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.

In general, I think it is accepted that base size has an impact on balance, bringing certain advantages and disadvantages with it. With models getting larger bases in newer packages, or with new kits altogether, older models kind of fall behind on this. Most notably we probably have Space Marines who at one point had all their infantry on 25mm bases and now moved to 32 or in the case of terminators 40mm bases, and Orks who also moved from 25 to 32mm, and considering how many infantry models make a typical ork army, they are affected much harder by this change. But then we also have cases in which models were just put on different bases in a one-time box set, like the Carnifex and tyranid warriors from the Shield of Baal Deathstorm box a while back.

I'm personally not only interested because I have a firly substantial Ork army from before the base size change but also because y main Craftworlds Army is a counts-as force converted as Exodites. I use AoS Seraphon dinosaurs to count as Avatars, Wraithlords and Wraithseers. These don't really fit on the normal 60mm base a wraithlord is set on. I also dont use the actual bases that the seraphon models are shipped with, as those are more than twice that size, so I am giving them the smallest base size increase possible, landing the quadrupedal models on 105x70mm oval bases. Currently i still have the carnosaurus based model on a 60m base because it at least doesnt have half any feet hanging over the edge.

Here are two of my conversions for visualization
Stegadon
Troglodon


Officially, GW only had made a fairly soft statement on this, essentially asking players to keep it within reason, if the size is justified by the posing and conversion of a model, and that is what i've tried to keep to.

I dont currently have a set group of players around with whom I can discuss and settle this, so I am interested in general opinion on this throughout the wider community, to get a rough idea of what I can expect when i go out there with my army. How strict are you with base sizes? What do you expect from your opponent? Would you make exceptions for conversions or older armies?

There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

For the most part I think base sizes is a wash for how it impacts the game. As long as people are not obviously trying to break it, I’m game with whatever they bring.

I’ve not rebased anything, so still field 25mm terminators. There have been times in pervious editions where their smaller footprint let me DS into a tight spot they would have mishaped otherwise. But then, the whole squad has been caught under a small blast template.

If I had an opponent rebake something like Guilliman to a knights base to boost his aura I would call BS.

Well I use gal vorbak as possessed and the base size is 40mm rather than the 32mm of possessed, no one has ever seemed to mind.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
If I had an opponent rebake something like Guilliman to a knights base to boost his aura I would call BS.

This. While there are no official rules, I suspect the general majority of players are fine with anything that is not just a pure attempt to model for advantage and game the system. As long as there is a decent reason for the difference besides just being TFG I doubt most players would ever question it, and both GW changing the base sizes of a model or needing to do it for an interesting conversion would easily qualify for a decent reason in my opinion.

 Threeshades wrote:

I dont currently have a set group of players around with whom I can discuss and settle this, so I am interested in general opinion on this throughout the wider community, to get a rough idea of what I can expect when i go out there with my army. How strict are you with base sizes? What do you expect from your opponent? Would you make exceptions for conversions or older armies?

Its currently impossible to be 'strict' with base size, since GW isn't.
Its open season at the low end with the vague 'use bases the model came with' guideline, since that can encompass at least two base sizes, but there are so many variations of bases for monsters and other large critters that it becomes a complete joke, sometimes only involving a change of a few mm, other times making huge jumps in size and shape.

I've got an original Eldar Avatar that came with a 25mm base (it was a lot smaller then), and the model that replaced him came with a 40mm square base. Both of these are equally valid under the current vague guidelines.
My old metal wraithlords and warwalkers are on 40mm circular bases (and have been on them so long, I have no idea what the original base size was), and several tyranid models went from square to circle to larger circle over the years. GSC currently has a mix of 25 and 32 for at least two units (some in the same box), and the WFB giant went from square to chariot to whatever oval monstrosity it is currently on.

Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

There are no rules about base sizes, but i wouldnt play anyone who has a knight on a base barely bigger than one foot. Or an infantry HQ character on a 90mm base as an aura extender. A base should have about the same size as the model, when viewed from above. Im ok if someone plays 25 instead of 32mm.

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

It is, but a lot of players would not like it if they are forced to rebase 100+ models. Especially when they spend lots of hours on base work.

I'm in favour of strict base sizes listed in each codex.

