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.

This thread made me wonder how the community as a whole feels about this. If a player purchases an old model, that now comes standard with a much larger base (grotesques or dreadnoughts are good examples), should they mount it on a larger base, or use the original size. The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, but are otherwise silent.

Discussion should be confined to the linked thread.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter. However, I do expect my opponent to use like bases within a unit. For example

5 (old) Terminators on 25 mm bases as as one uni and 5 (new) Terminators on 40 mm bases as another unit is fine. One 10 man unit half on 25 mm, half on 40 mm, would not.

 Jimsolo wrote:
This thread made me wonder how the community as a whole feels about this. If a player purchases an old model, that now comes standard with a much larger base (grotesques or dreadnoughts are good examples), should they mount it on a larger base, or use the original size. The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, but are otherwise silent.

Discussion should be confined to the linked thread.

I keep mine on original bases. I agree though about fielding different bases in the same army, its a no no.

I would love to hear how old bases are at an advantage though. Since all my models are from 2nd and 3rd edition 40k they are smaller just in general. I cant think of any advantage (well that cant be counter with a disadvantage) of smaller bases.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
This thread made me wonder how the community as a whole feels about this. If a player purchases an old model, that now comes standard with a much larger base (grotesques or dreadnoughts are good examples), should they mount it on a larger base, or use the original size. The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, but are otherwise silent.

Discussion should be confined to the linked thread.

I keep mine on original bases. I agree though about fielding different bases in the same army, its a no no.

I would love to hear how old bases are at an advantage though. Since all my models are from 2nd and 3rd edition 40k they are smaller just in general. I cant think of any advantage (well that cant be counter with a disadvantage) of smaller bases.

Deep striking Terminators on 25mm bases are at a huge advantage over 40mm bases. And I can't think of a realistic disadvantage.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
This thread made me wonder how the community as a whole feels about this. If a player purchases an old model, that now comes standard with a much larger base (grotesques or dreadnoughts are good examples), should they mount it on a larger base, or use the original size. The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, but are otherwise silent.

Discussion should be confined to the linked thread.

I keep mine on original bases. I agree though about fielding different bases in the same army, its a no no.

I would love to hear how old bases are at an advantage though. Since all my models are from 2nd and 3rd edition 40k they are smaller just in general. I cant think of any advantage (well that cant be counter with a disadvantage) of smaller bases.

Deep striking Terminators on 25mm bases are at a huge advantage over 40mm bases. And I can't think of a realistic disadvantage.

Harder to multi charge, harder to deny board space, less space for piles of skulls

Smaller bases = less things are in base contact with it. I could see how people would consider it an advantage in close combat. It also means it's harder to charge said units.

I'm of the opinion that I don't care if someone's been in the hobby for 30 years. That doesn't give you the right to have an advantage over me as a newer player. I cannot obtain copies of those models without a 3rd party selling them from years ago, so, I don't want to play against them especially if you're the kind of player who'll use them being smaller to their advantage for line of sight and charge distances.

So at the very least, put them on the now standard sized bases for the same units, or don't field those models against me. I really am content to simply paint all day.

For dreads, you can measure LOS to the base, but still have to measure from the weapons, yeah? Or did I miss a trick?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Harder to multi charge, harder to deny board space, less space for piles of skulls

I did say "realistic". But I'd say the advantage of many fewer mishaps is far worth the rare disadvantage :p

Except for the skulls. You might have to add a base to the unit just to carry skulls to make up the difference.

If they've been in the game longer than you they probably have plenty of advantages besides smaller models for los, charging etc (which most people will be happy to stand in a current generation model for if you are really going for a tlos etc by the book game).

 Jimsolo wrote:
The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, ...

And there you go then.

I really don't think it matters one bit.

