Switch Theme:

Updating base sizes  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Been Around the Block




So there was some great discussion of updating base sizes in the N&R Ork thread. I am starting this so it can be discussed without completely derailing the other thread.

Obviously, in a highly competitive tournament, you will need current base sizes. Conversely, if you are just pushing models around with friends, beer, and chips; who cares?

It is the middle ground where the discussion starts. What are your thoughts?
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

I play old stuff on old bases. In my experience, there are pros and cons to both small and large bases. Sometimes it will come up as relevant, but mostly not. In my years of playing my terminators on their original small bases I can think of 2 times where not being on 40mms was relevant, and it was one in my favor, one in my opponent’s.

I don’t care what bases you are using, within reason. Rebasing exclusively on non-standard bases is a bit of a MFA move. But if you want to put new minis on the old sizes to match your army, I’m fine with that.



   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Frankly, I think the idea of requiring official base sizes for anything is ludicrous when there are no official base sizes.

Just use the most recent base sizes? Cool, except that doesn't work. Case in point: what base size are my Tyranid Warriors supposed to go on? The store page description doesn't say. The store page images show both 40mm and 50mm bases. In the last year I've gotten a box that came with 40mms and another that came with 50mms. Now I've been in this game a while and I know that 40mm are the original bases and they're slowly being replaced with 50s, but a newbie wouldn't, and you shouldn't have to track GW's release history or forensically piece together when base size changes occurred to figure out if your newly purchased box contains the new standard or old stock.

'Use the bases your models came with' is an acceptable compromise until such time as GW releases official base size lists for all the factions. And then we can discuss whether it's reasonable to expect updated bases for old models.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 23:12:54


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





GW needs to rip the bandage off and have base size represent the threat of a model, use it for line of sight and so on. The system we have right now is ridiculous.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







It's always great when a given model has been in circulation long enough that its base changes.

The main problem is that once upon a time, GW produced models using a policy where the model's base was determined more by the game designers than the sculptors. That is to say, you'd see things like all of the infantry in the game on 25mm bases, doesn't matter whether there was a lot of overhang. Or, for a more pointed example, there was a fixed "monstrous creature base size", and everyone was stuck using it whether you were a big monstrous creature or a small monstrous creature.

But as models have gotten redone and grown larger, at some point the basing policy seems to have become driven by "What does the model fit well on?" without concern to what similar models are on.

Now, of course there's room for conspiracy theories. Back when there were fixed base size categories, if you were building a chariot from scratch (or assorted parts) you could tell how big it was supposed to be even if GW hadn't produced the model yet. But now you can't expect that the Slaanesh chariots and the Tzeentch chariots and the Khorne chariots will be on the same bases--there's no designated "chariot" base. Likewise, the greater demons aren't on "greater demon" bases, they're on whatever the model needs and the Khorne greater demon isn't on the same base size as the Slaanesh greater demon or the Nurgle greater demon. (Bloodthirster's on an oval 120x92, Great Unclean One's on a circular 130, Keeper of Secrets is on a circular 100, etc.)

After about a decade of keeping up with the base size changes, I gave up trying about an edition or two ago because of things like the Greater Demon base sizes.




   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 catbarf wrote:
Frankly, I think the idea of requiring official base sizes for anything is ludicrous when there are no official base sizes.

Just use the most recent base sizes? Cool, except that doesn't work. Case in point: what base size are my Tyranid Warriors supposed to go on? The store page description doesn't say. The store page images show both 40mm and 50mm bases. In the last year I've gotten a box that came with 40mms and another that came with 50mms. Now I've been in this game a while and I know that 40mm are the original bases and they're slowly being replaced with 50s, but a newbie wouldn't, and you shouldn't have to track GW's release history or forensically piece together when base size changes occurred to figure out if your newly purchased box contains the new standard or old stock.

'Use the bases your models came with' is an acceptable compromise until such time as GW releases official base size lists for all the factions. And then we can discuss whether it's reasonable to expect updated bases for old models.


Exactly this. Its a meaningless discussion in a world where GW directly sells multiple units with multiple bases sizes, either in different boxes (seekers of slaanesh) or in the same box ('nid warriors). Or units with mixed base sizes like GSC neophytes (and then acolytes are 32 and actual genestealers on 25, because ). And there are some many base size variants for big stuff, and even new base sizes for infantry (is anything on 28mm in 40k yet? The base size exists). Its madness all the way down.

