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.

Hi, I put this here because I'm looking more for opinions and practical tips on how to handle this issue, so I think it does not fit into the rules subforum.

As some of you might have heard the Imperial Guard Heavy weapons teams base size will be changed from 60mm to 50 mm. Which is kind of a bummer for me as I already have 7 HWTs (and further 3 not finished painting but already glued on 60mm) and am very unwilling to rebase these as some are on custom resin bases that where not cheap. Also for aestetic reasons I would... prefer to have a uniform look and build my next batches of HWTs on the same base size as the old ones.
While I currently only collect and not play I was wondering how to handle this in the future if I should find time and opportunity to play. So here is my question for those that have a lot of experience with the practical aspects of playing:

Is there an elegant way to handle "too big" bases? Would it be the other way around I could just fix them unto bigger circles with double sided tape, but that's obviously not an option.
Is it practical to just allow the opponent to put his models partly on top of the HWT bases as if those where just 50mm if he wants to get into CC?
Or is this not even a problem at all and you wouldn't mind a player having his HWTs on slightly bigger bases? As those are harder to get into cover etc. the disadvantage seems to be on my side anyway as far as I see it.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Is there an elegant way to handle "too big" bases? Would it be the other way around I could just fix them unto bigger circles with double sided tape, but that's obviously not an option.

Not really. This is definitely the less convenient way to have bases change compared to going up.

Is it practical to just allow the opponent to put his models partly on top of the HWT bases as if those where just 50mm if he wants to get into CC?

Hell no. AOS 1st ed that actually was required for some to fight because ranges were measured from models so some models literally could not attack each other with their 1" reach attacks that don't reach out to enemy. Players went uproar over that and went "screw you GW!" and agreed to measure from bases. That's recipe for basing get damaged.

Just measure to base. Do not put models over base.

Or is this not even a problem at all and you wouldn't mind a player having his HWTs on slightly bigger bases? As those are harder to get into cover etc. the disadvantage seems to be on my side anyway as far as I see it.

Depends so much on player/tournament but odds are tournaments will expect you to rebase. Myself couldn't care less. I don't even care about marines being on 25mm or 32mm. Especially with 9e rules it's even less relevant.

But tournaments tend to be more strict worrying about mm's here or there thinking mistakenly games will be decided over those.

Well, it’s mostly a downside for the HWT team isn’t it? Bigger bases make it harder to position as tighter squeezes get tighter, and more enemy models can get into BTB?

Provided you the owning player are happy with that (and to stress, I’m not suggesting anyone should be), I’m not seeing why an opponent would object?

You might get a slight advantage if you're trying to stretch a unit out as far as you can but heavy weapon teams are either 1 per squad or I a unit of three so it's not like you're going to be able to make much of a difference either way.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it’s mostly a downside for the HWT team isn’t it? Bigger bases make it harder to position as tighter squeezes get tighter, and more enemy models can get into BTB?

Provided you the owning player are happy with that (and to stress, I’m not suggesting anyone should be), I’m not seeing why an opponent would object?

Somebody comes up with complain. "You can screen bigger area from deep strikes! That 5mm more for side is sooooooo going to screw my game! Unfair! REBASE YOU CHEATER!"

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it’s mostly a downside for the HWT team isn’t it? Bigger bases make it harder to position as tighter squeezes get tighter, and more enemy models can get into BTB?

Provided you the owning player are happy with that (and to stress, I’m not suggesting anyone should be), I’m not seeing why an opponent would object?

Somebody comes up with complain. "You can screen bigger area from deep strikes! That 5mm more for side is sooooooo going to screw my game! Unfair! REBASE YOU CHEATER!"

Well that is true, untile your opponent deploys 9+ of something and then the footprint of a unit or vehicle becomes a serious matter. It also is important for auras, bigger base makes it easier to stay in range of some . And if someone puts down a command chimera with a cinematic base, take from a knight I would find it a tad problematic too.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it’s mostly a downside for the HWT team isn’t it? Bigger bases make it harder to position as tighter squeezes get tighter, and more enemy models can get into BTB?

Provided you the owning player are happy with that (and to stress, I’m not suggesting anyone should be), I’m not seeing why an opponent would object?

Somebody comes up with complain. "You can screen bigger area from deep strikes! That 5mm more for side is sooooooo going to screw my game! Unfair! REBASE YOU CHEATER!"

Fair point is fair

Of course it may turn out they’ve just used the wrong bases for the sample models. Not saying it is, but it’s possible, as it’s an easy fix.

I've heard a similar argument come up about Terminators and the consensus seems to be "use what the model actually came with". Either way I'm not going to rebase and possibly ruin my HWTs for the sake of 10mm. If you're going to get pissy about 10mm, then that's the attitude I actively try to avoid anyway.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I've heard a similar argument come up about Terminators and the consensus seems to be "use what the model actually came with". Either way I'm not going to rebase and possibly ruin my HWTs for the sake of 10mm. If you're going to get pissy about 10mm, then that's the attitude I actively try to avoid anyway.

I agree. If your opponent gets stressy because your base is bigger, and solely due to a change made by GW? They almost certainly would’ve found something else to moan about.

going by the fact that some of GWs 60mm base were actually 65mm and no one cared

maybe their new 50mm bases are 60mm in reality and people finally play with the correct base size

but as long as there are no rules at all which base to use or any hint which unit should use which size, it does not matter at all

I do not rebase finished models just because the GW winds have shifted (again).

For my IG heavy weapons this means:
●Alot of my RT & 2e weapons are on individual 20mm rounds.
●I have 1 metal RT lascannon guy on a (20mm?) HEX base. Green plastic, slotta base, by GW. Opened the pack all those ages ago & hex bases were what was under the foam insert.... Some of my Squats are like that as well.
●Some of them are on the old rectangle "horse base". With the loader on a separate 20mm round.
●Some of my 2e HB & Autocannons came with a horse base for the gun. Others didn't. So that's how they are to this day.
●Steel Legion/Vostroyan/plastic Cadians are mostly 2 figures on the larger round base. (None of my SL missiles came with the big base, just the 20mms)
●Future weapon teams will be on whatever's in the box.
Same goes for my SMs, etc.

Any opponent who has a problem with this is not worth wasting my precious game time on.

Ok, thanks for the input that has been reducing my concerns. I will never play on tourneys and from what I hear, it will likely not be a concern when I find a casual group to play in.

I feel a need to point out that 40K doesn't require any particular sizes and doesn't provide 'official' sizes.

The idea of needing to use GW's webstore to figure out the correct size- and then, on your own, figure out which is more right for kits that are currently sold with multiple base sizes at random- is rather asinine on the face of it.

The long-standing unofficial rule is just to use the bases that a model came with.

 catbarf wrote:
I feel a need to point out that 40K doesn't require any particular sizes and doesn't provide 'official' sizes.

The idea of needing to use GW's webstore to figure out the correct size- and then, on your own, figure out which is more right for kits that are currently sold with multiple base sizes at random- is rather asinine on the face of it.

The long-standing unofficial rule is just to use the bases that a model came with.

Yep, this. And you can usually fudge a bit if you want to put them on a base that they came on previously for uniformity.

I do find it odd that in this case they are downsizing bases. Has that ever happened before? IIRC, in the past it's always been bigger, bigger, bigger for GW.

I won't worry about the base size of my heavy weapon teams. My current opponents don't mind - they themselves have many models in low outdated base sizes.
The big base also motivated me to create small dioramas around the HWT, and I'm not going to destroy these for the sake of a "correct" base that won't have that much of an impact on the game anyways.
Should, in the distant future of me playing 40k with a new opponent, an issue arise because of the bigger bases, I would just allow the opponent to deduct half an inch for whatever range he is measuring. I'm quite lenient about measuring anyway.

 Eilif wrote:
I do find it odd that in this case they are downsizing bases. Has that ever happened before? IIRC, in the past it's always been bigger, bigger, bigger for GW.

I think this is the first time. I'm trying to think if anything went from 32 to 28 when they introduced the 28s, but I can't think of anything.

I'm pretty sure the rule is to use whatever base came in the kit for the model. I still have some Ork Boys on 28mm bases, and no one has ever challenged it.

If your opponent has an issue with a model being on the base it came with, you probably already weren't going to have fun playing that person.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it’s mostly a downside for the HWT team isn’t it? Bigger bases make it harder to position as tighter squeezes get tighter, and more enemy models can get into BTB?

Provided you the owning player are happy with that (and to stress, I’m not suggesting anyone should be), I’m not seeing why an opponent would object?

Somebody comes up with complain. "You can screen bigger area from deep strikes! That 5mm more for side is sooooooo going to screw my game! Unfair! REBASE YOU CHEATER!"

Fair point is fair

Of course it may turn out they’ve just used the wrong bases for the sample models. Not saying it is, but it’s possible, as it’s an easy fix.

Well official rules is you are fine with 60mm. Rebasing demands are the ones violating official rules.

beast_gts wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I do find it odd that in this case they are downsizing bases. Has that ever happened before? IIRC, in the past it's always been bigger, bigger, bigger for GW.

I think this is the first time. I'm trying to think if anything went from 32 to 28 when they introduced the 28s, but I can't think of anything.