The difference in base sizes is generally smaller than the amount of "error" that you'll normally encounter when moving units around the table anyway. In an effort to keep a game moving along most people I've come across move the first model 6" then estimate the rest of the units move by placing them pretty close to the same relative position. Even when they try and measure each individual model, errors still creep in.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Harder to multi charge, harder to deny board space, less space for piles of skulls

The first two are all drawbacks to the player fielding the model on the smaller size. So you can't call it modeling for advantage. If they are willing to handicap themselves then go for it. Now you might somehow argue that it takes longer for an enemy to reach them; in that case I'd fall back to the errors that creep in from normal movement anyway. But that's supposing that the model was moving *away* from the assaulting unit. If it had been moving *towards* or orthogonal to the assaulting unit then base size really wouldn't figure in.

Now, less space for skulls, that could be a real problem.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The rules as written say that the rules assume models are mounted on the bases they are supplied with, ...

And there you go then.

Are you going to honestly say that there is NO rule that we don't, as a community, play other than RAW by general agreement to avoid silliness or breakdowns of logic? Putting them on the current base seems like the most sensible solution to me.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Are you going to honestly say that there is NO rule that we don't, as a community, play other than RAW by general agreement to avoid silliness or breakdowns of logic? Putting them on the current base seems like the most sensible solution to me.

You asked how we play it. In this specific scenario, I see no particular reason to not play it as RAW.

How I interpret other rules has little bearing on that.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Are you going to honestly say that there is NO rule that we don't, as a community, play other than RAW by general agreement to avoid silliness or breakdowns of logic? Putting them on the current base seems like the most sensible solution to me.

You asked how we play it. In this specific scenario, I see no particular reason to not play it as RAW.

How I interpret other rules has little bearing on that.

If that's how you play it, that's fine. Your post just seemed to indicate that further discussion was irrelevant beyond RAW.

clively wrote:
The first two are all drawbacks to the player fielding the model on the smaller size.

My comment was in response to someone asking for drawbacks to using models on smaller bases

Now, less space for skulls, that could be a real problem.

Write to your local politicians and demand more skulls!

For the most part, I don't think people care. However, there are different situations that would elicit different reactions. The two most extreme I can think of are:

1. A guy pulls out a fully painted and based rogue trader era model, nobody is going to say anything. You can make all the internet squawk you want, but you are lying to yourself. As a matter of fact, you are probably going to spend more time looking at the old models than playing the game.

2. Another guy comes along and pulls out the latest internet list. The army is a hodgepodge of unpainted, unprimed models... some of which aren't even fully put together. As a matter of fact, "I'm going to proxy this and this, I hope you don't mind." And then, all of the models in question that are on the old size bases just happen to work in his favor. Most people are going to pass on that game.

 Green is Best! wrote:
For the most part, I don't think people care. However, there are different situations that would elicit different reactions. The two most extreme I can think of are:

1. A guy pulls out a fully painted and based rogue trader era model, nobody is going to say anything. You can make all the internet squawk you want, but you are lying to yourself. As a matter of fact, you are probably going to spend more time looking at the old models than playing the game.

2. Another guy comes along and pulls out the latest internet list. The army is a hodgepodge of unpainted, unprimed models... some of which aren't even fully put together. As a matter of fact, "I'm going to proxy this and this, I hope you don't mind." And then, all of the models in question that are on the old size bases just happen to work in his favor. Most people are going to pass on that game.

Pretty much this.

I've "updated" a few of my models and their bases, but if it's well painted, well based, and removing the base create a lot of problems, just leave it as is. It was supplied with said base by RaW anyway...

If you specifically Deep Strike 25mm Terminators in the closest spaces you can, just because *Bases*, then i would kindly suggest an update of the bases sizes

 Green is Best! wrote:
For the most part, I don't think people care. However, there are different situations that would elicit different reactions. The two most extreme I can think of are:

1. A guy pulls out a fully painted and based rogue trader era model, nobody is going to say anything. You can make all the internet squawk you want, but you are lying to yourself. As a matter of fact, you are probably going to spend more time looking at the old models than playing the game.