The system doesn't care. The company doesn't care. The rules designers don't care. Why should anyone else?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 00:28:37


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
GW needs to rip the bandage off and have base size represent the threat of a model, use it for line of sight and so on. The system we have right now is ridiculous.

This doesn't work in a system where Scarabs and Tyranid warriors have the same size base.

The base functions well as a representation of the board area the model takes up, but there is no practical way to tie it to Line of Sight without creating absurd situations.




 solkan wrote:

The main problem is that once upon a time, GW produced models using a policy where the model's base was determined more by the game designers than the sculptors. That is to say, you'd see things like all of the infantry in the game on 25mm bases, doesn't matter whether there was a lot of overhang. Or, for a more pointed example, there was a fixed "monstrous creature base size", and everyone was stuck using it whether you were a big monstrous creature or a small monstrous creature.

But as models have gotten redone and grown larger, at some point the basing policy seems to have become driven by "What does the model fit well on?" without concern to what similar models are on.

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. GW's old design principle was to design models to fit the appropriate base for the model type. Their current design principle is to design models that look cool, and then put them on whatever base size looks appropriate.

And here's the thing with that: The first approach gives you rules consistency, and enforcing models being on the 'correct' bases makes sense. If you know that similar sized models are always going to be on a particular sized base, then you can design rules accordingly. If you are just putting models on whatever size base looks appropriate, then there is no practical reason to actually enforce a specific base size for any model, because your entire model design process completely ignores the rules of the game anyway.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 00:58:18


 
   
Made in ca
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet






Canada

I feel like with Orks in particular it doesn't really matter that much. The old Ork Trukks are tiny but I'd still consider them perfectly fine, a couple mm's of base size per model isn't a huge enough difference for me to care, especially because it's probably going to be to my opponent's disadvantage to be on the smaller bases more often than not.

   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Gregor Samsa wrote:
GW needs to rip the bandage off and have base size represent the threat of a model, use it for line of sight and so on. The system we have right now is ridiculous.


Pretty much impossible.

As for how I feel on it? Meh. Honestly, we find it just really doesn't matter that much. Our group abides by the "if it's the base it came with you're good, if you updated to the new size, you're good, if it's neither of those but it looks cool, you're good" rule.

For every advantage one might get at a certain base size, there's an equal disadvantage. It just doesn't make that much of a difference to about 98% of the games being played. MAYBE at a truly high level championship game where the two best players in the world are at the top table, it might POSSIBLY make some minute difference. But for most games? Nah.


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Domandi wrote:
Obviously, in a highly competitive tournament, you will need current base sizes.

Obviously? No, I don't think so. The concept of "current base sizes" doesn't work across the board. Take for example Seekers of Slaanesh, their dedicated box has thin oval bases, where as the more recently produced (but limited run) Wrath and Rapture provided them with a different shape.

Until GW put out a basing chart for 40k like they did with AoS, then people should accept any bases that the model does or previously came with.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I'm in the awkward position of wanting to use an uncommon base size which is neither the old standard nor the new. I want my marines on 28mm.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Since GW doesn't have a consistent approach to base sizes (remember one Lord of Contagions comes with 40mm and the other with 50mm) I don't care what the "correct" base size is.
I realized 32mm look pretty cool, but I wouldn't rebase my old models because of that. All of my older Marines use sculpted Bases which would need a lot of work and money to enlarge - I have enough other projects to do so I won't waste my time reworking finished Minis.
My new Ork army I put on 32mm right away, makes them look like real brutes.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

99% of the time I play the models on whatever base they came with. And I'm not going to re-base anything because "Well the current model of that comes on a _____".
Perfect example(s): My Bloodthirsters. I have 2. 1 from the early 90's & one from about 2005. Neither one is on a base anywhere near what the current version of the model comes with. And they never will be. Because it'd look like .

Some models are on different size bases - because the model + original base just didn't work.
Ex:
*My metal termies. They all came with 20mm. But being metal, they're top heavy on that size of base. So looong ago I put them all on 32mms(?) - just big enough to solve the tipping problem.
*Same with my Genestealers. I put them on larger bases to 1) prevent their arms getting tangled up during play, 2) prevent the tipping problem.
*My lone SoB Hospitaler - I HATE having that dead scenic body on the base. A) I don't think it adds to the look of the model gaming wise. B) It's presence is the only reason this model is on this size of base. I threw the dead body away & mounted the figure on the same size base as every other SoB character.


