. so no gain there. More models in contact in CC? The jetbike is bigger then the small stand and at least the eldar ones are longer and wider then the big one TOO. so it restricts the number of models in contact by the size of the model, regardless of the flying stands size.

I am going to step in here and say you are wrong. Don't have the BRB to quote perfectly with the page number, but I know it is in there.
Bikes are considered an infantry. Infantry are always measured from the base for shooting, and charging. The flying bases are used to determine hits for template and blast weapons. Bigger bases are alright at this they can fan out for better effect over smaller bases reducing hit totals. Shots are always measured from the base including the under mounted slung catapults. If you are measuring from the actual weapon placement that is incorrect., but its aesthetically correct. While LOS shooting is drawn from the model.

Incase you attempt to say the tank is drawn from the base argument. Some where it says all tank weapons draw LOS from the weapon and are measured from the tip of the barrel of the weapon.

Just had to sum that up for you.

As for the base rules I still use my second edition grazathrakaskull. That beat stick is barely bigger than an Ork boy same size base too.

**Talizvar**

1) If the models were supplied with the bases, that is what is used (or a fancy base of same diameter).

2) "Courtesy" to upgrade could be interpreted either way depending on the moment so you really cant win with this one.

3) There are advantages and disadvantages to any given size: 1" terminators sure fit under a template better BUT sure can get more into melee so it should even out in the end.

I have such a mix of new and old that you get the base it came with and that is "official" do not make me slap TFG reading into wrong. I love playing my original (3!) tiny obliterators on the 1" base!

This is a hard one to get into the "modeling for advantage" since it has no clear advantage and the rule is pretty simple. You could say "am I more worried about templates or getting more guys in melee?" that is about as fine as it gets.

**Quark**

I'm a bit sad this discussion got sidetracked into a clear "model used to be X base, but is now Y base". Jetbikes don't fall under that category - they still sell with both small (3x box) and large (1x box) flying bases.

**pretre**

Quark wrote:
Jetbikes don't fall under that category - they still sell with both small (3x box) and large (1x box) flying bases.

Actually, jetbikes can fall under that category. The old ones came with plastic Hex bases.

**insaniak**

pretre wrote:
IMO, you should update bases as they change. That's just my opinion though. It is part of the game and the hobby. There is no requirement but it is a courtesy to your opponents.

Not only is there no requirement, it's specifically against the rules.Which would seem to belie the 'part of the hobby' claim...

**pretre**

insaniak wrote:
pretre wrote:
IMO, you should update bases as they change. That's just my opinion though. It is part of the game and the hobby. There is no requirement but it is a courtesy to your opponents.

Not only is there no requirement, it's specifically against the rules.Which would seem to belie the 'part of the hobby' claim...

How is it against the rules? Do you mean because there is no allowance to use a different base than the one that was originally included with the model? I think you'll find that the vast majority of assembly and modelling topics are against the rules. There are no rules, for example, that allow you to assemble your models, paint them, convert them or model them in any way other than gluing them to the base. Playing with a bunch of uncut sprues on bases isn't a lot of fun though.

The hobby is not the rules, as I'm sure you know.

**Talizvar**

pretre wrote:
How is it against the rules? Do you mean because there is no allowance to use a different base than the one that was originally included with the model?

That is what it specifically states in the rules as RAW.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of assembly and modelling topics are against the rules.

Broad generalization, there are some modeling for advantage (like prone posed models but there are drawbacks as well: reduced line of sight) troop models have few options to go wrong, vehicles a few more but addressed in rule book.

There are no rules, for example, that allow you to assemble your models, paint them, convert them or model them in any way other than gluing them to the base. Playing with a bunch of uncut sprues on bases isn't a lot of fun though.

They like to allow you to field everything from a "Venus de Milo (no arms and unpainted)" model to decked out with a 6" high dynamic looking base (as long as it is the right diameter!). Agreed, the half assembled "chrome or grey legion" are not well received by an opponent.

The hobby is not the rules, as I'm sure you know.

???? "The hobby" is model building (with some conversion), painting and playing the tabletop war game. A game has rules mutually agreed upon by the players. If you actually play the game, it IS the rules that define it, as I'm sure you know...

**pretre**

Talizvar wrote:
pretre wrote:
How is it against the rules? Do you mean because there is no allowance to use a different base than the one that was originally included with the model?
That is what it specifically states in the rules as RAW.

Quote please.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of assembly and modelling topics are against the rules.
Broad generalization, there are some modeling for advantage (like prone posed models but there are drawbacks as well: reduced line of sight) troop models have few options to go wrong, vehicles a few more but addressed in rule book.

