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.

Bases and cheating question then. For those of you saying I must use the based they came with, to include tournaments, I must go back to all 25mm bases for my mega nobs instead of the 40mm I increased them to when the new ones came out? Because thinking that way is full of fail. But hey, what ever you think the rules say, I'll use when I play you.

So 1, yes, mega nobs came with 25mm bases just like terminators, you may not have played till after that changed, but I can't help that. And so even though it would give me an advantage, along with older SM players, we are suppose to be using smaller bases even though the same models were later sold with larger bases?

Point is, this can't be right. If your model gets a new base size you have to use it. No picking the one that is more advantageous and using it. No keeping tiny bases to make sure you can get more into base to base.

Ps we can add flash gitz to this list for Orcs.

So isniak. At a tournament, how will a judge or your opponent know you're cheating if you only use metal mega nobs, current boring terminators, and metal Flashgitz, basing them on 25mm bases to model for advantage vs someone who legitimately bought them early into their production? Answer they can't. You saying all my old blood angel models that now come on 32mm bases get to stay on 25mm long after new players believe 32mm was always their correct base size? No. You use the base your unit is suppose to use. Your unit uses a new one, you use the new one. Anything else is modeling for advantage.

Isnak I think the problem is you and I read "...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." Differently. I day the appropriate size is the current size of the models base, you believe the portion of the rule that says "we assume..." To mean, you're suppose to. We will not agree, ever. I see it as clear cut. "Similar models type as guidance" to me says, if the exact model you're using gets a base change size then it is the "similar model" where you are reading something else entirely out of those words I suppose. I'm not saying every BA player has to run out and but new bases right now. But over time I'll expect the effort to be made.

And yeah, to cheese against blast templates larger bases are better I suppose, in that one instance, but being an orc player, larger bases are a disadvantage to its as we need to be within 2"of a model in b2b to get out attacks. Larger bases lose us attacks. I will not gain a numerical advantage against my opponent because I purchased my models before an update to its base size and I feel people who do are cheating. It's in the rules as I read them. I get that you don't, but an assumption, as asserted by gw and people using that portion of their text as the basis for their argument only makes 2 things.

"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on
unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all."


un·u·su·al/ˌənˈyo͞oZH(əw)əl/

adjective
not habitually or commonly occurring or done.



com·mon/ˈkämən/


adjective
1.occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
2.showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.
3.shared by, coming from, or done by more than one.
4.(in Latin and certain other languages) of or denoting a gender of nouns that are conventionally regarded as masculine or feminine, contrasting with neuter.
5.(of a syllable) able to be either short or long.
6.(of a crime) of relatively minor importance.


noun
1.a piece of open land for public use, especially in a village or town.
2.(in the Christian Church) a form of service used for each of a group of occasions.


My question to you, is at what point then does your old base become unusual? Since, as you believe, it is considered always common, which at some point it will not be. Which is why I said replacing it over time is cool, but to outright never change them makes you a cheater.

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.

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.

"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

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." -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..

Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.

For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them a


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isnak I believe you don't understand what modeling for advantage means. It too implies intent. Regardless of if intent can be ascertained by another player. If you model for advantage, even by gw standards of loose rulings and poor writing, you're a cheat.

For example, person A) buys a helldrake and modifies it to be upright batman symbol style with its necks tilted downward and out. Looks rad right? Lots of work went into it and it looks beautiful. He ran 2 helldrakes in the tournament I played with, and I asked him to swap in the normal one when I fired my salamanders at it, because... Well even in base to base contact with it I could not have hit it with the melta special rule. Where from several inches away I could had it been modeled appropriately. He said he'd love to, swapped them and the game continued. No complaining, no whining, no judges needed to be present. Why? Because he modeled him that way for the rule of cool.

Now hypothetical player B) beings the same helldrakes and has modeled it that way for the advantage of "you have to measure to my hull, so you'll never get melta or heck any rapid fire from any real distance" that person, is cheating. He would probably say, but my model is that way cuz its cooler. Not want to swap then for measuring and a judge would need to get involved.

This forum post is about a close combat army isnak. Not tau or centurion star hop up in my fortress of redemption space Marines. It's about Blood Angels. That's why I single out close combat units like terminators and mega nobs. You make it about bikes and random other things. I am trying to help the og poster and anyone looking here because they read the forum title.

