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.

I think you're going to have to explain just how following the actual rules in the rulebook makes someone a cheater.

FratHammer wrote:

Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.

If you buy a blister pack of old metal Terminators today (assuming you can find a store that still has them), they will still come with the same 25mm bases that they would have if you bought them 20 years ago.

And I notice you didn't address my question about the same model coming with different sized bases simultaneously. The Eldar jetbike for a time came with either a small flight base or a large flight base, depending on whether you bought is as a single bike or as a squadron.

So is someone using the small bases in that situation cheating? How exactly does this fit into your black and white view of the basing rules?

FratHammer wrote:
As I have said a couple times, take your time updating your bases. They cost a couple dollars and time, so I don't expect you to do it immediately. At the point when people start asking you why your model is on a 25mm instead of a 32mm or a 40mm as in the case of terminators and mega nobs. I feel at that point you're holding onto the past for to long. No one, I think it's going to argue it needs to be immediate (even though I corrected mine immediately) but, for example, if you run 10 mega nobs in a BW (which is not tactical) with old bases, if it was blown up, maybe, just maybe, you could fit them all inside the area it once took up. Now? With the larger bases its impossible. If that event ever comes up and you sigh in relief that your bases are smaller, you're a bloody cheater.

If that unit of 10 assault terminators charge and you think, man if I had larger bases it would have prevented me from getting within 2"of my nearest cc model, good thing I use my out of date tiny bases, you're a cheater.

If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater.

Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater.

If you're a casual, fun guy/gal who loves this game and is strapped for cash or love the old looks? You're not a cheater.

Keep in mind, I'd never call someone out on it. I'd never complain. Not even at a tournament. I would assume the breast in my opponents intentions. If inside though, you feel like you've gotten away with something... Well, you know what you're doing, and you know what you are.

Again for those who asked, it's not a time thing, it's an as soon as you feel lucky you bought it before the new set thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.

I don't normally say this due to different people having different interpretations on thing and my opinion that everyone's thoughts matter but...

You are wrong. Not only are you wrong rules wise, but you are wrong on a social level. I personally would never play with anyone that calls me a cheater for doing things so simple as not shelling out money for something I already paid for and I would be very vocal against you in any situation.

Your definition of cheating is insulting, and I implore you to provide any form of evidence to support your assertions of cheating and demonstrate them to me. That or use logic and convince me of your opinion, as I would love to hear it.

But I will not submit to your opinion on the matter just because.

FratHammer wrote:
As I have said a couple times, take your time updating your bases. They cost a couple dollars and time, so I don't expect you to do it immediately. At the point when people start asking you why your model is on a 25mm instead of a 32mm or a 40mm as in the case of terminators and mega nobs. I feel at that point you're holding onto the past for to long. No one, I think it's going to argue it needs to be immediate (even though I corrected mine immediately) but, for example, if you run 10 mega nobs in a BW (which is not tactical) with old bases, if it was blown up, maybe, just maybe, you could fit them all inside the area it once took up. Now? With the larger bases its impossible. If that event ever comes up and you sigh in relief that your bases are smaller, you're a bloody cheater.

If that unit of 10 assault terminators charge and you think, man if I had larger bases it would have prevented me from getting within 2"of my nearest cc model, good thing I use my out of date tiny bases, you're a cheater.

If you go online, to buy old terminators on small bases or model your new ones on 25mm and claim, "that's what they came with" you're a cheater.

Look up people complaining about old ork trukks or any other model whose size has more than doubled, and if you're buying and using those models, or those bases, for a quantifiable advantage, you're a cheater.

If you're a casual, fun guy/gal who loves this game and is strapped for cash or love the old looks? You're not a cheater.

Keep in mind, I'd never call someone out on it. I'd never complain. Not even at a tournament. I would assume the breast in my opponents intentions. If inside though, you feel like you've gotten away with something... Well, you know what you're doing, and you know what you are.

Again for those who asked, it's not a time thing, it's an as soon as you feel lucky you bought it before the new set thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of and I agree with the guy who comes in who mentioned the based they ARE supplied with, not WERE supplied with.

So, to clarify, I'm not a cheater on Monday, but then on Tuesday when I realize that smaller bases can occassionally be useful in game, I become a cheater? Just trying to understand your thought process.

Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made. I get that you see a difference in words. I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating. I get it. But we are reading the same words and understanding the wording differently.

To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?

And Kris, you know now that you have an advantage when you use smaller bases than your model is suppose to use. If you go to eBay and buy a bunch of older boxes of a unit to field all your termies/mega nobs or BAs with small bases to then utilize that advantage in friendly play or tournament play, you're a cheater. What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?

Laziness= not cheating
Costs to much to update= not cheating
Not enough time= not cheating
Don't want to= not cheating

Modeling for advantage, or purposely swapping bases for a quantifiable advantage that you know you're receiving due to outdated models, bases, gw screwups = cheating.

To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model? Problem solved. Which one should you have used? The one you didn't want to so you weren't gaining an advantage against your opponent just because the game company was sloppy.

FratHammer wrote:
Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made.

The base that comes out of the box with the model is the base it is supplied with.

I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating.

Your guess would be wrong. I disagree with you because I think you're reading it incorrectly, not because your interpretation would inconvenience me. Even if the rules did require re-basing to the current standard, I wouldn't bother doing it for most of my models.

What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?

The part where, again, you're claiming that people are cheating by following the rules...

To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model?

The jetbike was just an example... I have no idea whether they still sell them with both bases, to be honest. That's not the point, though. The point is that a rule that requires you to use the 'current' base would be nonsensical when the model is sold simultaneously with more than one sized base.

FratHammer wrote:
Again, buying an old model is just that. It is not the base that unit is supplied with its what it was supplied with when it was made. I get that you see a difference in words. I get that you refuse to attempt to accept another interpretation of the wording. My guess is because once you own 25k+ in models fixing them up would be frustrating. I get it. But we are reading the same words and understanding the wording differently.

To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?

And Kris, you know now that you have an advantage when you use smaller bases than your model is suppose to use. If you go to eBay and buy a bunch of older boxes of a unit to field all your termies/mega nobs or BAs with small bases to then utilize that advantage in friendly play or tournament play, you're a cheater. What language am I typing in that people are not comprehending me?

Laziness= not cheating
Costs to much to update= not cheating
Not enough time= not cheating
Don't want to= not cheating

Modeling for advantage, or purposely swapping bases for a quantifiable advantage that you know you're receiving due to outdated models, bases, gw screwups = cheating.

To address eldar bike problem. What base is sold now with the model? Problem solved. Which one should you have used? The one you didn't want to so you weren't gaining an advantage against your opponent just because the game company was sloppy.

You're in the minority, buddy. I think you're trying to "legislate intent". Modelling for advantage is generally seen as having an intent component, but doesn't need to. For me it means "modeled/assembled in such a way as to be both non standard and advantage gaining in game". People can accidentally and unknowingly model for advantage. When Little Timmy puts his Terminators on 25mm bases because his dog ate the 40mm and his mom won't drive him to the store... he's modeling for advantage. Accidentally and unknowingly maybe, but modeling for advantage all the same.

Assembling a model on the base it is released with will never be modeling for advantage as it will always be the standard base for that specific model. While we're definitely getting into the realm of overall community HIWPI, I believe that the "must be based on the base it came with" requirement refers to the base a specific model came with and not the base that the current unit comes with.

Until such time as base size is listed in a unit's army list entry, the most reasonable thing to do is to simply use the bases supplied with the models when you purchased them. The second most reasonable thing to do is to base them on an "appropriate" sized base, using similar models as a guideline. The first reasonable thing to do seems to mirror GW's stance. The second reasonable thing to do seems to mirror GW's stance when thing number one isn't true.

"When Little Timmy puts his Terminators on 25mm bases because his dog ate the 40mm and his mom won't drive him to the store... he's modeling for advantage."-kris

Here I'd both agree he's accidentally modeled for advantage but he's clearly not cheating. Just so we're clear.