**Homer S**

The rules such as they are are found on page 3 of the BRB,

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." SNIP "... you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."

So I can use my original Avatar right?

Homer

**pretre**

Homer S wrote:
The rules such as they are are found on page 3 of the BRB,

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." SNIP "... you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."

So I can use my original Avatar right?

Homer

That says that you can use the model on the base they are supplied with. I was asking how it is against the rules to change that base, which is what I was responding to. (Insaniak's post where he said it was against the rules to change bases from the ones that were supplied with the model.)

Yes, of course, you can use your RT avatar, skateboard trukks, original bases for terminators, etc. I have never disputed that. Whether you should or not is a different matter.

**Xerics**

I think you should be able to use the original bases and there should be no problems with it at all. They are akin to antiques the same way older cars that didnt have seatbelts installed in them can't get you in trouble with the law because there are no seatbelts.

**pretre**

Xerics wrote:
They are akin to antiques the same way older cars that didnt have seatbelts installed in them can't get you in trouble with the law because there are no seatbelts.

That's a great example!

Is it legal in some places? Yes, absolutely.
Is it encouraged? No, it is generally frowned upon.
Is it a good idea to have seatbelts installed, even in your older cars? Yes.

Example: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2008/10/24/are-classic-cars-required-to-have-seatbelts/

Is it legal to play with 'legacy' based models? Yes, absolutely.
Is it encouraged? No.
Is it a good idea to update those bases as a courtesy to your opponents? Yes.

I think we've tortured that comparison enough now.

**insaniak**

pretre wrote:
[That says that you can use the model on the base they are supplied with. I was asking how it is against the rules to change that base, which is what I was responding to. (Insaniak's post where he said it was against the rules to change bases from the ones that were supplied with the model.)

It's against the rules because there is no rule that allows it. The rules simply assume that you are using the base the miniature was supplied with.

In many cases, players won't have a problem with you updating your bases, and in some cases will even prefer it... but it's not actually allowed by the game's rules. It's a bit of a grey area ultimately, though, since as we've seen with things like Imperial Guard heavy weapons, it seems that GW write the rules on the assumption that you are using the current version of the model anyway. They don't really address what to do if you are using old models that have been replaced by newer models that function substantially differently.

**pretre**

insaniak wrote:
It's against the rules because there is no rule that allows it. The rules simply assume that you are using the base the miniature was supplied with.

In many cases, players won't have a problem with you updating your bases, and in some cases will even prefer it... but it's not actually allowed by the game's rules. It's a bit of a grey area ultimately, though, since as we've seen with things like Imperial Guard heavy weapons, it seems that GW write the rules on the assumption that you are using the current version of the model anyway. They don't really address what to do if you are using old models that have been replaced by newer models that function substantially differently.

Right, this is what I was responding to. My counter-point to was that there is also no rule which allows you to assemble, paint or convert your minis. The rules simply assume that you have done so.

**Da krimson barun**

If you put them on a new base its like putting them on the golden throne.They are there but..just look REALLY old.They were supplied with that base weren't they?And the rules say use the base that they are supplied with. GW can't even decide what base to put their models on at this point.

**insaniak**

pretre wrote:
Right, this is what I was responding to. My counter-point to was that there is also no rule which allows you to assemble, paint or convert your minis. The rules simply assume that you have done so.

How is that a counter-point?

The rules assume that you are using the base that the mini was supplied with. The fact that the rules don't specifically address assembly beyond that statement doesn't change that statement.

**pretre**

insaniak wrote:
pretre wrote:
Right, this is what I was responding to. My counter-point to was that there is also no rule which allows you to assemble, paint or convert your minis. The rules simply assume that you have done so.

How is that a counter-point?

The rules assume that you are using the base that the mini was supplied with. The fact that the rules don't specifically address assembly beyond that statement doesn't change that statement.

I am not saying your statement is incorrect. I am providing other examples of things that the rules do not allow you to do but that are pretty necessary to play 40k with other people.

**Talizvar**

I supplied parts for automotive.

We had a great rule for parts:
If the part looks good and fit, it is OK, ship it.
If either two points do not apply, it better be in specification.

I feel this argument is a bit silly because if anyone spent a little effort to make the base look good and does not look like an exploit: it is good to go. If it looks bad or modeling for advantage: it better be as per GW rule.

I think the real question is give a nasty example of a base being very wrong that someone would try to use. Put one nergling onto a 1" base and make 8 of them (same with ripper swarms, scarabs)??

**xole**

I have a forgeworld great unclean one and a normal boring great unclean one. One gets an oval base and one gets the 60mm base. No one has had a problem yet.

To answer the question, no I wouldn't rebase my models.