Why? Because hate the fact that "modelling for advantage" has become a thing that people even talk about, and in an age where I roll a D6 for my flamer hits instead of arguing over a template, I really think we're past the point of hunkering down by the table to check if my Hellblasters can see your Daemon Prince through the window of that cathedral.

Strict base sizes, kill TLOS, and use base-to-base measurement for targeting. If your tape measure goes through terrain, you can't "see" the enemy. There, done.

Everything with 10 or more wounds gets the LARGE keyword, so it blocks line of sight just like terrain. Units that are LARGE or can FLY can see "over" terrain pieces.

Terrain with the OPEN keyword (like lakes) doesn't block line of sight. Terrain with the OBSCURING keyword (like forests) gives cover instead of blocking line of sight. Terrain with the LARGE keyword (like buildings) blocks line of sight for LARGE models.

There. Done. Solved.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

No it doesn't. I'm not ripping off 75 plus marines that were just fine until a year or two ago off their bases just because GW suddenly decided that 32mm looks better.

I apply two general tests to base size standards.

-Base the model comes on: SImple, straightforward. If the model comes with a base use that base. If an equivalent model has in the past come with a different size base you're fine using that; ex. current Havoc models come on 40mm bases but if you object to people using 25mm or 32mm bases for their Havocs you're invalidating older versions of the same model, so if someone wanted to rebase the newer Havocs down to a 32mm base that should be fine because that unit on that base should be legal even if that model didn't ship with that base. The exception is Forge World diorama bases; those are there for display, not for gameplay, and those models come with smaller gameplay bases (Primarchs on 40mm bases, for instance) which are the ones you should be using.

-Physical limitations: A reasonable human being might choose to upsize the bases for a model that originally came on a too-small base and keeps falling over, or that can't be packed tightly because the model overhangs the base so far you'll end up creating a barrel-of-monkeys chain long before anyone actually gets to base contact. The most obvious examples to me are Eldar jump units (Scourges, Swooping Hawks) and Genestealers upsized to 32mm despite those models never having shipped with 32mm bases but I'm sure others exist.

Those two standards lock out most modeling for advantage problems; putting Guardsmen or Cultists on 32mm bases to make more efficient screens wouldn't be allowed because there's never been a model sold as that unit on a 32mm base and because there's no physical limitation involved, and putting Guilliman on a Titan base to let him lock more enemies in combat wouldn't be allowed for the same reasons.

Use the base the model comes with. Even if there are no strict rules abusing the base sizes can be considered WAAC or cheating.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

No it doesn't. I'm not ripping off 75 plus marines that were just fine until a year or two ago off their bases just because GW suddenly decided that 32mm looks better.

No-ones stopping you from House Ruling.

I think the best solution is to give each unit a base size stat, however, there is no reason there can't be more than one value listed.

Take orks for example, they've had 25 and 32 mm bases. So both of those would be listed. There are advantages and disadvantages to each size and it would be up to the player to pick what to use.

This would give a clear rule while not forcing a re basing for 95% of cases. Some cases, like the old Avatar mentioned earlier, would just need to to deal with it.

I don't care.

As long as the model is on a base of a size that model was ever supplied with, I'm not sweating it.

Even if it ISN'T, as long as people agree to treat it as if it were for rules purposes, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

RevlidRas wrote:
Why? Because hate the fact that "modelling for advantage" has become a thing that people even talk about

It's been a thing since at least the nineties, IDK why you think it's suddenly a thing now and never was before. Powergamers be powergamers.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't care.

As long as the model is on a base of a size that model was ever supplied with, I'm not sweating it.

Even if it ISN'T, as long as people agree to treat it as if it were for rules purposes, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

Honestly i am fine evenw ith custom bases so long it is an sensible size. and constant.

Don;t get to play enough to be bothered about such things

Not strict at all. I don't use GW bases for miniatures.

AnomanderRake wrote:I apply two general tests to base size standards.

-Base the model comes on: SImple, straightforward. If the model comes with a base use that base. If an equivalent model has in the past come with a different size base you're fine using that; ex. current Havoc models come on 40mm bases but if you object to people using 25mm or 32mm bases for their Havocs you're invalidating older versions of the same model, so if someone wanted to rebase the newer Havocs down to a 32mm base that should be fine because that unit on that base should be legal even if that model didn't ship with that base. The exception is Forge World diorama bases; those are there for display, not for gameplay, and those models come with smaller gameplay bases (Primarchs on 40mm bases, for instance) which are the ones you should be using.

-Physical limitations: A reasonable human being might choose to upsize the bases for a model that originally came on a too-small base and keeps falling over, or that can't be packed tightly because the model overhangs the base so far you'll end up creating a barrel-of-monkeys chain long before anyone actually gets to base contact. The most obvious examples to me are Eldar jump units (Scourges, Swooping Hawks) and Genestealers upsized to 32mm despite those models never having shipped with 32mm bases but I'm sure others exist.

Those two standards lock out most modeling for advantage problems; putting Guardsmen or Cultists on 32mm bases to make more efficient screens wouldn't be allowed because there's never been a model sold as that unit on a 32mm base and because there's no physical limitation involved, and putting Guilliman on a Titan base to let him lock more enemies in combat wouldn't be allowed for the same reasons.

What a bout in the case of counts-as models, like the two "wraithlords" i posted in the op?

BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

No it doesn't. I'm not ripping off 75 plus marines that were just fine until a year or two ago off their bases just because GW suddenly decided that 32mm looks better.

No-ones stopping you from House Ruling.

Except your opponent. Not everyone has the luxury of having a fixed group with whom you can establish a rule beforehand and then never worry about it again.

 Threeshades wrote:

What a bout in the case of counts-as models, like the two "wraithlords" i posted in the op?

That would fall under the physical limitation test. Honestly, if someone is willing to accept your count-as models they are going to be willing to understand the bases are due to physical limits. The question really comes down to whether or not the opponent is willing to accept the count-as models, not the base size. I suspect most people are willing to except some variance if the conversion is interesting enough, but there will never be any guarantee that you do not run into someone who has an issue with the models not matching the size of what they are counting as more precisely.

In 40k I wouldn’t care unless the guy was using it as some absurd advamtage mechanism.

In kill team arena base sizes have way more importance and I would complain.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

given they at one time did exactly that you wonder why they dropped it. Heck wouldn't have been hard when they added a new base to have a stat that notes say, Ork Boyz, as being on "25mm or 32mm round bases".

its one of those annoying things, larger and smaller both have advantages, but they are not equal in all cases and since as a result it can matter it seems strange they don't simply list in in the unit entry (even if to just make using 3rd party models awkward if they have other sized bases by default)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record I have CSM on both sized bases, even in the same unit, I also have a lot of Orks on 25mm that are not being re-based any time soon.

an actual base size stat means they wouldn't be entering events where it mattered and if I faced an opponent who cared I'd be using one of my newer armies where the models have only ever come with a single base size.

happy to face basically anything, when you see quirky bases that you know have been done for an advantage its a quick way to know what sort of game is coming, and if the playing acts as "TFG" I don't play again, if they don't, I don't care about the bases.

I would be nice for GW to realise though that they could, with very little effort, write a much tighter set of rules

I'm of a mind that base size doesn't really matter, as long as it's reasonable. Please don't put your LOWs on 25mm so nothing can ever charge you. Please don't put a single Gretchen on a large oval base either.

I think that base size does have some impact but as long as your models are on bases they were supplied with at some point I'm good, preferably the most recent version. I just don't want to see people deliberately using smaller bases just to gain an advantage, if you already had your 50 orks on 25mm bases from way back when, I'm not going to expect you to change them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

Yeah, you can glue your Tacticals on bases the size of platters and your opponent has to shut up and take it like a man. Anything goes nowadays.

They don't got to "shut up and take it like a man". There's an alternative: pack up your minis and find someone who isn't a grog nozzle to play with.

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Base size is an unenforceable non-issue.

It is very much enforceable, GW just need to add a base size stat.

It is, but a lot of players would not like it if they are forced to rebase 100+ models. Especially when they spend lots of hours on base work.

This is probably the whole reason they stopped enforcing it, despite the fact that the previous rule was "Must use the base size that the model came with", which would have kept the 25mm marines legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There are no rules regarding base size, so anything goes.

Yeah, you can glue your Tacticals on bases the size of platters and your opponent has to shut up and take it like a man. Anything goes nowadays.

I'd actually play against that. Good luck deploying anything more than a single squad, and forget about ever deep striking.