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 was thinking about this and couldnt really come up with a reason.
Was it for rules purposes only?
Or aesthetics maybe?

I note the new repulsor and adeptus tank(s) dont have bases either (although one could argue they are skimmers / hover tanks).

I personally dont like the bases but am still at a loss as to why they are there. Will this be a continuing trend?

 Ratius wrote:
I note the new repulsor and adeptus tank(s) dont have bases either (although one could argue they are skimmers / hover tanks).

The existing Repulsor and the upcoming Repulsor Executioner both have bases. I wouldn't be surprised if the Skorpius came with a base (but it's not pictured with one.).

 Ratius wrote:
I was thinking about this and couldnt really come up with a reason.
Was it for rules purposes only?
Or aesthetics maybe?

I note the new repulsor and adeptus tank(s) dont have bases either (although one could argue they are skimmers / hover tanks).

I personally dont like the bases but am still at a loss as to why they are there. Will this be a continuing trend?

I hope so. I think they look better on bases, and more a part of the army- bases tie things together. It can also makes rules more consistent (if those are cleaned up a bit)- I always prefer measuring from a base than stray fin, strut or weapon barrel.

Probably because it's much easier from a gameplay perspective to not have to factor in some little fin or point or gubbin to measure distances.

I would say for aesthetic reasons.
Models come first, rules follow.

From the pictures the Skorpius looks like it doesn't have a base.

The proliferation of models on honking huge bases irks me to no end. tanks and hot rods dont need a base.

The Speed Freeks game uses movement gubbins and shooting arc templates. It would have been difficult without bases.

I like them and helps bring them in line with the bikes and stuff. It also helps for gameplay reasons as I've seen people at shops measures distance from furthest part of the models so they'll just turn their turret to make up for the 1mm when they're out of range.

Bases simplify measuring (you always measure from the base of a model unless stated otherwise in the unit's datasheet) but I think they look like absolute ass when they're not needed. If you put your models on a shelf they might look okay, but a tank crawling up a hill or over debris with a base? Absolute fething garbage aesthetically.

I would not run bases on my vehicles unless it was absolutely necessary (i.e. I can cope with them on walkers/dreads).

Though they haven't moved to putting everything on bases, the increasing move towards bases does fit in with their general streamlining of the rules.

Infantry don't have facing; vehicles no longer use facing.
Infantry have wounds; vehicles now have wounds as well.

I'm not particularly in favor of it, but being able to describe the rules without separate sections for how to handle models with and without bases would streamline them.

I like (and dislike) everything about bases the same whether it's an infantry model, or a tank.

On the plus side, it allows you to customize your model to fit in your particular image of it. You can create a desert base and put sand on the model, or a winter base with snow on the model. It allows you to add little details for interest (cacti, tire tracks, rubble, whatever).

On the other hand, you have a base that may not fit on or between terrain, despite the model itself fitting. You can have a base that clashes with the board (desert bases on a winter board). You can have details that stick out (how is that cactus moving with my truck?).

I'd love to have all vehicles on bases.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'd love to have all vehicles on bases.

The problem with this is that wagons and land raiders would need stupid sized based

Da Butcha wrote:

On the plus side, it allows you to customize your model to fit in your particular image of it. You can create a desert base and put sand on the model, or a winter base with snow on the model. It allows you to add little details for interest (cacti, tire tracks, rubble, whatever).

On the other hand, you have a base that may not fit on or between terrain, despite the model itself fitting. You can have a base that clashes with the board (desert bases on a winter board). You can have details that stick out (how is that cactus moving with my truck?).

Those are the same pros and cons to basing regular infantry though. what makes it a bigger deal in regards to vehicles?

balmong7 wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

On the plus side, it allows you to customize your model to fit in your particular image of it. You can create a desert base and put sand on the model, or a winter base with snow on the model. It allows you to add little details for interest (cacti, tire tracks, rubble, whatever).

On the other hand, you have a base that may not fit on or between terrain, despite the model itself fitting. You can have a base that clashes with the board (desert bases on a winter board). You can have details that stick out (how is that cactus moving with my truck?).

Those are the same pros and cons to basing regular infantry though. what makes it a bigger deal in regards to vehicles?

Vehicles are lot more wonky shaped so unless you have custom shaped base it will result in ridiculous empty area that makes it silly. Suddenly you have vehicles that can't fit through roads that they should fit

I like bases for everything. I'd definitely put a defiler or soul grinder on a base, for example

balmong7 wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

On the plus side, it allows you to customize your model to fit in your particular image of it. You can create a desert base and put sand on the model, or a winter base with snow on the model. It allows you to add little details for interest (cacti, tire tracks, rubble, whatever).

On the other hand, you have a base that may not fit on or between terrain, despite the model itself fitting. You can have a base that clashes with the board (desert bases on a winter board). You can have details that stick out (how is that cactus moving with my truck?).

Those are the same pros and cons to basing regular infantry though. what makes it a bigger deal in regards to vehicles?

For me, nothing. That's why I said, right before what you quoted, that everything I like (or dislike) about bases is the same, regardless of whether it's an infantry model or a tank.

