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.

As the title suggests, I am thinking about rebasing my dwarf army. Sounds like Adepticon might even require it next year(ugh).

I noticed fyreslayers come on 32mm bases. I had originally thought to rebase mine on 25mm since.. you know... dwarfs aren't all that big. However I do like my army to appear uniform.

Has anyone rebased their armies to round bases and can give some thoughts on what size I should choose?

I kind of held a 25mm base up to one of my dwarfs on a square base and it honestly looked like a great fit, but if the new steamhead duardin come out and are on 32mm I am wondering if that's the better long term chose.

I am down the same mine as you (cause we are duardin, no "boats" here XD ). I am leaning toward the 25mm for the fact that 25mm is less than 1" (27.5mm = 1 inch). That way i can just know that if i have two ranks in base to base they will definitely be in meele range and i wont have to measure or even think about it.

I havent gotten fyreslayers and have no plans to, so I dont have to worry about them. For steamhead I am hoping they will all be in some sort of suit or generally carrying large equipment that can justify (in my mind) the bigger bases.

I am going to be really interested to see what everyone else has to say though, because if 32 is the overwhelming consensus i may have to reconsider (good thing they are the same price!)

To me 25 is easier to organize, and i think that dwarves would look like they were lost and tiny on 32. So I say 25.

That's sad about rebasing being required if that's true. I'm doing it myself, but i hardly think it's a project that people should be forced into doing if they don't want to. Because yes, it is quite a project.

 amazingturtles wrote:
To me 25 is easier to organize, and i think that dwarves would look like they were lost and tiny on 32. So I say 25.

That's sad about rebasing being required if that's true. I'm doing it myself, but i hardly think it's a project that people should be forced into doing if they don't want to. Because yes, it is quite a project.

I was worried about that. I think my army especially will be a huge pain just to remove from their existing bases. Definitely an endeavor I only want to do once.

 Rezyn wrote:

 amazingturtles wrote:
To me 25 is easier to organize, and i think that dwarves would look like they were lost and tiny on 32. So I say 25.

That's sad about rebasing being required if that's true. I'm doing it myself, but i hardly think it's a project that people should be forced into doing if they don't want to. Because yes, it is quite a project.

I was worried about that. I think my army especially will be a huge pain just to remove from their existing bases. Definitely an endeavor I only want to do once.

Looking it up, i found this:

Round/oval bases will not be required this year, but are highly encouraged. If your entire army is on round/oval bases, you will earn additional points on the Appearance Checklist

here: http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2017/2017aoschamp.pdf

Is that the same thing you saw?

I would say 25, Fyreslayers are the same height as the 8th Dwarf kits but have much more dynamic posing. As for the actual rebasing, it may look a little silly but its not too hard to simply glue a 20mm square onto a 25mm round and shave down the corners without damaging the actual 'surface' of the base.

Volund wrote:I am leaning toward the 25mm for the fact that 25mm is less than 1" (27.5mm = 1 inch).

Uhm. I am sure 1 inch is 25.4 mm.

*edit*

Yup Google confirmed it for me just in case I was going crazy. Must be an American thing us Canucks will never understand.

Davor wrote:

Volund wrote:I am leaning toward the 25mm for the fact that 25mm is less than 1" (27.5mm = 1 inch).

Uhm. I am sure 1 inch is 25.4 mm.

*edit*

Yup Google confirmed it for me just in case I was going crazy. Must be an American thing us Canucks will never understand.

Yeah, 25mm is basically 1 inch within the accuracy of GW's bases and 32mm is basically 1 and 1/4 inches.

If your inch ruler says 1 inch is 27.5mm then, buy a new ruler?

Yeah... 25.4. I am at work and never actually use it? Okay, for real, no excuse, just wrong.


The point is still valid though that it is less than an inch and if you are in base contact, your second rank 1" reach guy is guaranteed to be in range

Considering that circular bases can be staggered and slide a bit past the 'edge' of a rank it doesn't require the base to be less than an inch anyway.

This is all good info to consider. I was originally just thinking about how the different sizes look in conjunction with the dwarf model, but having an extra rank in range to attack with the 25's is for sure a huge benefit.