Also I see what Hawaii is saying now, thank you isnak. It's a good point you bring up. They are two separate things. I'll take some time and contemplate your question then let you know what I think


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps mob can you fix this post, my phone messed up the first half sending it twice

Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

FratHammer wrote:
Huh...isnak did you just give me justification for my arguments to be revalidated? Yes you did. And I thought Hawaii had me.

Your arguments are invalid because RAW you are supposed to use the base the miniatures came with. Rebasing old models is against the rules.

Not true if you take into account the validation from isnak just now... So I'm back on my band wagon of being right. Read all the back pages and provide evidence, don't say "RAW you're wrong" because I can't refute an incorrect statement without knowing the evidence you're claiming to stand on. I've proven the rules state what I have said. The only evidence against me was that I might be taking model as unit, but as isnak has worded beautifully any problems with that theory. So...rebase your models. And qq to gw.

"Models are 'The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40000...'

(from 'Models & Units', right at the front of the rulebook.)


A Blood Angels Space Marine model is the model of a Blood Angels Space Marine, not the abstract concept of that model." -isnack.

So it's a blood angels space marine, not an abstract piece of plastic. A model represents something, not nothing, hence why a model should be based on the base the model is currently supplied with. And then repeat all my arguments up until this point. When a model was just a plastic abstraction the argument held. It no longer holds if the model transcends anything other than a piece of plastic. Once it goes back to representing something, they all represent that thing, they are all models that represent the same thing, and are therefore not currently supplied with those tiny bases. They were once, but no more. And for validation it means current see 4 pages of previous comments on how the English language works.

Never claims the box or pack it comes with. You're adding that addendum in your reading. It's talking about the base that is supplied with the current model since all models of a specific type represent the same model. It's there in your English, it's there in gws, you can choose to look over it, but that doesn't make it proper English.

Hop heck. Are yall saying you are only able to read my newest posts or that you cannot follow my posts on the thread. As I've said twice, I shouldn't have to supply the same information and arguments I've provided previously every time I make a statement.

Also I agree with you Custom, on the we collect plastic. But, isnak, one of the largest supporters of the no changing bases crowd believes that the model represents something. If it's just plastic, that model does indeed "need to be based on" the base it came with, which is what Hawaii it's saying. Though if the model represents something, then that is not in fact true.

Btw I see no evidence to suggest you can base non BA Space Marines on 32mm bases (yet)

So the rule as I've quoted a million times... No, ya know what, if you care to read English properly, just look up one of my previous posts on how their language states in plane English, that we must base our models in the currently supplied base. I'm sick of cherry pickers.

Kris, in always posting during a break from work on my phone and cannot control how awful swipe's auto correct is. The extra periods and incorrect words really grind my gears, but I'm not willing to constantly fix words while on a time schedule. Also I have stated why I believe it means current several times, to include the use of the dictionary. It is not the past tense WERE it is the present tense ARE that is used in the rule we are discussing. So the rules say currently supplied with via the English language. Your only leg to stand on is the argument that current can instead mean packaged with 20 years ago, but unopened. Which has been a hard argument to refute.

Custom, great argument, break is to short but I'll hit you back after work.

And Ghaz, no changing words in the book when we talk RAW.

As seen below a model has characteristics.
How can plastic have characteristics? Because that plastic represents something. An intangible something. Some would use the word unit, as Hawaii suggested.

Models have attributes. So you want to believe model doesn't have any link in time to its current form, fine. Buy a second or third ed book and use your old cost, your old starts, your old wargear.

As you can see from the below, model, refers to an orc boy, a space marine terminator, a blood angel. Not just a piece of plastic. It represents it in its current state. So as I said, I'll allow you to claim your 25mm bases on models that should have larger ones if you use the proper "models" cost and statistics from the codex it was sold with.

I already did isnak... Even in this page I explained that ARE is present tense, as in now, our currently. You gw to have wrote WERE, as in past tense. Both are forms of "to be"

If all our models (of a specific type) refer to a specific model of that type, which gw clearly states that do, then the bases they ARE supplied with means the bases that model IS CURRENTLY supplied with. Can you see what I'm saying yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I'm going to bed. I'll post a retort during break because I'm sure someone will have something. LOL