   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I'm lazy and as long as I have unpainted models I won't waste hobby time just to rebase stuff.

I don't partecipate to official events or tournaments so I don't feel compelled to update the bases.

I agree that 32mm look better than 25mm ones, so do the current bike bases compared to the old ones though.


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Coastal Bliss in the Shadow of Sizewell





Suffolk, where the Aliens roam.

As this is the appropriate thread, will repost my rebasing guide for the non slotta versions of 25mm, I've also done it with 40mm to 50mm for Tyranid Warriors, just takes a little longer to clip all the old 'metal tab holder' sections off underneath a 40mm.

Spoiler:

"That's not an Ork, its a girl.." - Last words of High General Daran Ul'tharem, battle of Ursha VII.

Two White Horses (Ipswich Town and Denver Broncos Supporter)
 
   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





I'm not rebasing anything for anyone. I'lldie before my carnifexes get put on those stupid oval bases.


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I really don't agree with the notion that base size doesn't matter, or that the advantages equal the disadvantages.
It's dependant on the unit and it's role, but base size absolutely matters.

I haven't rebased anything, they're all on the bases they came with.
My Death Company are on 25mm bases, my Sanguinary Guard are on 32mm. The 25mm bases are much nicer as they can deepstrike into a smaller area and pack more into melee easier.
Conversely, I have some Scouts on 25mm and some on 32mm. The 32mm bases are much nicer on which is principally an area denial unit.

It's not exactly game breaking either way, but I definitely feel the difference at times. It's not an issue in the environment I play, but if I were to go to a cut-throat tournament I'd definitely feel obligated to rebase everything more properly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 09:01:47


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I can’t imagine I would rebase finished models, but thankfully I’m not in a position where that’s an issue for me.

I think the stranger ones would be where older editions had square bases and now everything has round bases - daemons, avatar and Eldar Dreadnought ( now Wraithlord) come to mind. I’m sure there are others.

Where it becomes really strange is when the newest version of a model is a significantly different size to an older version. Does anyone really think the old 2nd Ed Ghazghkull Thraka should be on the monster base the latest version is on?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 09:27:07


 
   
Made in de
Guardsman with Flashlight




I thought about the same thing as the new Gaunts Ghosts are on 28mm. I dont think I would rebase my IG to 28mm. The difference is too small and they look fine on 25mm. I did rebase my Space Wolves to 32mm. They just look better on 32mm than on 25mm. I even got one step ahead and put all my Genestealers (new army, so no rebasing, but just preemptively) on 32mm bases. They look better and given the arms of the models you cant really put them base to base with 25mm bases anyway.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I still play against tiny metal avatars and daemon princes on square bases. No one cares about the size of my bases.

I did rebase all my ork bikers though, the oval base works much better for them, and rebasing one is a matter of minutes.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Most of my models are on the modern base size. The only exception I'm aware of is my flayed ones. At the start of this edition I rebased my necron infantry to 32mm bases, matching the indomitus models. When the new plastic flayed ones were released they came on 28mm bases, but I'm not going to rebase then all a second time in 12 months.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I mounted my Indomitus Necron Warriors on 25mm bases.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 insaniak wrote:
This doesn't work in a system where Scarabs and Tyranid warriors have the same size base.

The base functions well as a representation of the board area the model takes up, but there is no practical way to tie it to Line of Sight without creating absurd situations.


It's not hard to have a 'Swarm' mechanic that affects how LOS is treated for Scarabs/Rippers/etc. Are there any other examples where using base size to determine rough height would be grossly wrong?
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






my eldar avatar is still on the square base that he came with. i am not against using rigns if i feel the need to hitup a tournament to make things where they are, but having doen basework to get models where i like them i don't really case to rebase hundreds of orks. there will be 32mm bases in the same squad as 25/26mm bases

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Hmm. This discussion has me considering rebasing my Tyranid gaunts on cavalry/bike bases just so they don’t have awkward overhangs and aren’t as prone to tip over (especially the hormagaunts).

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
This doesn't work in a system where Scarabs and Tyranid warriors have the same size base.