Technically DG had their second Lord of Contagion released on a 40mm while the first one was on a 50mm base. But these releases were so close together they were likely produced at the same time and both were then sold side by side (and maybe still are, not sure about the Etb Termis?)

Isn't changing base sizes covered under restriction of "modeling for advantage" On it's face, I can think of 4 reasons why such a thing shouldn't be permitted. And I'm sure most logical people here can come up with some fairly obvious reasons why as well.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't changing base sizes covered under restriction of "modeling for advantage" On it's face, I can think of 4 reasons why such a thing shouldn't be permitted. And I'm sure most logical people here can come up with some fairly obvious reasons why as well.

Changing bass sizes for advantage would be allot easier to prosecute if GW itself wasn't the biggest perpetrator of changing bass sizes.

Assuming smaller bases are an advantage, the current guideline from GW basically gives an advantage based on when the figures were purchased. If you can accept that as good policy then you're free to try and object to a given players choice to base on an earlier (supplied) base size.

Generally speaking larger bases are a disadvantage, and I don't see any reason that wouldn't be the case here. Alongside the element of 'grandfathering in' base sizes being generally regarded as acceptable I don't think you'd have an issue with this, even at a tournament.

Hell based on my experience having an opponent actually know what the correct size was would be unusual.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't changing base sizes covered under restriction of "modeling for advantage" On it's face, I can think of 4 reasons why such a thing shouldn't be permitted. And I'm sure most logical people here can come up with some fairly obvious reasons why as well.

You aren't changing to what GW hasn't sold them with so you are following official rules.

Also there's + and - for all base sizes so frankly whatever. GW isn't changing the size for game rule reasons anyway. I have played vs 25mm orks/space marines and it never has impacted the game in any meaningfull level. Not even in 8e and 9e has made it even less relevant.

Since at the moment you are collecting, modelling and painting, do whatever you want, including the "illegal" using a matching base to what you already have - it's your aesthetic. If you turn up for a casual game with me, I'm unlikely to notice: some of my son's and my early orks are on not quite oval gorkamorka slottas (some glued to 2p coins to stop them falling over, and landscaped). Turn up with a beautiful wrong size base and I'll say "cool - how did you....?".

If you DO go down the tournament line, you can get base resizing rings (to go bigger anyway)

I think this is silly, because there are "old edition" Titans that never had an actual base. Does that mean you can just plop down a 2nd ed Warhound in your tiny backfield, because "that's what it came with when it was made"?

No, obviously that's a flawed argument. If you still have older units/models with incorrect base sizes, (off current standards) either you re-base your models, or plop it on a correctly sized base or its modeling for advantage.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think this is silly, because there are "old edition" Titans that never had an actual base. Does that mean you can just plop down a 2nd ed Warhound in your tiny backfield, because "that's what it came with when it was made"?

No, obviously that's a flawed argument. If you still have older units/models with incorrect base sizes, (off current standards) either you re-base your models, or plop it on a correctly sized base or its modeling for advantage.

Titan may be an exception, especially since when first released they didn't even have stats. IIRC, the first FW Titan in 40k scale predates the Imperial Armor books.

As for rebasing, you're just wrong as GW has a couple decades now of consistently saying "use the bases the model came with". Tournaments can make their own rules, but if they don't, GW has spoken clearly on the matter.

Just to nitpick a bit more, it's not "modeling for advantage" if it's already done. If you want to argue against "not rebasing for advantage" go ahead and see what the reception for that is.

I enjoy this semantic back and forth, but in truth I'm not a tournament player and I've never had a problem with non standard basing when it pops up (from me or others) in 40k or in any other game. Not even in ranked unit games like KoW where element sizes are a MUCH bigger factor in gameplay than in loose order games like 40k.

It's lame as gak. Keep the 60mm and tell the TO you should be grandfathered in for base size. Unless you're flying out to an event at a convention you shouldn't be turned down for the base size

I've had no issues with Tyranid Warriors on 40mm bases.

So I thought the NEW field Heavy Weapons were replacing the old HWTs? As in the new bombard, the multi-rocket, and the cannon, all replace the old HWT, so there is no need to even bring up base sizes? Am I thinking of the wrong thing?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I thought the NEW field Heavy Weapons were replacing the old HWTs? As in the new bombard, the multi-rocket, and the cannon, all replace the old HWT, so there is no need to even bring up base sizes? Am I thinking of the wrong thing?

The existing HWT models are being replaced and going down to 50s. Field Ordnance Batteries are a new thing and are on 100mm bases.

Warhammer Day Reveals – Cadia Stands With an All-New Army Set

Oh, that is weird. So you can take Field Ordinance AND HWTs? This is gonna get ugly.