"must be based on the base it came with" -Kris

This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there.

Isnak-this is where we disagree too. I read "are" and understand it as are. You read "are" and understand it as packaged with years ago.

"The second most reasonable thing to do is to base them on an "appropriate" sized base, using similar models as a guideline."-Kris

So all terminators and mega nobs can use 25mm bases. Because they are an appropriate size to you, yes? Even if they've, as I said, gone out of their way to make sure all the models they have are on smaller bases to gain an advantage?

"Sometimes a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases." I quoted the dictionary earlier on what common and unusual mean. I believe this is talking about older base size. Because how else did you buy a model from gw, and build it as per the box, then end up with an unusually modeled base? Only 1 way that could happen, if your base became uncommon due to all current purchases being of a different size base. Eventually your base would be uncommon.

"I disagree with you because I think you're reading it incorrectly, not because your interpretation would inconvenience me. Even if the rules did require re-basing to the current standard, I wouldn't bother doing it for most of my models."-isnak

Again we read the word "are" differently, I can't help that.
You wouldn't bother to even if the rules require, probably falls under one of the things I mentioned as NOT cheating. Like laziness, or time issues or not caring enough.

"The part where, again, you're claiming that people are cheating by following the rules..."-isnak

I am trying to see what I feel is plainly written. If they are with me, they will fix their bases, if they don't, they aren't cheating. You can only cheat if you agree with me and don't fix your bases specifically to gain advantage.

Again, I don't believe in speaking about RAI. I believe in quoting RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps I couldn't use multi quote on multiple pages easily from my phone or I would have

FratHammer wrote:
To the guy who says I need to prove it to you, buddy I've posted a bunch... Read them all. We are all quoting the same paragraph in sections referring to portions of it or the paragraph in whole. If you read them, what part of my proof is bothering you?

You most certainly did no such thing. You put a bunch of hypothetical situations up and called everyone that does those things a cheater- which is a gross misunderstanding of the intent of the majority of players and is a pretty good way to offend people. Good for you.

I'm not bothered by your difference in opinion- I'm bothered by you coming into a discussion and start labeling people as cheaters.

I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...

FratHammer wrote:
I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...

It just sounds like you're using the intent of the player to determine whether or not he's cheating. It's far easier to determine whether or not a player is cheating by looking at his actions and comparing them to the rules. Intent tends to be a little... unknowable.

And I think your interpretation of the 'supplied with' wording is off. To illustrate the point, I have a theoretical question for you. I walk into my friendly local gaming store and decide to buy some Terminators. Low and behold! They have both the currently produced models and blisters of the old 2nd Edition (forgive me if I'm getting the edition wrong) Termies that came with 25mm bases. Given that both are for sale today, wouldn't you agree that the one package IS (present tense) being supplied with 25mm bases and per the rule book, the assumption is that I'll use those 25mm bases when putting the models together? Am I to be penalized or labelled a cheater because I bought the same package yesterday? ...last week? ...last year? ...a decade ago?

Your accusations of cheating seem arbitrarily based on some idea of what base size is appropriate. If you're able to find old school Termies, they will STILL be supplied with 25mm bases today. As such, the rules seem to assume you'll be basing them on the bases they're being supplied with. New Termies will of course come on 40mm bases... but we aren't talking about those models. We're talking other models. Hard to find today, sure, but still supplied with 25mm bases.

And, in case you think they're no longer available... 10 seconds worth of searching....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Space-Wolves-Wolf-Guard-Terminators-Metal-OOP-/171736268500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27fc477ed4
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40K-DARK-ANGELS-DEATHWING-TERMINATOR-oop-Metal-New-in-blister-/181669131223?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4c52f3d7
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-metal-Chaos-Space-Marine-Terminators-5-blisters-/281529623118?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item418c79224e
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40K-SPACE-MARINE-TERMINATOR-LIBRARIAN-new-in-blister-oop-metal-/181560500130?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a45d95fa2
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WARHAMMER-40000-WH-40k-44-42-DEATHWING-TERMINATOR-SERGEANT-METAL-OOP-BLISTER-/361042041416?pt=Warhammer_e_War_Games&hash=item540fc85a48
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WARHAMMER-40000-WH-40k-48-48-TERMINATOR-WITH-HEAVY-FLAMER-METAL-OOP-BLISTER-/221546345319?pt=Warhammer_e_War_Games&hash=item339530f367

Buying off eBay is no different from buying from a 3rd party gaming store insomuch as you're not buying straight from the manufacturer.

So I can use my fantasy daemons in 40K without rebasing right? They come with square bases after all.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
So I can use my fantasy daemons in 40K without rebasing right? They come with square bases after all.

Do the assembly instructions that come with Daemons provide any guidance as to when to use the square bases and when to use the round bases? If not, I would assume you can use either. If so, you have your answer.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
So I can use my fantasy daemons in 40K without rebasing right? They come with square bases after all.

Yes. There is nothing in the 40K rules that specifically requires round bases.

There was a time when Daemons only came with square bases. Even when they did start including both in the boxes, a lot of people stuck with the squares either to match their existing collection, or so that the models could do double duty in 40K and WHFB.

FratHammer wrote:
I did... Then did again just recently before you made this post quoting the majority of the rule in question. Every post on the same post chain shouldn't have to contain everything I've said in each previous post. You can move and read pages 1-3 on your own bro. And I've been in the discussion since its conception... So... I'm confused. And it was asked that I define what I feel a cheater is, twice. So... Again buddy, you confuse me. Do you think a single page on a posting is the only page that exists? I can't teach you to read a forum...

First off stop saying "buddy" as you're clearly using it ironically.

Second I stand corrected, as you were in the discussion previously- but your posts lacked the venom of the last few so they didn't immediately jump to mind.

Third I don't understand how I'm confusing you- I'm asking for reasons why you assume someone is cheating by using the old bases. Which I suppose you thought you did, but you're pretty much just assuming things about a player and not providing anything other than: "Well it seems like it to me".

Fourth, don't treat me like an idiot. I know how to use a forum. Don't be condescending.

In an effort to avoid just attacking each other, I'll simply back out and let Kriswall handle the discussion, as he seems to be confused about your assumptions of players intent as I am.

I really try to stay away from these types of arguments but I have to say as a BA player, I will most certainly NOT be rebasing 11,000 points of BA squads to make anyone else happy. I built them as I got to them, and still have about a 6 foot tall stack of boxes to get through.

GW changed the size of the bases because, you know, GW does pantsonhead things like that on a whim. If someone called me a cheater because I refused to put the 5 tactical squads that I purchased 2 years ago and am just now getting around to putting together, on 32mm bases ... f them.

It would totally change to look of half of my army and my CDO would freak out about it. The nice thing about this is the rules are written that I do NOT have to change my bases, and I honestly can not see anyone that I play saying a word about it.

PS: My CDO is an OCD, just in alphabetical order .... the way it should be!

FratHammer wrote:

"must be based on the base it came with" -Kris

This quote is a paraphrase of what the book says, not a quote. The book says, "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base THEY ARE SUPPLIED WITH." Not were at one time supplied with in the early 2000s or in the late '90s. They ARE supplied with, as in currently. We read those words and I hear a literal translation, you hear something not written there.

Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.

FratHammer wrote:
Isnak-this is where we disagree too. I read "are" and understand it as are. You read "are" and understand it as packaged with years ago.

No, I read 'are' as 'are'. As in, when you open the packet, the bases that are in there are the bases that are in there.


If you're going to object to the length of time that they've been in the packet, you're going to run into all sorts of issues, since none of GW's models have a packed date on the box. How old is too old? And how do you tell?

So all terminators and mega nobs can use 25mm bases.

No. All terminators and mega nobs that were sold with 25mm bases can use 25mm bases.

Other terminators who came without a base, or that you have received with bases other than those that they were sold with, could also use 25mm bases, if you consider 25mm-based models to be similar enough to use as a base guideling.

Terminators and mega nobs that have 40mm bases in the box should be fielded on 40mm bases.


All of which creates a situation where most players realise that stressing over base sizes is a little bit pointless, and so they just don't worry about it so long as the base that is on the model looks appropriate.


I have Ork nobs in Boy mobs mounted on 30mm bases, and warbikes on 60mm rounds. Very few people have even noticed that they're on non-standard bases unless I point it out, and those that have couldn't care less.

Because how else did you buy a model from gw, and build it as per the box, then end up with an unusually modeled base?

The rule in question makes no reference to that model in question being new in box.

IMO, that part of the rule is to cover models you have bought second-hand, or models that you had put onto different bases in rpevious editions when it was allowed. 4th edition, for example, allowed you to use a bigger base if you wanted to, so a lot of players put character models onto a larger base than their troops, to make them stand out.

You can only cheat if you agree with me and don't fix your bases specifically to gain advantage.

Again, I don't believe in speaking about RAI. I believe in quoting RAW.

So you don't believe in discussing RAI, but believe that the player's intent governs whether or not they are cheating?

Frankly, I disagree. Either using smaller bases is cheating, or it isn't. Whether the player is using smaller bases because he couldn't be bothered changing them, or is using them specifically because they think that they're an advantage, makes no difference - in either case they receive whatever benefits that base provides.

Although we do appear to be still ignoring the fact that using a smaller base doesn't only provide benefits... There are downsides to the smaller base as well.

Also remember that the Rule is 'hack and slash' from previous editions, it could be vestigial throw back.
Was there not a time when bikes came with clearly incorrect bases?

JinxDragon wrote:
Was there not a time when bikes came with clearly incorrect bases?

Not sure what you're referring to here.

There was a time when they sometimes didn't come with bases at all. As with the Eldar jetbike, there was also a time when whether or not they came with bases depended on which box you bought.

Correction then, as they would still be the bases supplied in the kit and therefore technically the base being discussed by the Rules. I was meaning more situations where you get square bases, even though rounded edges are clearly the 'default' for bases in 40k. Let us not also discard the fact Game Workshop is still a manufacturer as well, it would be an impossibility to state that every box has come with the correct base designed for that Model because that level of quality control is the holy grail of manufactures.

"It just sounds like you're using the intent of the player to determine whether or not he's cheating. It's far easier to determine whether or not a player is cheating by looking at his actions and comparing them to the rules. Intent tends to be a little... unknowable." -Kris

Yes, cheating is all about intent.

Cheat

verb
Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination


That is what you get when you go to google and type: definition of cheat. Sounds like it requires intent to me. Intent is unknowable, hence why I have said multiple times, I will never call anyone out for this. You will either be knowingly cheating, or blissfully in ignorance gaining an unfair advantage and never realizing it.

"And I think your interpretation of the 'supplied with' wording is off." -kris
As I believe yours is off.

"To illustrate the point, I have a theoretical question for you. I walk into my friendly local gaming store and decide to buy some Terminators. Low and behold! They have both the currently produced models and blisters of the old 2nd Edition (forgive me if I'm getting the edition wrong) Termies that came with 25mm bases. " -kris
Easy to fact check...3rd till Assault on Black Reach came with plastic models on 25mm bases. 5th ed. Yet the reason you feel it's been longer is because most of us rebased our terminators to not gain an advantage, because that is what models are now supplied with.

"Given that both are for sale today, wouldn't you agree that the one package IS (present tense) being supplied with 25mm bases and per the rule book, the assumption is that I'll use those 25mm bases when putting the models together? Am I to be penalized or labelled a cheater because I bought the same package yesterday? ...last week? ...last year? ...a decade ago?" -Kris
Not a problem. You buy it, you base it, you love it and run it. The moment you realize that Terminators statlines are what they are knowing their bases being larger would make it more difficult for all of them to get into close combat, then you run out and either a) model all your models that came on 40mm bases on 25mm knowing no one would know for sure you had done that, to gain an advantage, or buy all of them off ebay for the same reason. You've cheated.

"Your accusations of cheating seem arbitrarily based on some idea of what base size is appropriate. If you're able to find old school Termies, they will STILL be supplied with 25mm bases today. " -kris
They are not still supplied with those bases. They were supplied with those bases. Both verbs are a version of "to be" only one of them is past tense and one of them is present tense. I do understand this is difficult, especially being here in Arizona where they just cut another 15% from our education budget.

"As such, the rules seem to assume you'll be basing them on the bases they're being supplied with. New Termies will of course come on 40mm bases... but we aren't talking about those models. We're talking other models. Hard to find today, sure, but still supplied with 25mm bases.

And, in case you think they're no longer available... 10 seconds worth of searching....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Space-Wolves-Wolf-Guard-Terminators-Metal-OOP-/171736268500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27fc477ed4
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40K-DARK-ANGELS-DEATHWING-TERMINATOR-oop-Metal-New-in-blister-/181669131223?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4c52f3d7
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-metal-Chaos-Space-Marine-Terminators-5-blisters-/281529623118?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item418c79224e
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40K-SPACE-MARINE-TERMINATOR-LIBRARIAN-new-in-blister-oop-metal-/181560500130?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a45d95fa2
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WARHAMMER-40000-WH-40k-44-42-DEATHWING-TERMINATOR-SERGEANT-METAL-OOP-BLISTER-/361042041416?pt=Warhammer_e_War_Games&hash=item540fc85a48
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WARHAMMER-40000-WH-40k-48-48-TERMINATOR-WITH-HEAVY-FLAMER-METAL-OOP-BLISTER-/221546345319?pt=Warhammer_e_War_Games&hash=item339530f367

Buying off eBay is no different from buying from a 3rd party gaming store insomuch as you're not buying straight from the manufacturer." -Kris
Okay. I have stated when and how misusing this is wrong and when and how it is not.

OIIIIIIOI wrote: really try to stay away from these types of arguments but I have to say as a BA player, I will most certainly NOT be rebasing 11,000 points of BA squads to make anyone else happy. I built them as I got to them, and still have about a 6 foot tall stack of boxes to get through.

GW changed the size of the bases because, you know, GW does pantsonhead things like that on a whim. If someone called me a cheater because I refused to put the 5 tactical squads that I purchased 2 years ago and am just now getting around to putting together, on 32mm bases ... f them.

It would totally change to look of half of my army and my CDO would freak out about it. The nice thing about this is the rules are written that I do NOT have to change my bases, and I honestly can not see anyone that I play saying a word about it.

PS: My CDO is an OCD, just in alphabetical order .... the way it should be!

Sounds like you don't have OCD to me. If you did I would think if you ever bought another blood angel you'd have to rebase your whole army. Maybe you will just buy old ones though.
Am I the only one that noticed the BA codex got better? I don't feel i'm alone in this. Did you also notice when I explained numerically how smaller bases are better in Close Combat? Did you also notice Blood Angels are in fact a Close Combat army? Odd that you would knowingly give yourself a numerical advantage against someone playing the exact same army with the exact same rules, heck even the exact same list and tactics. You just happen to gain more attacks because more of your models fit within 2" of a model in base to base with a model in close combat.

If it is laziness, or blah blah...just quote me from any of my above posts, not cheating. You don't update your bases to gain a numerical advantage, cheating.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Are you confusing models with Units?
Metal terminator models were only ever supplied with 25mm bases.

No. Would you please help me understand your meaning behind this question?


"No, I read 'are' as 'are'. As in, when you open the packet, the bases that are in there are the bases that are in there." -isnak
I've defined the word "are" above. You are using the past tense "was" of "to be" I am using the present tense "are"
I do understand that those bases are in the box, but they "were" supplied with the model. They are no longer supplied with that model. Now a new base "is" supplied with that model. An example of our conundrum: Isnak-"I just bought this new car." Frathammer-"Dude, that car is a '77 Volkswagen Transporter. That's old as heck man."
Just because the milk is new to you, does not in fact mean it didn't spoil.


"If you're going to object to the length of time that they've been in the packet, you're going to run into all sorts of issues, since none of GW's models have a packed date on the box. How old is too old? And how do you tell?" -isnak

The moment players start claiming things that just happened must have happened in the 90s because the game has moved on...(I'm talking about kris)




"No. All terminators and mega nobs that were sold with 25mm bases can use 25mm bases." -isnak

This is regardless of it creating a numerical advantage to players. I get that in the case of blast templates larger bases lower wounds, but we are talking about close combat units who will gain a numerical advantage in close combat...especially since the point of this thread is to help people come to their conclusion about 32mm bases for BAs which come in larger units than 10 which means an increasingly larger advantage against the same exact army because you swapped your bases or bought old models.

"Terminators and mega nobs that have 40mm bases in the box should be fielded on 40mm bases." -isnak
I agree. So should all others.


"I have Ork nobs in Boy mobs mounted on 30mm bases, and warbikes on 60mm rounds. Very few people have even noticed that they're on non-standard bases unless I point it out, and those that have couldn't care less." -isnak

I think where everyone is confused is that when I keep mentioning that cheating can only be done on purpose, you feel personally attacked...I think nobs on a slightly larger base in a unit is kinda not cool, but I would never have a problem with rule of cool, it also helps identify him for noobs. (numerical advantage here being that when attacked by barrage weapons less models will be under the blast/large blast due to his size yet since everyone else is on 25mm no attacks are lost from his base size being in the mob)


"IMO, that part of the rule is to cover models you have bought second-hand, or models that you had put onto different bases in rpevious editions when it was allowed. 4th edition, for example, allowed you to use a bigger base if you wanted to, so a lot of players put character models onto a larger base than their troops, to make them stand out." -isnak

But we all model our models on the bases they came with and that is how they are to be modeled according to you. So...this example your giving, with this 4th ed changed base of coolness...what exactly does his terminator base look like now once you go to make it legal? is it a 40mm? or a 25mm? one of those is tactically better in cc...

"So you don't believe in discussing RAI, but believe that the player's intent governs whether or not they are cheating?" -Isnak
I do. Because English says so. See dictionary quote above. English RAW.

"Frankly, I disagree. Either using smaller bases is cheating, or it isn't. Whether the player is using smaller bases because he couldn't be bothered changing them, or is using them specifically because they think that they're an advantage, makes no difference - in either case they receive whatever benefits that base provides." -insnak
If done so with knowledge as per above.

"Although we do appear to be still ignoring the fact that using a smaller base doesn't only provide benefits... There are downsides to the smaller base as well." -isnak
I mentioned your avoiding blasts in a post several back and again in this post. But we are talking about close combat units. They gain an advantage. BA got a better codex, larger bases for cc models in a cc army. It isn't fair to have the same army, same rules, same units, same tactics, same dice rolls, and lose because your opponent cheated to gain more attacks.

Again using the dictionary definition of cheating which supports mine..

Meh. You've clearly made up your mind already. My solution in these situations is to simply not play with someone who might prejudge me as a cheater because I don't want to go through the financial, time consuming and, quite frankly, destructive process of ripping my models off their bases so that I can rebase and repaint, hoping I'm able to duplicate my previous work.

I disagree with you on this. Based on 20+ years of anecdotal evidence, the general gaming community also disagrees with you.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
This thread is proof GW knows what they are doing by not engaging with the fans on any level.

Refer to the two comments above. Your comment was uninformative for the Thread: if you do not wish to participate, abstain from pointless comments.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

If you use your Blood Angels Marines as Tactical marines for an Ultramarines Chapter for example, they need to be put on 25mm bases.

RAW, thats not true. The BRB says to use the models base that was supplied. Just because you are using those models to represent something else does not mean you don't use the base supplied with the model.