The base functions well as a representation of the board area the model takes up, but there is no practical way to tie it to Line of Sight without creating absurd situations.


It's not hard to have a 'Swarm' mechanic that affects how LOS is treated for Scarabs/Rippers/etc. Are there any other examples where using base size to determine rough height would be grossly wrong?


I imagine there would be some issues with flyers/skimmers and things like tau drones where the footprint of the base isn’t representative of the size of the model in the same way as swarms.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






Domandi wrote:Conversely, if you are just pushing models around with friends, beer, and chips; who cares?


This was my attitude for the longest time.

kirotheavenger wrote:My Death Company are on 25mm bases, ... The 25mm bases are much nicer as they can deepstrike into a smaller area and pack more into melee easier.


And this is the exact reason (and unit) that caused me to changed my mind.

Game play is designed and tested with base size in mind and it needs to be adhered to no matter the setting; tournament, casual, etc. It's a critical function within the game. GW needs to release an official base size document for W40K, similar to what they did for AoS, to clear up any confusion.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Rebasing is one of the places where 3D printing is massively useful and, I'd say, even ethical! There are ways to rebase where you literally can just slot the old base into a new one to make it larger, eliminating the need to rip models off bases, saving your hard effort, while also helping to adjust to new situations.

I've only ever had 1 person care about my Genestealers being on two different kinds of bases, mostly because at the time the 25mm base was able to fight in 3 ranks deep rather than the intended 2 ranks deep. Valid point. I was also at a tournament that had a basing guide - though the basing guide for the event showed Genestealers as being acceptable on either size base.

The basing guides that go on most recent boxes is a good idea. If something is only sold in 1 size, well you should try to go for that size. If something, like Genestealers, are sold in 2 sizes, well then both sizes are acceptable. That said, I wouldn't expect anyone outside of those that regularly attend tournaments to really care. I know I wouldn't for funsies games, and at a tournament I'd likely only say something if it was very off from standard.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I play competitive tournaments, no TO has yet to come up to me and demand I re-base my entire ork army onto the new 32mm bases or I won't be able to play.

Lets break down the key points here.

1: Modeling for advantage, yeah you can absolutely model for advantage, generally speaking though, its not modeling for advantage by keeping the model how it was built and sold to you.

On the flipside of that, if you start seeing Ork players running around with the new Ork boyz models on 25mm bases? you can complain.

But what are the advantages? In CC You can squeeze a few more boyz into CC (about 1 extra per 5) so not a huge amount but definitely an advantage, on the flipside, when you are trying to deny areas for deepstrike etc you are losing 7mm per base so in a 30 boy mob you are losing about 6' of area coverage due to not having the newest bases, so you are actually hamstringing yourself in this regard. in my opinion its a wash.

2: Money. Some of us have older armies, some of us have Horde armies that now are on different base sizes. GW coming out and demanding you upgrade your base size is...ridiculous to say the least. According to GW you have to use ONLY GW parts on your models, since the base is part of the model guess what? In order to rebase my army using GW 32mm bases I would have to spend about $200 and waste god knows how many hours of time cutting off old bases, gluing new ones on and than basing them so they meet at least ITC standard for points.

3: For TOs. 40k is a niche hobby, it has died in several areas due to players moving, giving up the game etc, if you really want to be anal about base sizes and force older armies to rebase their entire army just to make yourself feel important, than don't be shocked when nobody goes to your events anymore and your stores close.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Actually adding a Height (H) to the model stats would lessen a lot of problems.

Scarabs/Rippers/ Drones/Grots etc H1
Human/Eldar/GSC/Skitarii/Ork/Tau H2
Marines/Terminators/Megaorks/Spawn/Weapon platforms/bikes/jetbikes/Tau battlesuits H3
Dreadnoughts/Deamon Princes/Tyranid Warriors/Carnifexes/Wraithguard/Warwalkers/Tau crisis suits H4
Tanks/Transports/Flyers/ Primarchs/Tau big stuff/Necron big stuff/Tyranid Hive Tyrant H5
Knights/Greater Daemons/LOW H6

Some might need a little mod, but over all it would lessen the base issues and make assigning a height to terrain a lot easier. This terrain piece blocks LOS for all HT 3 or less models. The got rid of initiative, they can add height. Model base size is useless.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: