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 had some questions about the accepted practice for basing vehicles for scenery or stability reasons. I have some Termite Drills that I worry will damage playmats (lots of sharp, angled edges) or be damaged in turn (lots of texture effects). However, because it is a melee unit, there will be obvious measurement issues, and I don't want to come off as MFA.

1) Should the base be smaller or larger than the footprint of the model? Obviously, the larger, the more stable it will be. But on which side should I err?
2) Are rectangular bases kosher in 40K? Or should I go with a round base? (The footprint of the model is like a pencil--an irregular but symmetrical pentagon.)
3) How would measurement work? To the hull, as if it were unbased? Or will some people insist that my base is the true footprint of the model for both them shooting at me and my charging at them?

Any advice or answers would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think you'll have any particular consensus on this. I say put it on a base slightly smaller than its own footprint. This means you're only gaining in a small amount of extra height, while everything else can just measure to the hull as normal. Being raised off the play surface should be enough to avoid any potential damage. That said, though, you don't actually need to put it on an actual base - you can put it on just about anything as long as it meets your needs (protecting the model and the mat) without compromising its use in play (being too wide/changing its footprint). With that in mind, I'd actually try to find something as invisible as possible.

Okay, thanks. I think I will look for something slightly smaller then. Probably rectangular (with rounded edges) 100x60mm; the actual footprint is closer to 140x80mm.

Actually putting termite drills on bases would just be modeling for your opponents advantage, lol

Right... I am thinking of keeping the base small for stability reasons and just continue using the hull for measurements. I just realized how much more reach I get with the drill portion. ;D

I'd say the base should have a noticeable extension past the model, like this:


Reason:
- If you put it on a base, all ranges are measured to the base and not the hull. If the base is under the hull it may be difficult or even impossible for models to get within 1" of the base to fight it.

Now you could ignore that rule, but for pick-up games consistency is best I think.

Well, it doesn't come with a base. I just don't want to scratch the crap out of someone's playmat or God forbid, have my Drill roll off a ledge and crush minis left and right. (It's a really heavy model; it's got 1cm thick resin walls.)

I will make it smaller than the footprint and ask people to consider it a part of the model. It's like adding a bit of height and a bunch of resin/plastic/rock protrusions on the sides and bottom.

EDIT: Actually, does anyone know if that is okay in a tournament? Adding a smaller base, but counting it as a part of the hull?

Suzuteo wrote:

EDIT: Actually, does anyone know if that is okay in a tournament? Adding a smaller base, but counting it as a part of the hull?

No one can really answer that, since it is like asking how long is a piece of string.

Basically it depends on the tournament and the TO.

Here you go: (designer's commentary)

Q: If a Vehicle model has a base, but it is itself larger than the base (such as a Stormraven Gunship), what do I measure to – the base or the hull of the vehicle?
A: Unless such a model’s datasheet has an ability saying otherwise, you measure to and from the model’s base.

This of course brings up the issue of the hull potentially getting in the way of measuring to the base, making it more difficult to get into combat for example, and can therefore be seen as modeling for advantage.

Dandelion wrote:

Reason:
- If you put it on a base, all ranges are measured to the base and not the hull. If the base is under the hull it may be difficult or even impossible for models to get within 1" of the base to fight it.

Now you could ignore that rule, but for pick-up games consistency is best I think.

That's why you should do SMALLER than model and then play like unbased. It's not originally on base so you can even claim it's balanced on idea of not having base(and all the drawbacks it brings you) so.

RAW, if it has a base you must measure to the base. Whether it came with one in the box or not is irrelevant. It has a base so it must abide by the FAQ I posted above.
Claiming the base to be part of the hull and measuring to the hull is therefore just a houserule, and so would likely not fly in any competitive setting.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you put the thing on a tiny base. What happens when people try to charge it? It becomes physically impossible to reach within 1" of the base because the hull gets in the way, making the model immune to close combat.

This is all hypothetical, but I can definitely see it being an issue and I wouldn't want the OP to regret using a badly sized base.

Well if opponent is TFG enough to insist on measuring base when reasonable solution is ignore the base when model isn't intended to have a base(and thus is not intended to be measured from base) it's his trouble if he can't attack it. He wanted to play it so that he can't attack it so take the blame for his own decision I have zero sympathy for such a person.

Safety of model and paint job are more important than some TFG's feelings.

Dandelion wrote:
RAW, if it has a base you must measure to the base. Whether it came with one in the box or not is irrelevant. It has a base so it must abide by the FAQ I posted above.
Claiming the base to be part of the hull and measuring to the hull is therefore just a houserule, and so would likely not fly in any competitive setting.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you put the thing on a tiny base. What happens when people try to charge it? It becomes physically impossible to reach within 1" of the base because the hull gets in the way, making the model immune to close combat.

This is all hypothetical, but I can definitely see it being an issue and I wouldn't want the OP to regret using a badly sized base.

I don't think the FAQ you posted above applies to a model normally without a base specifically because of the hypothetical you mentioned. Indeed, it seems weird to apply designer commentary to undesigned features of a model.

tneva82 wrote:
Well if opponent is TFG enough to insist on measuring base when reasonable solution is ignore the base when model isn't intended to have a base(and thus is not intended to be measured from base) it's his trouble if he can't attack it. He wanted to play it so that he can't attack it so take the blame for his own decision I have zero sympathy for such a person.

Safety of model and paint job are more important than some TFG's feelings.

This probably makes the most sense to me. The Drill is not intended to have a base, but I am adding one to protect it and the play surface. In order to not gain an unfair advantage, I would recommend that we measure to the hull. But if they insist on measuring to the base and complain about MFA... that seems really dumb.

As someone who has just scratch built a FW-style Termite I’m considering a base.

If adding a base, an oval bigger than the Termite would be best, for consistency with other 40K looks and for playability. Nothing stops you using other shapes though, would just be my aesthetic preference. Don’t do smaller than hull as people will cry cheese/MFA if your basing solution is impossible to engage in close combat.

If you have a base *all* measurements are to the base. Nothing to the hull. This includes Fighting vs units on the first floor of ruins. A drill without a base could likely end up within 1”, one with a base most probably could not. So I may leave mine unbased purely for this in-game advantage. I started a thread in 40K Discussions recently about based vehicles and this seemed to be the overwhelmingly top reason why people were against vehicle bases. Normally not a issue, but the Termite has VERY nice close combat attacks!

Consider also that both Termite and occupants have to be deployed >9” from enemy models, so basing it will increase the footprint.

Also bear in mind that in a friendly how you house rule it is up to you! Not every decision has to be mindful of tournament-level Matched Play.

That’s my tuppence worth!

That's the thing. I will insist the opposite and ask my opponent to measure to the hull.

I really don't think that designer commentary is intended for models that were not designed with a base smaller than the model--or any model designed without base at all, for that matter.

If it really gets annoying though, I could just turn my model upside down and have the hull-base sticking into the air? Lol...

Suzuteo wrote:
That's the thing. I will insist the opposite and ask my opponent to measure to the hull.

I really don't think that designer commentary is intended for models that were not designed with a base smaller than the model--or any model designed without base at all, for that matter.

If it really gets annoying though, I could just turn my model upside down and have the hull-base sticking into the air? Lol...

This is where the social contract and common sense come into play. If I played someone who insists on doing that I sure wouldn't play them again. Does GW reallllllly need to write "bases go at the bottom" into the rules???

I'd slap an oval base either the size of the hull or slightly bigger. For convenience and fair play, just let your opponent use the base OR hull. As long as your consistent with the decided means of measuring, I seriously doubt anyone will have any issues.
For tournament play, send the TO pics ahead of time and how you'd like to play it. I also doubt any TO is going to care as long as it looks good and you're consistent with it. With the TO's approval, it doesn't matter how your opponent feels about it.
Also, I'm sure there's lots of other companies that will do it, but I know that Micro Art Studios will create you custom sized resin bases. It won't be cheap, but what part of 40k is?

Thanks guys. I think I have enough information.

I'm going with a custom rounded rectangular base that is slightly smaller than the footprint of the Drill's central chassis and ask my opponent to measure to the hull. This is the most stable base that is similar to the Drill's natural unbased state, and it looks the least like an attempt to gain some advantage from it.

1: I always aim for 10mm extra length of the vehicle to the front and rear. Rounding.
And 5mm per side.
So a 100×50mm vehicle would be a 120×60mm base.

2: rectangular. Oval looks great. But my god its hard to get them. I planned to use oval bases for my vehicles but the variations in size made it difficult and expensive if you want custom cut.

3: you'd measure to the hull in my opinion. The vehicle didn't come with a base out of the box. You've added one for aesthetics and nothing more.
Aesthetic additions should have no game play effect. No matter what anything or one says.

You could just make a custom movement tray for it, so you don't have a base glued to it. Since there is no base, you just measure to the hull like usual.

So don't glue the base to the model and call it a movement tray.

Suzuteo wrote:

I don't think the FAQ you posted above applies to a model normally without a base specifically because of the hypothetical you mentioned. Indeed, it seems weird to apply designer commentary to undesigned features of a model.

Um.. no. The FAQ applies to any model that has a base. Cuz that's what it says. It does not say "models that come with a base in the kit." And nowhere is a base required for any model in the first place. I can legally play my Dunecrawlers without bases, but then I would measure to the hull because there is no base. So if you were to try and play using a base, you are required to abide by that ruling.

That said, Deathreaper's movement tray idea is probably the best one. It's not a "base" so it doesn't fall under that rule, and you can measure to the hull. I know that this is splitting hairs but it's best to be as correct as possible to avoid annoyances in the future.

I would have no problem with it having a base on but measuring to the hull. You could try sticking the base on with magnets instead of glue so if someone complains you can just remove the base.