Technically, by RaW that is true, if you refer to my rules quote above. Using Blood Angel models as "proxy" Ultramarines, you are not following the rules (the exact rules). I'd point out there is no way i'd make this comment in a game, but it was in reference to THIS THREAD.

By "pure RaW" (again emphasising that i doubt anyone follows this) conversions, Kit bashes, and "proxying" are not allowed. I'd be the first to argue for a cool conversion/proxy should be allowed, even if the base size is completely different.
As Insaniak says, you gain some advantages but loose others, so the end result is usually not an issue...

Not seeing anything to refute my point.

You are either not allowed to use your BA tac marine models as UM tac marine or you ARE allowed to use BA tac marine models as UM tac marines. In the 1st case the question of weather or not you'd have to change the base is moot. In the second, there is nothing to say you don't use the base the model came with.

Correct, i was just pointing out (see above for support) that your second case was not allowed (Using BA tac marine models as UM tac marines, by the rules is no different to using a box of Chaos Marines as UM tac marines)

The issue of rebasing older models entirely comes down to the individual player, or possibly tournament. Most people play casually; most people don't care. I've anecdotally heard of tournaments requiring people to play on currently distributed base sizes for given units, and ones that encourage people to go find older models for smaller bases for rules advantage.

The rules are intentionally ambiguous because, I believe, GW doesn't really care and is more into the modeling hobby aspect of it. People might not have the bases supplied in the boxes for so, so many reasons. Off the top of my head, there's aftermarket kits, attempting to make the guys look more scenic, having a huge overstock of nicer-quality bases (say, Warmachine's), rebasing models on newer more modern sizes to match currently sold units... I've personally played against one of each of those.

I just can't get behind a hardline "must" when 1) rules do not say so, and 2) it'd make it illegal to use other GW merch like one of their basing kits. Technically nothing says I'm allowed to modify the bases, therefore having a guy on another half centimeter of plastic would be "modeling for advantage."

I'm 99.9999% certain that GW doesn't care how you play and that they're just happy if you're buying models and playing. I'm also 99.9999% certain that if you talked to the authors, they'd tell you to relax, have a beer and play a game. I'm 99.9999% certain that GW could give two craps how you're basing your models. The wording in the BRB is to generalized and vague.

And, as by most of my posts on this matter, you would be entirely correct. Adding a basing kit's 2mm item between the model and his base would technically count as MFA.

But then you also got that right: Who would actually care, past a few tournaments that might insist on "Current" base sizes?

To the general question:
Should i use 25mm or 32mm for my Space Marines? (any type of marine)

Comes the answer:
Pick whichever you prefer, they'd probably all look better on 32mm.

However, in YMDC, if the Question is:
What do the rules allow?

Then the Answer can only be supported by the Rules found in the book, and indeed seem rather "Restrictive".

 BlackTalos wrote:


Then the Answer can only be supported by the Rules found in the book, and indeed seem rather "Restrictive".

But... not really. It literally says as part of the rule "Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases."

This is why I don't get how that is being interpreted as a hard rule. That's an example. Followed by another example in models not being supplied with a base at all.

It's also why I snipped them out, and would continue to do so, whenever this topic comes up. Arguing examples as to why something might be the case are the ONLY ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS is... well I mean it's a special level of whatever it is.

No i'd say "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with." is the hard rule, while what follows is "just examples", but IMHO "examples" are also rules, because they are written as part of them, and in this case cover all the options.

A) "on the base they are supplied with"
B) "on unusually modelled bases"
C) "aren't supplied with a base at all"

Do you think there is a D) ? I can't think of one, and would say "A" is the norm...

On the Krom Dragongaze model... The finished model in the pictures is on the larger base but the black/white instruction booklet I got with mine he's shown on a smaller 28mm base.

 TheHogweed wrote:
On the Krom Dragongaze model... The finished model in the pictures is on the larger base but the black/white instruction booklet I got with mine he's shown on a smaller 28mm base.

Weird, but true. The model was supplied with a 40mm base AND the finished photos show a 40mm base. But as you can see, the instructions clearly show a smaller base.