I suppose that as the bases get bigger, the benefits and the drawbacks both get magnified. You can use more detailing and more base additions, but you also have an even larger base that won't fit in even more areas. I know that the resin base I got for my Garganutan Squiggoth is fething huge. It looks cool, but you can fit a small army of orks underneath that beast.

Because GW policy seems to be putting new vehicles on bases and grandfathering in old vehicles.

I wish GW would stop being so cowardly and force everything onto bases and make base size/type a datasheet characteristic.

Bases on vehicles are fine for model stability, but I'd rather just measure from the model in all cases. The idea that a knight can't attack infantry at waist height with a close combat weapon is ridiculous. I also don't want to have to put an oval base on a Rhino and either have the hull sticking out or large areas of base not covered by the model.

Very interesting discussion. In the earlier beginning i completely opposed the basing policy/strategy. However, to my old self horror, I became fond of them.

From the game play perspective, mobility is an issue due to size increase but in the other hand increases control area and makes it easier to avoid rules conflicts. Transports are arguably winners since you can pop up your troops with more flexibility and they are less susceptible of being trapped inside by a cunning player.

From the hobby perspective though...it is awesome! Endless possibilities. Looks more cohesive too.

From the hobby perspective, it is a win win and again, win situation. Standardized size means

I personally dislike it because I think it looks silly. I get why walkers need a base since most of them would fall over if they didn't have one but having something like an ork truck or a rhino on a round base is just not pleasing to my eye.

Plus for larger vehicles I just can't see it. A landraider or some of the larger FW tanks already have a massive footprint without adding in a base big enough to house them or can you imagine how a base would work for a drop pod?

Imagine a baneblade with an oval base....

Gitdakka wrote:
Imagine a baneblade with an oval base....

Obviously legacy models would need unique new bases, rounded rectangle ala bigger bike style bases.

 Elbows wrote:
...I think they look like absolute ass when they're not needed. If you put your models on a shelf they might look okay, but a tank crawling up a hill or over debris with a base? Absolute fething garbage aesthetically.

This! The moment you put a based vehicle on any surface that's not completely flat, the immersion is ruined. Luckily, I'm still buying Razorbacks and Land Raiders, so it's not an issue for me, but if I ever decide to start collecting Whazbomb Blasta Buggies or what not, I'll absolutely be leaving their bases in the box.

 Brother Castor wrote:
Bases on vehicles are fine for model stability, but I'd rather just measure from the model in all cases. The idea that a knight can't attack infantry at waist height with a close combat weapon is ridiculous. I also don't want to have to put an oval base on a Rhino and either have the hull sticking out or large areas of base not covered by the model.

This is not really a base issue, but a rules issue. Games i play tend to just use base volume as where you measure from. Making each model from the rules perspective the same height any other

Personally i prefer bases on models for ease of play, it even helps with facing when players think i paint or the bases come with little notches for front, sides and such. So i hope GW will keep going this direction.

It's related though. IK have a strat that allows it already but RK don't. Hopefully the Chaos Knights codex will fix that.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
...I think they look like absolute ass when they're not needed. If you put your models on a shelf they might look okay, but a tank crawling up a hill or over debris with a base? Absolute fething garbage aesthetically.

This! The moment you put a based vehicle on any surface that's not completely flat, the immersion is ruined. Luckily, I'm still buying Razorbacks and Land Raiders, so it's not an issue for me, but if I ever decide to start collecting Whazbomb Blasta Buggies or what not, I'll absolutely be leaving their bases in the box.

Immersion is also ruined the moment you put green-based infantry models on an arctic battle board.

I'd rather everything had a base.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
...I think they look like absolute ass when they're not needed. If you put your models on a shelf they might look okay, but a tank crawling up a hill or over debris with a base? Absolute fething garbage aesthetically.

This! The moment you put a based vehicle on any surface that's not completely flat, the immersion is ruined. Luckily, I'm still buying Razorbacks and Land Raiders, so it's not an issue for me, but if I ever decide to start collecting Whazbomb Blasta Buggies or what not, I'll absolutely be leaving their bases in the box.

Immersion is also ruined the moment you put green-based infantry models on an arctic battle board.

I'd rather everything had a base.

Yup. Having it look a little daft in some places is a small price to pay for them looking better. I converted a Plagueburst Crawler and my laziness for not wanting to do any work on the underside paid off as I stuck it on a base and it looks miles better. It's on the same level as every other model and the tracks don't get scuffed up.

I like the idea on paper of basing vehicles, but I would have rather they been rectangles than large ovals.

In addition, some of the new infantry are on bases that are way too big. 32's wasn't bad, but 40's for the characters and snipers from Shadowspear are a little big. While I understand the appeal of diorama bases, at some point it's too much and starts interfering with gameplay.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I like the idea on paper of basing vehicles, but I would have rather they been rectangles than large ovals.

In addition, some of the new infantry are on bases that are way too big. 32's wasn't bad, but 40's for the characters and snipers from Shadowspear are a little big. While I understand the appeal of diorama bases, at some point it's too much and starts interfering with gameplay.

40's for characters is fine. 40's for line troops is too much I agree.