2. Another guy comes along and pulls out the latest internet list. The army is a hodgepodge of unpainted, unprimed models... some of which aren't even fully put together. As a matter of fact, "I'm going to proxy this and this, I hope you don't mind." And then, all of the models in question that are on the old size bases just happen to work in his favor. Most people are going to pass on that game.

This. My army has been painted and based (on some of them) for over 20 years. I still have the old rogue trader Mega Armoured Nobs. I had a player tell me one time that if he saw the models of 40k back then he wouldn't play because they are so ugly compared to the new ones today

I have the original Obliterators (1" base and size of a normal marine) and other models of the like: I will not change them to go on the bigger bases because they are painted and would look goofy on the bigger base.

NOW I do have newer Obliterators on the bigger bases, with how people view things here, could I field them as separate squads or can only pick one? I assume intermingling the two types would be silly (I would agree...).

Funny, I could see Obliterators being of different stages of "growth" but would never dream of mixing Terminators of different sizes in an army.

 Talizvar wrote:
NOW I do have newer Obliterators on the bigger bases, with how people view things here, could I field them as separate squads or can only pick one? I assume intermingling the two types would be silly (I would agree...).

I'd have no objection to you using both squads, but wouldn't be too happy if they were mixed within the same squad.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
NOW I do have newer Obliterators on the bigger bases, with how people view things here, could I field them as separate squads or can only pick one? I assume intermingling the two types would be silly (I would agree...).

I'd have no objection to you using both squads, but wouldn't be too happy if they were mixed within the same squad.

Obliterators being more shooty than CC, i would not have a issue with "Mixed" squads. If there is ever a "you are 0.001 inch out" for a blast, the models are easily interchangeable within the squad to double check the "Right Size" (Larger bases).

Obviously, again, if you put all the small bases up front and the larger one behind i would see it as MFA. Again, it's just down to the time and place and opponent. Be ready to "only play current base sizes" as that would be simple good sportsmanship...

 Talizvar wrote:
I have the original Obliterators (1" base and size of a normal marine) and other models of the like: I will not change them to go on the bigger bases because they are painted and would look goofy on the bigger base.

NOW I do have newer Obliterators on the bigger bases, with how people view things here, could I field them as separate squads or can only pick one? I assume intermingling the two types would be silly (I would agree...).

Funny, I could see Obliterators being of different stages of "growth" but would never dream of mixing Terminators of different sizes in an army.

I had a few old terminators in the same condition. I just glued the small base to the larger base and was then very liberal with the basing material. Solved both problems fairly quickly,

Use the base it came with.

There's no objective advantages to base sizes though, so if someone updated to modern bases, I wouldn't care.

The example given is the old grotesques. Its absurd to equate the old models to new, as the new ones are totally reimagined.

Fail on GW for using the same name, fine, but the old models are not suitable for new grotesques.
They do however make excellent wracks.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The example given is the old grotesques. Its absurd to equate the old models to new, as the new ones are totally reimagined.

Fail on GW for using the same name, fine, but the old models are not suitable for new grotesques.
They do however make excellent wracks.

Well a prime example is my meganobs.. Take a look at these comparisons. All of them are legal per RAW.

YMDC is not for feelings or polls.

morgoth wrote:
YMDC is not for feelings or polls.

Where on earth do you get that idea?

Don't answer that... There's no point dragging the thread off topic with unrelated chatter. Suffice to say that both polls and discussions of how people feel the game should be played are perfectly welcome in YMDC.

I am perplexed by the poll results and how different they are from the actual replies from the thread. Is that just a standard deviation of who will vote and who will actually post?

Indeed,
Many people are quite happy to accept that their 'How I Will Play It' solutions do not require any approval from the people on this site, and so they do not feel as much of a need to post their views on the matter. Quite a few posters to this site are browsers and only occasional posters, so they won't be seen often even if they like Rule as Written. We are a scary bunch when it comes to Rule Lawyering, so no one is to be faulted for holding back and seeing what the noisy posters on this site say first.

However, when a poll comes along, everyone can simply throw their voice behind a concept with a single button click so why not do so?